Is Evolution Real?

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Erfisflat said:

Evidence said:

Dr_Maybe said:

Evidence said:

Dee said:

@Evidence

You really need to read a book or two apart from the Bile if you want some pertinent information , or simply try google you could start with common descent and work through it slowly ......

Science is observation, documentation, .. and no Book on "common descent" claims they observed one species evolve/change/morph/mutate or give birth to another, separate different species, not one.

If it happened a billion years ago, it should be happening right now with eight million different species evolving as we speak. And according to Evolution, they have been evolving for millions and even billions of years. Eight million species that have been evolving for billions of years, yet none of the millions of scientists has ever seen speciation, or what they call macro evolution, where one species turns into a completely different species!?
Explain that?

Bacteria, moths, cats, dogs, horses and pigeons remain what God created them as: cat's dogs, horses etc. after their own kind, never changing into another completely distinct species.

We have seen animals change into another completely distinct species.

Sheep are a different species from the wild animal that they were bred from.

@Dr_Maybe What were they before, wolves? or "wild sheep"?

Birds

HEY, my old buddy @Erfisflat is BACK!

How are you my friend?
 How's you new beautiful baby doing?

LOL so these Evo-scientists watched sheep evolve from birds?? 

Doing great, and baby is fat, lol. Met some very interesting people while I was away.

@Erfisflat
Oh yes, I still keep baby pictures of my teens around my desk, just to look at them chubby faces.
Tell me about the "interesting people" you met, .. any FE's?
I mean you didn't turn @SilverishGoldNova have you? lol Miss him too by the way.

Good to hear from you

God bless you and yours!


Evidence

No, I met a man online, known as Dr. John D. He has a PHD in spectrophometry, and has help me to understand the physics of light. He has also conducted some pretty conclusive tests that prove the earth is not a ball, as modern astronomy claims.

@Erfisflat Tell me about what you've learned buddy? I find all this light stuff fascinating, .. but can be real confusing also at times because of all the "illusions" that light can create coming off things, and by going through the slightest temperature differences even through air.
What do you have that can help us defend the truth?

mickyg said:

THE GOSPELS are anonymous.Christians have a claim that they cannot logically display.FIRST THEY DON'T APPEAR IN HISTORY UNTIL 160AD....HOW COME after 2000 years of doubt they don't have a plainly written articulate explanation for who the gospel writers are....they just use the old smoke and mirrors..So show evidence jesus existed ...@Evidence

@mickyg look at the OP, if you don't even know the topic and hand, you shouldn't be posting here.

Sand said:

The question is can man put the building blocks of life together now? The answer is no. Eventually man will be smart enough to put the building blocks together. Nevertheless, what would this prove? If anything it proves the existence of a creator. Because there is no experiment that man can perform that would disprove a creator. For the simple fact that the man himself represents a creator. The fact man is trying to build the building blocks of life, proves there was intelligence behind life. The only way evolution could be proven is for it to cross three hurdles. One it would have to happen all of the time without the assistance of anything. We should be able to walk outside and see something explode out of nothing, or we should be able to look into a telescope and see something explode out of nothing.  This would shatter the law of physics, cause and effect. The second hurdle would be the fact that lesser species still exist. According to evolutionists survival of the fittest means that the weaker species would die out or be wiped out. If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes. They all should have been eliminated, or evolved. There are too many lesser or weaker species, why did some evolve but others didn't. The third hurdle is the fact that we cannot cross breed. If we are from them then we should be able to mate with them to create a new breed. But because of the makeup of DNA, it makes cross breeding impossible. You cannot inject human sperm in a whale and get a whale-man, or vice versa. You cannot even do this with apes and man. The more man learns, these hurdles get higher and higher.

@Sand I agree with everything you said my friend.
Now they'll tell you that: "Hey dummy, we are apes!" But yeah, if they can point out "vestigial organs", then where are all the new growth organs? Boy, I sure could have used a couple of eyes in the back of my head growing up in Detroit, .. you know what I mean?
But nooo, I don't have anything growing back of my head that would even remotely resemble new eyes?
Oh, but they claim Darwin watched finches growing longer beaks, .. woopsidoo!?

