Sorry but your wrong... Evolution is a fact. It has been proven by DNA and by the fossil record. Evolution takes millions of years in most cases. But it is still visible and very apperent when you look at bacteria. Bacteria have been evolving, infact it has many people worried. Antibiotics kill most bacteria but the ones that survive pass on resistance to the next generation. Our attempts to destroy bacteria has shaped its evolution in a very direct way. This is natural selection because the desired and most adapt traits survive.

Saying evolution is caused by puncuated equilibrium and not by natural selection is semantics. The bacteria example I gave can be seen as both just like most cases of major natural disasters and extinction events. Gradual change has been observed in times where there was no natural disaster or major climate change.

we dont have a complete fossil record so yes you may find a species you cant fit in looking at the fossile record, but you can prove it genetically.

How do you explain branching of the Amphibians where some grow back severed legs and other species don't, then?

There are numerous adaptative genetic makeups which are recursive or become static at some point.

Homo Sapiens to Erectus, Chimps or Gorillas may have taken awhile in generation terms -- but, it's still Evolution.

DNA is not a number of appropriate "slots" for creature X, it's a coding definition that mutates when conditions enforce it.

I agree. I presume that some creatures don't evolve as fast as others because they are perfectly adapted to the environment.

Darwin theory is logical and well founded. Evolution is a fact. Unless somebody can find the magic  hat from where new creatures just suddenly appears. Our history goes back what 500000 years and evolution takes millions of years. And if you hope to prove everything with bones well goood luck, we can only hope we can find all the species from one line that will prove the theory, that is not very lickely to happen. As I see it finding bones is more about luck than anything else. 

I think that knowing for sure either way would be mind blowing.

In my opinion aliens do exist, they have NOT visited us.

When we find them we will end up going to war sooner rather than later. Look at are past is there a single year in the last 100'000 years or so of human exisitance when we have not been killing each other or animals?

Further to that we define are selves by the wars in are history. English, American, Canadian, French, etc are all terms fromed by the wars we have won (in away)...

If we do come across aliens in the next 50 years or so I imagine the main powers will invest vast amount of resourses into space travel and space weapons for 'self-defence'. 

If we do come across them soon, maybe some part of si-fi will come true (faster than lift travel ftw)    

In my own personal view, if we were to find intelligent life in the near, or far, future I hope we would attempt peace with the alien race. But, what are the chances of that happening. Since the beggining of recorded history there's only ever been two hundred odd years of global peace (I'm sure I may be wrong).

There would always be fear between our and the alien race, leading to extremists or something of the sort to just create a form of intergalactic terrorism. Or even, human or alien leaders simply wanting to show more power than the other. Either way in my view finding intelligent life would be bad news, but it would bring humanity together, shedding forms of hostillity within our species.

Since the end of World War 2 there has only been 1 year when when no declared war was active on Earth. I can't remember the exact year, but even without a declared war, you still have coups, murders, rape, assault, and all the other things in this world that make us human.

Unfortunately for most people, science isn't set in stone.  Darwin was the first to observe and document "modern" evolution, but the scientific understanding of it has advanced well beyond Darwin's understanding of the process. If you're only going to look at the origins of the theory, or if you're going to argue that since our understanding has changed over time that we don't really know what we're talking about, then you're missing out on how the scientific process arrives at actionable, reproducible, meaningful information.

Understanding evolution requires study, just as understanding physics, chemistry, or any other science does.  Many people have a very simple laymans understanding of what evolution is and how it works.   Since evolution challenges certain belief systems, there is a great deal of "common" knowledge about evolution that is simply false.  If you really want to understand evolution you need to study biology and then the processes through which biological mechanisms generate variation within species, how isolated subgroups within species develop different variations, and then, both due to the differences in specialization and isolation, these subgroups stop interbreeding and eventually become incapable of interbreeding.  If you study biology, you'll find that there are a number of species that we consider distinct but are actually capable of interbreeding.  Horses and donkeys are a great example.  The most clear line between distinct subgroups and distinct species is the ability to interbreed, but the process of speciation often leaves the ability to interbreed intact even as each subgroup develops very noticable and distinct specializations.

