I'm actually laughing my head off about a foot a long ka saurus. Sounds like a new kind of hotdog.

For me, the adaptation of the pepper moth is evidence enough for me to believe in evolution. This does not mean however, for me, that god/s is not the driving force for this change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth#Evolution

I like to think of god not in scripture terms but in omnipresent fallible terms. Orally presenting what I believe is far easier for me than writing it all down so I’ll leave it at that.

__________________

Actually if you want proof of evolution you only have to observe man himself.
The National Geographic website:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
has all the information anyone would need to read and understand the process. But look at a simple example.

Look at your grandfather's pinkie toe and look at a newborn baby's. You will see that with each generation the nail on the pinkie toe is getting smaller and smaller. I observed this with my own children, that they had tiny nails on their pinkie toes, so over my lifetime, I have always looked at the toes of newborn babies, people think I'm strange or have a foot fetish or something but whenever someone shows me a new baby, I look at the little toenail and I comment aren't the little feet cute, but in reality I am observing.
But look at it. You will see that your grandfather has a properly defined toenail but his great grandchild has tiny little pinkie toenails, they are disappearing, because we wear shoes and don't need the natural protection anymore.
Another one. How many people do you know who have a full set of teeth, all of them, including wisdom teeth. Not one of mine have; all had to have their wisdom teeth cut out because their jaws were too small to accommodate them. I asked why and the dental surgeon said, our jaws are getting smaller but we still have the same number of teeth.
Remember I did say this is not science, just a bit of sophistry, my own personal observation over 40 odd years of looking at babies' feet and noting that more and more people have crooked teeth and have to have them straightened or have teeth removed to make space for the ones that need to come down.
I know I'm going to get e-bashed over this. That's fine I did print the disclaimer. I am not a forensic scientist, I am not a paleontologist and I am not an anthropologist, just an old lady with nothing better to do than annoy people by looking at their babies' feet.

Well, I'll do the first e-bash (if that's what you want to call it). You can't compare an oldman's toe to a baby's toe and call it science in any aspect. Of course the baby's toe will be smaller. The national geographic doesn't prove human evolution in anyway, it shows that all our genes desend from a single person, but evolution is about the mutations that take place between generations. There are several laws that dictate if evolution will take place, and one of those is that only successful gene carriers will continue to breed, but in humans, very few people don't have kids, and of those who don't, it isn't because of a gene that they hold. It's not like jocks have a lot of kids and nerds don't have very many, so eventually the nerds will die out the humans will evolve into jocks (or vise versa), every woman has a different idea of what she finds attractive, and as a society everyone is found attractive by someone, so all genes are mixed and mingled, evolution requires "selective breeding."

No, stop you've got my question all mixed up. Firstly I didn't say toe - I said toe nail. Secondly I didn't claim it was science. So don't say that I did, look further down, I said sophistry, personal observation. Look at your dad's toenail and your grandfather's then look at your baby's, it is small. There's hardly anything there to cut. Nothing to do with jocks and nerds having kids, I don't care how many kids they have. I'm talking about a personal observation of toenails. Maybe Americans have bigger toe nails than we do, but I have observed it and when I point it out people usually say, that's right look at that.
I also said that was the Natgeo site. It is interesting look through it there are lots of links to all sorts of fascinating things there. Not necessarily about evolution but other things too to do with changes over millions of years. Look for the one on dolphins with opposible thumbs.

Sorry about mistaking toe for toe nail, and I know that it is just observation, I'm just saying that the observation can't be considered as anything factual, besides just a personal observation. It would be a better comparison, to compare your grandfather's toenail when he was born and your father's when he was born and so on. But, I'm also saying that this still wouldn't be evolution. Evolution is like what you described with the moth, it genetically changes to fit it's new climate. The weak survive and the strong live and sing a little song from grease 2 . Between a gerenation, the genetic differences are randomly created, and the strong live to pass on the successful mutations while those with unsuccessful mutations die, the change of this over time is evolution, but in humans there hasn't been a "more successful" gene to spread because we mate freely with who ever we want, not with what's left alive. By the laws of evolution, humans cannot be currently evolving.

Now I'll get the bashing

I have a question I would be really eager to hear your opinion on: How does the Homo Neandertalensis fit into this picture?
If humans dont change, how does he fit into it. How could he exist in first place?

Yes, and? Thats exactly what happens: selective breeding. Selective breeding within the parameters of modern humanity. Humans might not really become "fitter" within these parameters (even though I would not be too certain of such pessimist view either, as this is a really complex issue), but they for sure will change over time. Modern civilization is no genetic conservation it just changed the rules, but did not stop the game. It has only yet to be seen if to our advantage or disadvantage.

And what you call a major flaw is in fact a major feature. Its a very large advantage that the genetic pool is so diverse. Those "clear races" some nutheads dream of would in fact be extincted faster than anyone could look like.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

A basic flaw many people have is that the "stronger" one survives. Thats not the case, the fitter one does. There is a very large difference between both.

Neither the strongest nor the most specialized one necessarily is the one that survives, its the one that has has found the best balance between flexibility and specialization, energy efficiency and strength, intelligence, reproduction etc etc etc.


And the other point: So we mate freely... yes indeed we do. But why do you think that means we do so randomly? Nothing could be further from the truth.

A good classic evolution mechanism for example is what we can observe in Malaria countries. Some people there have an inefficiency in their blood cells... which considerably increases their chance to successfully fight Malaria... This inefficiency is especially often found in Malaria hot spots...

But people principally dont have to die for evolution to take place. Its enough that one group is more fertile than the other. And is a proven fact that people with an unhealthy lifestyle have lower fertility rates, just to mention one possible mechanism.

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"

When one says the stronger, it is assumed (or at least I assume) that they are talking about the one more fit for the enviroment. But my argument for the human race still holds. Those more fitted for survival don't pass on their genes any more than those not as fit for survival, so no genes get "weeded" out.

Why not using the word fitter then? I dont want to look like an over exact teacher here, but I think its a very important difference, and the one word is not longer than the other.
I am in no position to say if it really makes us fitter or not. Who says it has to? But the genes are definitely not spreaded totally randomly. Thats clearly not the case. As I said, we dont choose our partners randomly. And for a good reason, and the reason is not called "free will".

Even though we changed the rules in the last 100 years (a nearly nonexistent short time in terms of evolution btw) substantially, there is still a separation of genes. I am not studying that, but if it only means that the low classes of society spread their genes more than the higher one. That might make us fitter or not, who knows, but it definitely changes the gene pool...

__________________
"Every country gets the cuisine it deserves"