Lions with big strong teeth and strength is not evolution, it is natural selection of traits necessary for survival of the species. Giraffes have longer necks as those with short necks had a poor survival rate food wise. I really am interested in proof. Science is predicated on things that can be replicated or reproduced in any standard laboratory. Evolution is not a proven fact, it consists of hypothesis, theories impossible to prove. Then a scientist with no proof says many things unintelligible to most people, and then uses Shame as a device to convince people, since nobody wants to appear an uneducated barbarian, so without understanding any of it, simply say, it is science, and wash the possibility of everything else.
Science deals in evidence not proofs. Scientists know that evolution occurred/occurs because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and others.
Really ? Example of scientific evidence, we could not see electrons, yet, there was clear evidence that electrons existed, without visual proof, currently available. Many things in Science have proof, others follow principles that give clear evidence to the existence of various aspects of matter such as particles. Water H2O consists of hydrogen and oxygen atoms, there is ample proof. Electronics is based on science, and if I wire a radio properly it works according to science, ample proof. Rain falls because of basic scientific principles. Biochemistry, medications, all work by means of scientific principles, ample proof. I have zero fault with Evolution, I simply want proof of it as with science, many want a sort of Religious Faith required with Evolutionary principles, that is not scientific evidence or proof of anything. So I will study the issues involved for both scientific proof and evidence.
Your comments are "proof" that you are clueless. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science.
The natural selection you point to is one of the mechanisms of evolution. Science has no method of proof other than proof of being false. There is no proof of truth. So, yes, evolution, relativity, and all the rest are not proven. However, nobody has come close to proving them false (something that would require only one good example of failure) and there is no competing theory. Science doesn't happen in labs alone. It's an exploration of nature. So, it is everywhere. It certainly has been watched in lab conditions where exact mechanisms are studied. And, has been used for centuries by humans in agriculture and animal husbandry (where there is human selection rather than natural selection). And, evolution makes very strong statements about what will be found in the fossil record - statements that have held true. The major rewards of science go to those who invalidate the understanding of science at the time. We know Einstein because he blew away a major part of the science of physics, for example. If someone were able to do the same for evolution that person's name would be permanently etched in the pantheon of scientists who made a gigantic contribution - who moved scientific understanding forward.