@Evidence "I'm convinced of evolution, but not speciation."

 Then this debate is over as the title only mentions "evolution" not speciation. 

 By the way, as I mentioned, we have actually seen speciation. We created domesticated pigs for example( Which are a different species from the wild boar we used to create them). Or anything that is domesticated, really. Artificial speciation is a thing.

 Also, speciation is the logical consequence of evolution. If you accept evolution but reject speciation, you need to explain what exactly prevents evolution from causing speciation. https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/

@Sand ;
1- Learn how to make logical arguments.
2- Learn physics.
3- Learn biology.

 What you have just written is complete nonsense and it is very clear that you have no idea what evolution even is. 

mickyg said:

======================================

Evidence

@mickyg said: OK BACK ON TRACK.What universally recognized degree do you have.
Attended between 1956 - 1968, .. and Graduated from Srvive.U in 1968, then went right into: MyLIF.U and got my Masters in Survival, World Religions, and Googling.
Education in: MyEarthIsFlat, and MyGodNASA.lies as taught by Professor @Erfisflat which I passed like, three years ago? I forgot, I'll have to request a certificate of acceptance to the "Flat Earth" from my good professor.
Why do you ask?
 
mickyg said: GOOGLE is not a university.
Of course not, it's a student-info/aid. YouTube is the University, taught by many different University professors.

mickyg said: DO YOU know what the dewey decimal system is?
The Dewey Decimal Classification (DDC), colloquially the Dewey Decimal System, is a proprietary library classification system first published in the United States by Melvil Dewey in 1876. - Google

mickyg said: When you read the bible ..did you notice ..as i did...that the gospels are anonymous??
Yes, anonymous because the writers did not want to take credit for the content. Unlike Evolutionists, who first present all their credentials like; Dr. Stephen PhD, CBD, THC, so you will listen, and believe them when they tell you that; you're an evolving ape.

mickyg said: .....and why do they not appear in history until 160ad??
History as we know it today has been tainted, altered, corrupted, .. you name it, by the Religion that took the books of the Bible and created a Religion out of it. We today know them as "Christians". The name came from the Gentiles who mocked the early Believers by that word, and they suffered greatly by it, until Peter mentioned it:
1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as (called) a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Please explain evolution? I have taken five courses on it. But maybe you can provide more enlightenment.

Bacteria mutation research does not prove evolution. Read Lönnig's research:

The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.

Mutations stay within the species. After 100 years of study they could not cover the 3rd hurdle. Now there are new rules causing the hurdle to get larger. When scientist press the issue of crossing the hurdle the formula resets. Nevertheless, if scientist were able to get pass the hurdle they inadvertently create the first hurdle.

Lets take your video for example.  Who built the petri dish? Who setup the 9 bands? Who poured the agar? If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

The further you push the one hurdle you raise the bar to impossibility on the other two hurdles.

Now lets consider the probability of a miracle, which is 1 in 125,000,000,000,000,000 chance.

Very very high chance.

On the other hand, five histones are involved in DNA. The probability of forming even the simplest of these histones by chance is one in 20^100 (20 with 100 zeros) a number larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes. That is for only one of the histones, I couldn't even fathom five of them. But its like taking a number of silver dollars, then cover the world [197 million square miles] to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blindfolded person wander the whole world and bend down to pick up one coin, those are simular odds that one of the histones came about by chance.

Mind boggling chance.

Then for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must work together, DNA, RNA, and proteins.

So believing in Creation is way more believable than Evolution.

Bacteria mutation research does not prove evolution. Read Lönnig's research:

The data now gathered from some 100 years of mutation research in general and 70 years of mutation breeding in particular enable scientists to draw conclusions regarding the ability of mutations to produce new species. After examining the evidence, Lönnig concluded: “Mutations cannot transform an original species [of plant or animal] into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as with the laws of probability. So, can mutations cause one species to evolve into a completely new kind of creature? The evidence answers no! Lönnig’s research has led him to the conclusion that “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” - Mutation Breeding, Evolution, and the Law of Recurrent Variation, pp. 49, 50, 52, 54, 59, 64, and interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig.

