Natural Selection is one of the mechanisms which drives evolution. It is popularly characterized as "survival of the fittest," though that is not always the most accurate description. It is the tendency for life forms which are best suited to their environments to have a better chance to reproduce than those that are not. For example, in a cold environment, an animal with lots of fur is more likely to reproduce than a bald animal, since the bald animals will die more quickly.

This is an issue which often confuses the general public, as the two words, theory and law, have very different common meanings. But in science, their meanings are very similar. A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories. They are expressed with simple equations (like f = ma for his 2nd Law of Motion). Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.

While it is true that new traits can appear through the accumulation of small random genetic mutations, it is the non-random process of Natural Selection that determines which traits to keep and which to discard. For example, a random mutation may cause a brown squirrel to be born white. But if the squirrel lives on a brown tree, its color will quickly alert predators to its existence. The white squirrel will not live long enough to reproduce and pass on the trait. In this environment, nature selects for brown squirrels, not white. If the process were random, then the white squirrel would survive just as well as the brown.

This is accomplished through a process called Gene Duplication, which is believed to play a major role in Evolution.  Because of a mistake during meiosis, an organism may end up with two copies of the same gene. After this happens, the usual mechanisms of point mutation and natural selection can evolve one of the copies into coding for something completely new, while retaining the original gene. To test how quickly gene duplication can occur, an experiment was performed on yeast in 1998.  After only 450 generations, it was discovered that the "hexose transport" genes had duplicated several times.

While there is no direct fossil evidence for the evolution of DNA (because of its size and fragility), scientists have theorized on its origins based on verified laboratory evidence.  One theory goes like this:  RNA, the compliment molecule to DNA, was the first to evolve naturally from materials already common in the pre-biotic Earth.  Self-replication was achieved through catalytic actions in RNA-based molecules, called ribosomes, or possibly through an intermediary molecule.  This step still remains unverified to science as of this writing.

Once self-replication had been achieved, the forces of Natural Selection took over.  For example, those molecules which were protected from the elements survived longer and reproduced more.  So, any molecules which found themselves with a lipid bubble (which also forms naturally) would have a better chance of reproducing.  After many incremental steps, the lipid bubbles eventually became cell membranes, and the molecules DNA.

For more information on the probability of life forming this way, please see this article.

The "fossil record" refers to the placement of fossils throughout the surface layers of the Earth. Older fossils are buried more deeply than younger ones. Scientists use the placement of fossils as a guide for determining when life forms existed, and how they evolved. For example, we know that flowering plants evolved from non-flowering plants because, in the fossil record, we see flower fossils becoming more and more primitive the deeper we go, until they disappear all together. There are no flower fossils below a certain depth. This shows us that flowering plants evolved from non-flowering plants, then began to diversify themselves. This kind of progression is found throughout the fossil record.

Firstly, man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group.  This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve. There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source population must go extinct in order for new species to evolve.

Of course. Many faiths accept evolution as the explanation for the current level of biodiversity, usually stipulating that a creator initially designed the Universe, or guided the processes of evolution. In fact, in 1996, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's position that evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Evolution does not contradict the overall philosophy of the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any religious text.

No, this is a bit of an "old wive's tale."  Our smallest toe (or 'pinkie toe' as some call it) is here to stay.  This is because organisms don't just lose traits or appendages simply because they aren't useful anymore.  There would need to be a threat to our survival or reproduction, directly caused by us having our smallest toe.  In that scenario, individuals born with smaller pinkie toes would have an advantage over those with longer ones.  Over many generations, this would cause pinkie toes to get smaller and smaller, until gone.

This is how whales lost their small hind legs, for example.  A more streamlined whale swims faster, and so evades predators and catches food faster.  This drove their legs to get smaller and smaller until they virtually vanished (though in skeletons you can still see their pelvises).  However, there are no pressures like this involving our pinkie toes.

Based on the experimental data of numerous independent dating techniques, we know the Earth to be approximately 4.55 billion years old.

The second law states that "In a closed system (one in which energy cannot enter), Entropy will not decrease." Since Entropy often refers to disorder, this law is often taken to mean that order cannot arise from disorder. How then would life, which is highly ordered, form naturally? The answer, simply, is that life is not a closed system. Energy is constantly being added to the Earth from the Sun, which fuels the plants, which in turn fuel other life. This is how plants, for example, can have more energy than the seeds they originally sprouted from. But life is not the only example of order from disorder. Snowflakes, crystals, lightning, and sand dunes are all examples of non-living matter organizing into complex structures.

This has been a hotly debated question in the media, classrooms, and many churches.  According to authors like Michael Behe, there are certain structures in nature which he terms "irreducibly complex," which, he asserts, could not have evolved naturally.  He gives bacterial flagellum and the eye, among others, as examples.  If true, these might be evidence for Intelligent Design.

However, the vast majority of the scientific community regards Intelligent Design as psuedoscience or "junk science."  The structures that Behe and others give as examples have proven evolutionary histories.  For an example, watch The Evolution of the Eye video on this site. Recently at the famous Dover trial, the court held that  "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large."

To date, there has never been any evidence, agreed upon by the scientific community, to be proof of Intelligent Design.

This is a statement often asserted by proponents of Intelligent Design, but it is simply not true.  The argument goes that since the flagellum (the tail-like structure many bacteria have which helps them "swim") is a very complex machine, it could not have evolved naturally.  This is because if you remove any of the proteins that make up the flagellum's motor, it can no longer function.

However, as this video beautifully demonstrates, the flagellum does function with fewer proteins, just not as a flagellum.  Every part of the flagellum is made of proteins already in the cell, performing other functions.  This is one of the most interesting aspects of Evolution: that adaptations can change roles, or combine with other adaptations to perform new roles.