Evolution is not science

there's no debate among biologists that evolution happens, and that natural selection plus random variation are responsible.the debate is between the scientists and the creationists. And it only exists because creationists repeat the same mantras over and over again, no matter how many times they are refuted. wow! really!!??
if you'll read closely, crash said he did not say "only natural selection".
it is the random mutations that create the new traits. what do you think a mutation is? take the line AAACCCGGGTTT. a mutation might make it AAACCCTTTGGG. You now have two variants.
mutations create variations.as to your final point (i'm not even going to touch on the past observations, other's are handling that quite well), there is no controversy among biologists, except for the odd one here and there. I garuntee that you will not find a single biologist who rejects the basics of the ToE [(natural selection + random mutation) / time ] for evidentiary reasons. If they do, it will be over religious reasons.

i don't think this is what you meant to say. I read that. It's nonsensical. mutations are variations. if you have mutations happening, you have variation being created. what you're stating is nonsense.and: why not? we'll be looking for evidence, not assertions. give us the names of some, if you don't mind. also, how many question evolution over evidentiary reasons, and not for religious/faith reasons?everyone I'm aware of who's a biologist who questions evolution does so for faith/religious reasons.

like I said, evidence not assertion. you have only provided assertion in defense of your statement that mutations cannot create legs in legless creatures.You're the one making the claim. It is up to you to support it with evidence, not assertion.It's also not nice to quotemine, such as with your Stephen J. Gould quote. FYI, that's an explanation as to his hypothesis about punctuated equilibrium.Darwin answered his problem--the fossil record is incomplete, thanks in large part to the difficulty of fossils to be created.And just what does a pulse radiation scientist have to do with biology? Here's a hint--stick to those who deal with biology (like Gould), but don't misrepresent what they are saying.

a new thread would be necessary for this, as what mutations can do is not directly about evolution being a science.unless the admins think differently, that is.however, just what do you know about genetics and mutation? Because right now, it appears that you know very little.

really? Then please explain why I don't look exactly like my mother, and why she does not look like her mother, ad infinitum.Face it, we all have mutations. and not just single base mutations either. I am a mix of my mother and father's chromosomes. You are too (except that it would be from your father and mother, not mine).Organisms do not replicate their DNA flawlessly. That's a fact. if they did, we'd still all be single-celled organisms. Or in your case (seeing as how you think god created everything and one), you would like exactly like your parents, they exactly like theirs, etc. You could not have all those dog and cat and horse breeds. The variation we see in life is highly dependent upon mistakes when DNA/RNA is replicated. you apparently are not a geologist. Or have studied geology.