Mutations stay within the species. After 100 years of study they could not cover the 3rd hurdle. Now there are new rules causing the hurdle to get larger. When scientist press the issue of crossing the hurdle the formula resets. Nevertheless, if scientist were able to get pass the hurdle they inadvertently create the first hurdle.

I wanted to explain the three hurdles so it will not confuse anyone:

Can man put the building blocks of life together now? The answer is no. Eventually man will be smart enough to put the building blocks together. Nevertheless, what would this prove? If anything it proves the existence of a creator. Because there is no experiment that man can perform that would disprove a creator. For the simple fact that the man himself represents a creator. The fact man is trying to build the building blocks of life, proves there was intelligence behind life. The only way evolution could be proven is for it to cross three hurdles. One it would have to happen all of the time without the assistance of anything. We should be able to walk outside and see something explode out of nothing, or we should be able to look into a telescope and see something explode out of nothing.  This would shatter the law of physics, cause and effect. The second hurtle would be the fact that lesser species still exist. According to evolutionists survival of the fittest means that the weaker species would die out or be wiped out. If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes. They all should have been eliminated, or evolved. There are too many lesser or weaker species, why did some evolve but others didn't. The third hurdle is the fact that we cannot cross breed. If we are from them then we should be able to mate with them to create a new breed. But because of the makeup of DNA, it makes cross breeding impossible. You cannot inject human sperm in a whale and get a whale-man, or vice versa. You cannot even do this with apes and man. The more man learns makes these hurdles higher and higher.

Lets take your video for example.  Who built the petri dish? Who setup the 9 bands? Who poured the agar? If the chemicals in the experiment represent the earth’s early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who performed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

The further you push the one hurdle you raise the bar to impossibility on the other two hurdles.

Now lets consider the probability of a miracle, which is 1 in 125,000,000,000,000,000 chance.

Very very high chance.

On the other hand, five histones are involved in DNA. The probability of forming even the simplest of these histones by chance is one in 20^100 (20 with 100 zeros) a number larger than the total of all the atoms in all the stars and galaxies visible in the largest astronomical telescopes. That is for only one of the histones, I couldn't even fathom five of them. But its like taking a number of silver dollars, then cover the world [197 million square miles] to a depth of two feet. If you marked one silver dollar among them and then had a blind person wander the whole world and bend down to pick up that marked coin, those are simular odds that one of the histones came about by chance.

Mind boggling chance.

Then for a cell to survive, at least three different types of complex molecules must come about by chance and then work together, DNA, RNA, and proteins.

@Sand

AlexOland said:

@Evidence

"No, a pig is a pig no matter how domesticated it is. That's not speciation.

"

 Not very good at biology, eh? 

Species: a group of living organisms consisting of similar individuals capable of exchanging genes or interbreeding.

 Meaning if our newly created species cannot interbreed with the species we created them from, we have created a species. And therefore, this is speciation. 

 As I said, artificial speciation is a thing. Look it up. 

@AlexOland said:  Not very good at biology, eh?

Is this biology, .. or has anything to do with biology?


If it is, then I'm pretty up-to-date.

AlexOland said: Meaning if our newly created species cannot interbreed with the species we created them from, we have created a species. And therefore, this is speciation. 

Lord, if you won't allow us to evolve/speciate, then by the gods we will do it ourselves, but We Will Have Evolution with, or without you!  Here is 10 amazing, .. in your own words: "newly created species that cannot interbreed with the species we created them from" Just remember that these are not bacteria, but apes:

https://www.lolwot.com/10-amazing-before-and-after-transgender-transformations/

Keep this in mind. You should look at nature and conclude God exists. The idea of evolution proves God's existence. Man cannot evolve another man from nothing. He still doesn't know how. It will take more intellience. The person with higher intellience who did evolve man from nothing is God.

@Sand

"Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations."
This is the definition.

The other part:
"It is this process of evolution that has given rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms and molecules."
Is not a part of the definition. It just explains what this process did. 

 Therefore, this definition of evolution also agrees that the video shows an example of evolution. 

"My arguement destroys this definition"
No, it does not. What you have written is nonsense. There are no appearant logical connections between your sentences. It is like this: "I have apples. Therefore, the sun is probably blue."

