Evolution can not be proven. Where are the missing links, those being fossils showing any living creature transforming from one to the next. [and so on -- it's a familiar and easily learned religious rebuttal and consistent with applied Christian persuasion]
Actually, there are numerous links. But link's is a poor term and not used in scientific terminology as such a thing would be impossible, but I have used it here for your clarity. In science no links can exist as a single one could not be visually identifiable as necessary to convince the Christian church. Scientists can clearly comprehend evolution without the large and visually impossible 'missing links' as required by the church. Science works through a more involved process but one not easily followed without education. These things are always stifled by a demanding religious system as they could disrupt an extremely wealthy church and thousands of the upper clergy are certainly unwilling to give up their powerful and wealthy religious positions when they can still the obedient public tongues with the usual dogma.
The concept of genetic adaptation would have been considered an impossibility in the Bronze Age, hence such concepts do not appear in the bible even through remote connotation. As such, and considering the Christian training, which comes only
from the Bible, the religious fanatics cannot consider it as possible. Thus your denial of evolution, which is based solely on religious training, is ill considered as useful in a scientific argument. As you are making a scientific argument based on Bronze Age beliefs unsupported except in the Bible, perhaps you might seek some of the material that has been written between the Bronze Age and the present and become better informed, so you might present a more interesting point. We have learned many things since the time of Jesus. Societies progress through education, but the Christian religion is doing all things possible to defend and retain it's very wealthy position based on ignorance and superstition. Sadly too as it prevents so many good people from furthering themselves. Please understand, as it is no denial of any God, that the church is based on income--loads of income--and so the leaders are quite unwilling to open any floodgates to discussions that may find realities somewhat different than the church currently allows.
Please, I mean nothing disrespectful. Regretfully, regardless of my efforts to remain civil, I may be wrongly taken. Please do your best to understand that I may take a position here you cannot easily follow. I have a Ph.D in science, and suspect you do not, but nothing at all disrespectful is intended of you or your religion. This may surprise you but I completely understand you and your need to stand on the church position. What you may fail to understand is that your religious stance may not have come of your own volition. Most are unwilling to recognize this, but the church has been coercing infants for thousands of years and they have excelled in this practice. I too was convinced of a God when i was young. I had been given Catholic religious training, probably much like you received as an infant. What is foisted on us in our formative years is very difficult to later overcome if it is incorrect. It's not something children should be ordered to do.
Perhaps additional comments are in order her to assist you in understanding what a 'link' is and is not, and why it is highly unlikely you--or anyone--will ever see one. In short, why a link cannot exist at all. Frankly, that ridiculous concept has been the bane of scientists for some time.
Please consider that different physical changes visually suggestive enough, yet minute enough to bring the distinct possibilities of evolution to the mind of Christians would be difficult for a number of reasons, and not primarily because Christians have suffered under restrictive church demands and frightening concepts that produce a mindset that cannot be easily altered--even with reality.
They have suffered the coercive persuasion of a powerful and extremely practiced church. The results are as real as concrete and almost as tough to get through later. It's truly sad, but regardless, science cannot see 'missing links' either. No one can. They cannot exist. This is a simple concept, and one I will explain.
What would a missing link look like. Would it be just like a chimpanzee but with an appearance suggestive of a human? How could you get something close enough to each yet distinctly recognizable as both to the Christians and scientists equally? Or, would a current day chimp see a 'missing link' as any different from it's own? Would you be able to visually notice the changes that make a link a viable concept? Perhaps if a primate were to show up that looked like a chimp but had the hip structure and the toes of a ground dweller? That would certainly do it, right? Yet that is a supposition, not necessarily a fact. Genetic changes that create the adaptive differences can be difficult to spot, happening minutely over millions of years, or they may happen almost spontaneously in a few thousand. Although we may have some wishful thinking that hopes for something that is instantly identifiable as parts of two distinctly different species. genetics runs under it's own and very different rules.
Anyone could deny a hypothetical human toed chimp as a 'link' because on visual clues, it's still calling for a highly biased and opinionated determination, not something based on fact. In short it's sadly a reasonable impossibility. Links are based on things far more difficult to see. Genetics write the rulebook here. Chromosomes and other microscopic elements that are responsible for changes in life's adaptive distributions over the years are the visible clues to evolution, not some visually identifiable 'link' capable of proving things, especially where people unwilling to consider anything beyond the demands and the learned statements of their extremely restrictive, fear based religions are concerned.
May I offer a suggestion? Please consider National Geographic. The March 2011 issue http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/03/table-of-contents
contains some revealing looks into the domestication of foxes and the genetic adaptations that made it possible. That article displays visible evolution fairly well by pointing out the results of genetic adaptation in tail and ear appearance. Some foxes actually developed additional tail vertebrae from the genetic changes that followed domestication. Just as God doesn't heal amputees, do you find a God responsible for the development of additional verebra?
Additionally, if you will look into the July 2010 issue http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2010/07/table-of-contents
, an article called "The evolutionary road" is insightful. It traces the human evolution from Ardipithecus ramidus
(or Ardi). There are some drawings you might useful for understanding evolution beyond the typical church demands of ignorance based on fear.
Dr. J.M. Cook
If you would be so kind as to write me (I have made my email address available) I will provide something I have done to assist Christians who wish to better understand the concept of evolution. It is designed especially for Christians, and makes no attempt to deny the church, any Gods, or the carpenter, Jesus.