As i must respect you for having more common sense than the tried and true atheist i stand against, and some tried adn true religous people i stand with i must point out three things. One as was expected you did not give any evidence to contradict what i say, two Darwins original theory made no mention of mutation, three i didnt ignore natural selection, i just called by its modern name microevolution, which is as much a scientific law as bacon is delicous(ignore the comparison).zakkro said:You're right: science happened. Also, it wasn't an assumption so much as it was inferences.Darkasassin96 said:As was expected, scientists did not want to beeive it so they changed the theory so many times it barely resembles Darwins original assumption
Also-also, of COURSE the theory of evolution as it stands today is different than what Darwin had originally shown, so I don't see what the problem is. Also-also-also, the theory of evolution isn't THAT wildly different since it's still based on mutation and natural selection (yeah, yeah, there's genetic drift as well), which are the mechanisms Darwin proposed. So no, it isn't ONLY about mutation.
Side-bar: I've seen it on this site more than others, but I must ask: Why do some people ignore natural selection?
OT: I doubt you're going to convince your dad of anything. My sister knows nothing about evolution at all, so I've learned to never bring it up around her.