Sand said:

Keep this in mind. You should look at nature and conclude God exists. The idea of evolution proves God's existence. Man cannot evolve another man from nothing. He still doesn't know how. It will take more intellience. The person with higher intellience who did evolve man from nothing is God.

Actually, we do this every day. Every day we sell others dietary supplements, genetically modified vegetables, dental services, etc. We do things routinely that evolve humans compared to the default nature state.

It, indeed, takes a lot of intelligence, you are correct. That is why we, scientists, spend decades researching mind-boggingly difficult subjects in order to make just a tiny bit of progress in the collective scientific intelligence. And that is why those who do not possess such intelligence pursue easier, less rigorous domains, offering instant gratification - such as, for example, religion. You bow to the god a few times, your life improves - much easier that working on evolving mankind, is it not?

MayCaesar said:

Sand said:

Consider this,

My question to you, can man put the building blocks of life together now? The answer is no. Eventually man will be smart enough to put the building blocks together. Nevertheless, what would this prove? If anything it proves the existence of a creator. Because there is no experiment that man can perform that would disprove a creator. For the simple fact that the man himself represents a creator. The fact man is trying to build the building blocks of life, proves there was intelligence behind life. The only way evolution could be proven is for it to cross three hurdles. One it would have to happen all of the time without the assistance of anything. We should be able to walk outside and see something explode out of nothing, or we should be able to look into a telescope and see something explode out of nothing.  This would shatter the law of physics, cause and effect. The second hurtle would be the fact that lesser species still exist. According to evolutionists survival of the fittest means that the weaker species would die out or be wiped out. If we evolved from apes then why do we still have apes. They all should have been eliminated, or evolved. There are too many lesser or weaker species, why did some evolve but others didn't. The third hurdle is the fact that we cannot cross breed. If we are from them then we should be able to mate with them to create a new breed. But because of the makeup of DNA, it makes cross breeding impossible. You cannot inject human sperm in a whale and get a whale-man, or vice versa. You cannot even do this with apes and man. The more man learns makes these hurdles higher and higher.

You made a series of typical logical mistakes, regularly observed in debates such as this.

1. First of all, the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is independent of it. Whatever you think about the Big Bang, evolution still is present.

2. "Survival of the fittest" is a oversimplification of the general principle that the species developing mutations that better adapt them to their environment will gradually become more dominant. It does not mean that only one, the fittest ever, species is going to survive.
Nor does it mean that such "fittest" even exists. We evolved from apes, but we live in a different environment than apes. Apes are the apex predators in their domain, and we are the apex predators in our domain. We do not really compete against the apes, hence there is no reason for either of us to eventually perish.

3. Evolution is a very complex phenomenon, taking hundreds millions years. You should not be surprised that some species evolve better than others; it is a random-based process, and mutations do not occur according to any known pattern.

4. What do you mean by "we cannot cross-breed"? There are countless cross-bred animals, both domesticated and not, that we ourselves cultivated. Ever heard of the hybrid of a donkey and a horse? Read about hinnies.
Apes and humans, actually, also can cross-breed. It is not a popular subject to talk about, for the obvious reasons, and nobody has ever documented experiments with that - but the African folklore suggests that apes sometimes force themselves on human women, so there could be a certain biological drive for that.

@MayCaesar 1. First of all, the Big Bang theory has nothing to do with evolution. Evolution is independent of it. Whatever you think about the Big Bang, evolution still is present.

If you don't have a Big-Banged globe-earth, you have no planet and water to Evolution from? How is Evolutio "present" without the globe?

That's like a Disciples of Christ saying: "Even if God doesn't exist, Jesus is present."

DID YOU FINISH HIGH SCHOOL?@Sand

AlexOland said:

@Evidence ;"So if I debunk one definition of "Evolution", you'll provide another, right?"

 Well, first of all, we are not debating about evolution anymore. Remember? You already admitted that evolution happens. What we are debating about is speciation. 

 Secondly, I did not change the definition of speciation. I first provided you a simpler version of the definition. But when you objected to it - I am still very surprised you chose to take that path - I provided a more elaborate and scientific definition. You are just trying to strawman my arguments.

