Btw i forgot to login up there russ


There is Evidence of species changing
1. Paleontological evidence: Ancient fossils were found whose skulls were uniquely shaped similar to that of whales. The bone formations and elongated muzzles were similar to those of whales, esp. fish-hunters. You gradually see the legs disappearing as natural selection renders them unnecessary. There's Sinonyx, Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rodhocetus, Basilosaurus, and Dorudon.

2. Morphological evidence: One example is that the inner ears of these fossils are shaped in intermediate forms similar to modern whales and modern artiodactyls: this is because the ears had to develop to be suitable for an aquatic environment.
The shape of the feet of these fossils is also uniquely similar to whales and artiodactyls.

3. Molecular Biological Evidence: When their genes are studied, whale genes are more similar to those of ungulates than any other mammals.

4. Vestigial Evidence: Vestigial pelvic bones, femora, tibiae, are found in modern whales. The fossil record shows a gradual diminishing of these bones. Whales also have vestigial olfactory nerves (needed for smell normally). Also, vestigial muscles for moving ears.

5. Embryological Evidence: The whale embryo retains primordial features that are abandoned later on: body hair, hind limb buds, ear pinnae, olfactory lobes of the brain (again, for smelling. These don't exist in adults). Embryos of baleen whales develop teeth, but these disappear before birth.

6. Geochemical Evidence: Whales had to move from drinking fresh water to drinking salt water. Fresh and salt water each have different isotopic ratios of oxygen, which is recorded in whale skeletons (namely, teeth). Earlier whale fossils have low ratios of heavy oxygen, while later whale fossils have more (mainly drinking salt water).

7. Paleoenvironmental Evidence: This is where we look at the other things these whale fossils were associated with. We predict that since earlier whales like Sinonyx were land mammals, we'd find these fossils among other terrestrial animals. Pakicetus was more adapted for water so we'd expect to see their fossils associated with aquatic critters, as well as unique sediment formations of low-lying wet terrestrial environments. Sure enough, this is the case.

8. Paleobiogeographic evidence: Land whales wouldn't have the mobility of aquatic whales, so we'd expect to find their fossils in a much more restricted geographic region. Sure enough, Sinonyx is found primarily in central Asia. Pakicetus is found only in Afghanistan.

9. Chronological Evidence: Since evolution is essentially forced by changing environments or invited by new opportunities, we should be able to detect some sensible reason as to why whales developed to move into the seas. During the early Cenozoic, whales had to fill in niches left over with the extinction of the dinosaurs. Large mesozoic reptile predators were gone, so mammals were free to conquer the seas. Whale fossils are consistently found in this restricted time frame.

I'm curious as to where you got the population of man to a single pair 5500 years back
The feather being one of the earliest forms of life not evolving doesn't proof anything
Finding all the missing links (if they weren't eroded), when the earth has gone through an infinite amount of change over time doesn't say anything, specially when we can't even find biological weapons, terrorist cells, etc in a single region with an immense occupational force and the best military.
And I am curious as to your sources on calling them all fraudulent. Hopefully it is a reliable source, not those similar to the government conspiracies that we caused 9/11.
Survival of the fittest doesn't have to explain those characteristics. We have brain power we don't use, but we are not at the finish line in evolution. Falling in love could be the best course of action for the survival of the offspring, small family group staying together over time (guess the divorce rate in the west is not helping much <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/laugh.gif" alt="" />) And conscience, hell it could be argued half the world lacks it, but I don't think we are alone in that department. While we have the higher levels of reasoning, animals don't go out in killing sprees either

If you ask ANY scientist, heck, any of the most fervent evolutionary proponents, you'll be told that no science (including evolution) is in any way infallible. They'll also say that if given sufficient counterevidence, evolution will be modified or discarded in time.

The reason any scientific postulate stands or falls is based on the evidence, an no scientist pretends otherwise. Evolution simply has massive amounts of evidence behind it.