Evolution is only a matter of belief if you don't understand the mechanisms underlying it.  Much in the same way, the way airplanes fly and the way gravity works are matters of belief until you study how they work.  They are simply less controversial than evolution.

Lastly, I don't mean to be disagreeable, but you are completely wrong in that evolution hasn't been observed.  You may not have observed it, but micro (variation) has been observed in many species (from Darwin's studies on the Galapagos to moths in industrial England) and several species appear close to macro (speciation) evolution.  I know I'm not going to convince you of these scientific facts if you aren't interested in understanding them, but if you are check out the link below for information on speciation. I also strongly suggest that you study the science behind evolution if evolution is controversial for you or your belief system.  There's definitely no harm in understanding more.. you'll only develop a more informed perspective and be able to make more solid, convincing arguments concerning your beliefs.

https://www.geology.ucdavis.edu/~cowen/historyoflife/speciationmode.html

http://www.helium.com/items/506158-what-is-a-mule

As Dostillevi1 points out, you'd be well served to do some more reading/research on the subject of evolution. What you say here demonstrates a lack of knowledge on the subject and a misunderstanding/misinterpestation of what you've read (I mean no insult by this statement). In addition to what Dostillevi1 points out, I'd also recommend reading some of Richard Dawkins' works. He makes evolutionary theory very accessible to the average reader.

What an interesting point of view!

Meet your match or suffer through survival competition(s) on the galactic scale rather than planetary.

Are you trying to say that evolution cannot being seen through microorganisms? If evolution can be proved anywhere it's in bacteria. Due to random mutation a single cell can become resistant to antibiotics and therefore will reproduce without threat. This is evolution at a smaller scale, but with larger multi-celled organisms, the process takes longer to be more evident. For example A bird with a thinner, longer beak is going to get more food in a enviroment where the majority of food is protected in thin breaks of the bark on trees, compared a bird with a broader, bulky beak. The birds with longer, thinner beaks are going to be more suited to there enviroment and therefore will reproduce at a greater rate. It's like the saying "adapt and survive"

(I'm sure this theory is correct in a round about sort of way anybody who understands biology and evolution more than me please don't blow massive gaping holes into my argument just tell us where i went wrong )

ΑΩΑ - the beggining, the end, and the beggining

Why is it instantly assumed that when we encounter life outside our planet Earth that it will be equally or more intellgent?  It could be a single celled organism for all we know.  That is still considered biologically life.

your right. People do assume that when/if we find alien life it will be as if more intelligent than us. It might possibly be a single celled organism but even if it was it's still massive breakthrough in whether were alone in the universe or not from the simple fact that it answers it. I believe most people hope that when/if we find alien life that it will be intelligent because they'll feel like their in star wars or star trek or something else beggining with star, I hope it'll be intelligent life when/if we discover it. 

AΩΑ - the beginning, the end, and the beggining

I still need evidence that intelligent life exists period.  Earth isn't very convinvcing with stupidity still dominating this planet.  Like religion for example.  A REAL intelligent race would laugh at us and our bickering back and forth about something with equal evidence to santa and the tooth fairies .  On a global scale speaking ofcourse.  Some of us have enough logic and common sense.  We need to explore distant galaxeys to reach other life if it exists and personally my money is on blowing ourselves up first.  I have no faith in humanity and I have history to support me in this.

Lack of understanding?  I have BS in Biology and I spend many years in many scientific fields (such as chemistry and related science).  How many of you have at least a BS in Biology?  If I lack understanding of Evolution it is because when I was undergrad they just tried to indoctrinate us with thier view instead of present us with real science.  Left me wondering where is the proof.

Adaptation is not evolution.  Bacteria can adapt to its environment, but it can never evolve into another specie.   One specie evolving into another has never been observed nor reproduced.  Prove me wrong if you can.

No I will not read Dawkins; he can't even keep his story straight.

I do agree that it is hard to prove certain things as we don't have all answers.

The fact that we believe in religion makes us human. Without something to believe in mankind wouldn't of even thought about about leaving their caves all those years back. A REAL intelligent race as you put it wouldn't laugh at humanity, we would look like one of the stepping stones they crossed.