"I ask again, show me one YouTube video of one specific species turning into another species? We waited 2.5 billion years, surely there should be at least a million changing/mutating or giving birth to another species, right?"
 This line clearly shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Speciation does not happen after just one generation. Creatures cannot give birth to another species (maybe, theoretically, they can but it is so small of a possibility that we can ignore it), that is not how it works. You cannot watch a video on Youtube that records speciation because it is not a short process. 

https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/speciation/


 You claim that there should be clues of evolution everywhere, and there are clues of it everywhere. The reason you are not able to see them is because you do not know what to look for. What you need to understand is that creatures do not have an objective to evolve into this one thing. A micro organism does not have an objective to evolve into a fish, this is why you do not get that "half fish, half bacteria" kind of species you crave to see so much. I would suggest you that you learn what evolution is before trying to refute it.

https://www.yourgenome.org/facts/what-is-evolution

@AlexOland said -  Well, first of all, we are not debating about evolution anymore. Remember? You already admitted that evolution happens. What we are debating about is speciation.

Amazing to what level Evolutionists will steep down to? So because we go to school, or learn new things aka evolve in wisdom, so now evolution is a fact, right? You sound like Dawkins.

AlexOland said - Secondly, I did not change the definition of speciation. I first provided you a simpler version of the definition. But when you objected to it - I am still very surprised you chose to take that path - I provided a more elaborate and scientific definition. You are just trying to strawman my arguments.

Yes, thats what I was pointing out: "definition evolution ad nauseam till it's so confusing, it's undebatable".

AlexOland said -  This line clearly shows that you have no idea what you are talking about. Speciation does not happen after just one generation. Creatures cannot give birth to another species (maybe, theoretically, they can but it is so small of a possibility that we can ignore it), that is not how it works. You cannot watch a video on Youtube that records speciation because it is not a short process. 

How is my question of the 2.5 Billion years of evolution "one generation"? When, and where did I mention "one generation"? Do you consider 2.5 billion years of evolution as "one generation"?
In the 2.5 billion years, one generation had to speciate into another species, or you have NO evolution/speciation.

AlexOland -  You claim that there should be clues of evolution everywhere, and there are clues of it everywhere. The reason you are not able to see them is because you do not know what to look for. What you need to understand is that creatures do not have an objective to evolve into this one thing. A micro organism does not have an objective to evolve into a fish, this is why you do not get that "half fish, half bacteria" kind of species you crave to see so much. I would suggest you that you learn what evolution is before trying to refute it.

Oh please, no Evolutionist knows what evolution is, .. not one agree.
Fish grew leggs correct? Was that overnight, or did it happen in your 2.5 billion year long generation? Oh yeah, speciation doesn't happen in one generation.
Reason? Because speciation NEVER happens. "I would suggest to you that you learn what evolution is before trying to defend it."

@Evidence

Everything you have said had absolutely nothing to do with my question. It is irrelevant with regards to how the world works whether humans have some inherent purpose, or whether they themselves create that purpose. Humans themselves even are not important in the discussion of the subject.

What is important is whether animals evolve and why. And you will easily see, if you think about it some, that the answer to both of these questions is completely independent on all of these cosmological considerations.
Which, mind you, you also got terribly wrong, but, again, it is not relevant to the topic.

@Evidence

 

 

#1 I don’t even think I mentioned the Big Bang theory. To clarify my viewpoint, I was saying in order to prove that there is not an intelligent designer behind life, scientist perform experiments, and observe the reactions. They use this as proof that man evolved from apes. Nevertheless, in these experiments scientists always represent intelligent designer. Call him God or whatever you want to call him. 

 

There is no experiment that can be done to prove evolution.

There is no experiment that can be done to prove evolution.

There is no experiment that can be done to prove evolution.

I place it in bold because I want to emphasize that point. All the previous experiments have to be thrown out! Because all experiments have scientists performing the experiment they represent an intelligent designer. When something evolves it evolves without the assistance of intelligence. These mutations has to have a catalyst, if the catalyst is intelligent then the catalyst represents God. To prove God is not involved you cannot perform an experiment. Evolution has to be only observed. And if it takes millions of years to happen then it cannot be observed. If it cannot be observed then it is not real science.

