@DrPawn; human-selection for plants and animals is not the best example because chihuahuas and wolves/coyotes/jackals are still exceedingly genetically similar. In current classification domestic dogs are a subspecies of the 'Canis'-family, 'lupis'-species, called 'familiaris'... similarly, the variety of cows we see, though they bear less and less resemblance to wild ancestors, are sub-species. Cows are also a weird example, one that blows-to-hell the 'successfully breed together' species definition... ah, the wikipedia site is nice... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cows

In contrast, chimps and humans now sit in the same family-'Hominidae'... this video shows that we can see how the genetics of a family ancestor changed and did NOT change as we speciated in our direction and chimps speciated in theirs.

Well, Peter gets a couple of things wrong - one being the the idea that ethics comes from nothing for the atheist. He couldn't be further from the truth - right and wrong are clearly products of the sentient mind and its evolutionary origins.

Evolution occurs within the web of natual law and is therefore nonrandom. We (along with other sentient creatures) developed (evolved) empathy, which gave rise to a basic form of the "golden rule" - I would argue that this is the primary basis of all ethics. The irony is that even if you subscribe to the bible, you necessarily pick and choose which ethical precepts to follow (as they are mutually exclusive as presented in the text) and it is on the basis of this inherent biological/cultural ethics that you make these distinctions - not the literal (or even figurative) reading of the scripture.

I have already alluded to the other misconception he subscribes to in the "debate", that is, the idea that evolution is "random". It is most definitely not. No more so than the orderly arrangement of molecules within a crystalline matrix are "random". Like the molecules, evolution follows the "rules" of nature - those genetic configurations that produce phenotypes more efficient and effective at producing offspring (surviving to reproduce) will contribute to the future and thus pass on any beneficial variations which they possess - a slow and gradual process which ultimately leads to macroscopic change or "speciation".

No real magic or "randomness". All by the rules - just look at similar natural solutions to various natural puzzles - wings for flight (avian and mammalian), "fins" for water motion (including fish and mammals). If you look you will see that there is nothing "random" - the best solution is that which is perpetuated, as one would expect from a rational universe.

We don't have all the answers, but I think it is at least reasonable to think that we're on the right track. But remember - atheism is not a set of dogmatic beliefs, just a rejection of one belief.

Huh? There's plenty proof of evolution. If you want an example of a 'good' mutation, just look at the flu virus. Why do you think we need vaccinations each year? It's because the virus evolves to defeat our immune system.

Also, your statement about it being just a theory is actually very ignorant. Don't forget, in scientific terms, theories are *very* powerful. The theory of evolution is as valid as any other scientifically accepted theory like the theory of relativity, or the cell theory. So, to say that there is nothing to support it further than a theory is ironic, because theories require a lot of support to be a theory in the first place.

Anyways, obvious proof of evolution would be fossil records, but if they don't satisfy you for some reason, there are a few documented cases of modern speciation. Although, they're a bit hard to find, but that makes sense, because speciation takes a long time.