[binderbizingdos]

> do not believe in evolution

exactly... you need to believe in it because there can't be any proof as long as we can't travel in time.

get over it and recognize that everything that goes beyond the scientific method is mere speculation.

[colinb]

does recent historical record count, or do you need predictive results? Recent historical examples include the Industrial Moth. If you want to predict some evolution, pick an antibiotic and wait for it to become ineffective. Here's more:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/46030115/142-Modern-Examples-of-Ev...

And while we're beating each other with the scientific method, I believe [!] the onus is on those who think evolution to be an incorrect theory to provide a result that falsifies the premise.

FWIW, if you haven't read The Origin of Species, I can't recommend it strongly enough. It is my opinion Darwin is a better writer than Dawkins, Gould or Jones. The man could put together a lovely sentence.

[kghose]

There are a lot of data that are most simply explained by the concept of evolution. Any other explanation for evolution (such as God did it) requires the invocation of principles that have far less support than gene mutations during reproduction/replication.

[readme]

Evolution does not go beyond the scientific method. You need to take a college level biology class.

[cantankerous]

You should probably read some Karl Popper on the philosophy of science. Falsifying something is pretty much the beginning and the end of the scientific method. The model of evolution, as yet, has not been decisively falsified.

[reginaldjcooper]

Evolution is so in line with reality, scientists have already made correct predictions about transitional fossils and where they would be found. The only choices are belief in evolution or rejection of reality.