#2 If we evolved from apes, why do we still have apes? There was a catalyst to evolve from. The way you explain evolution it is like the lottery. Some get it and some don't. The reason to evolve is to survive the environment or adapt to a life threatening situation. If some evolved and others did not, then there was really no threat to their life. I agree we have different environments, but at one time we had the same environment as the apes. This environment changed tremendously for one group of apes, humans are not a small change from apes. It is a big one, one that made it impossible for humans to reproduce with apes. If anything that threatens life or the continuance of it. What threat to life would prevent humans from reproducing with its closest species?

 

#3 Random and no known pattern, how is this science. The way you describe evolution it is like magic. If it happens over millions of years then it happens to all. Complex, randomness and no pattern. If it is random and has no pattern then there is no science. I think you mean it is so complex we do not know the pattern. (Taking random out of the equation)

 

#4 I admit my mistake in saying crossbreeding is impossible. Nevertheless, I meant no crossbreeding with different species. That is why I provided the example of the whale. Why does it take millions of years? From what point does this happen? Shouldn’t it be a million years for some group of people? Out of the billions of people on the earth shouldn't we see one group of people changing now into another species, unable to reproduce with humans?

 

When one group does something different from another group, there is a reason. If one group of apes became human, there is a reason. If that reason has intelligence then it represents God. If it does not have intelligence, then it should be a natural occurrence that can be observed. If it takes millions of years to observe it then it cannot be observed. If it cannot be experimented or observed then it is not real.

@Sand

There is no experiment that can be done to prove evolution

  Evolution, as a science, is very similar to history or criminology. You cannot actually observe the events happenning. You can only observe the clues left by the events. 

 That being said, there actually ARE experiments that can be done to prove evolution. Have you forgotten about that bacteria video? That is, by definition, evolution. 

Unless you believe God used evolution to make man.

@Sand

My objection to your first argument:

 You are confusing "evolution" with "the theory of evolution" while not understanding what the theory actually suggests. 

Evolution: the process by which different kinds of living organism are believed to have developed from earlier forms during the history of the earth.

 Evolution is the name of the process. The theory of evolution is what scientists think this process did. Therefore, even if we assume that the theory is trying to refute a god, evolution does not. 

 But the theory of evolution does not / is not trying to refute a god. You can claim that a god helped those creatures evolve, this does not contradict the theory.

My objection to your second argument:

 We did not evolve from apes. 

  I agree we have different environments, but at one time we had the same environment as the apes. This environment changed tremendously for one group of apes, humans are not a small change from apes. It is a big one, one that made it impossible for humans to reproduce with apes.

 
 You refuted your own point. If the apes were separeted into two environments, that would also suggest that they were at different places, correct? Now, ask yourself, can you have sex with a person in London from Paris? Exactly. 

My objection to your third argument:

 Natural selection is not random. Therefore, evolution is not random. You are just proving that you have no knowledge on the subject.

My objection to your fourth argument:

 The only argument in your first paragraph is when you say: "should not some people evolve into different species?". 

 You touch on an interesting issue: people who live in the UK and people who live in the USA do not share the same environment. Shouldn't they evolve into different species? The answer is no. Because for evolution to happen, there has to be selection. And a man living in the USA can easily move to the UK and not die. The environment is not a proper selector in this case because it does not kill off organisms that do not adapt to it. You can be a 200 kg obese man and you would still survive. 

If it takes millions of years to observe it then it cannot be observed. If it cannot be experimented or observed then it is not real.

 Can we experiment the existence of Ottomans? Well, then they do not exist.
 Can we experiment what happenned during a murder? Well, then we cannot catch murderers.

 As I said, evolution as a science is very similar to history or criminology. 

@Sand

I also like your statement about science being like history and criminology. Just like history, facts can sometimes give the wrong conclusion. Just like criminology, evidence can sometimes incarcerate the wrong people. And so with science, variables are sometimes overlooked.  

 I meant that they were similar in the way that they examine evidence. Evolutionists have much more certain evidence than historians or criminologists do. In criminology, there is the possibility that a witness might be lying and the possibility that the criminal left little evidence to observe. The biology of the organisms cannot lie and biologists do not have a shortage in evidence. 

It is obvious you didn't read MayCeasar information