"human evolution , a Science? I don't think so!"
Really? You think you are better qualified to make that judgment than are the millions of scientists who think otherwise?
If it's not a science, how do you explain these:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossils
And how do you explain this:
About fifty years ago, when it was first noted that apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, but humans have 23, the creationists subsequently pounced upon that as evidence against the evolution of humans from a common ancestor with the apes. The evolutionary scientists, however, using evolutionary theory and an understanding of genetic modification, proposed that two of the chromosomes must have joined together in the line that led to man from the common ancestor, thus reducing the chromosome number.
That prediction has been verified with the results of the recent human and chimp genome projects. It was found that human chromosome 2 is the result of the joining of two chromosomes that have homologues in the chimp. The decoding of the genomes revealed that human chromosome 2 has a stretch of non-functioning telomere coding in the exact place it should be if the two chromosomes had joined in the human line from the common ancestor with the apes, and there is also non-functioning coding for a centromere in the exact location where the extra centromere would be as it occurs in one of the homologous chimp chromosomes, as well as a functioning centromere in the same location as in the other homologous chimp chromosome.
Long before the genome projects verified it, this article contained an example of the proposition that two of the ancestral chromosomes joined together to form human chromosome 2.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/215/4539/1525
These sites explain the finding of the genome projects.
http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_chromosome_2
http://www.genome.gov/13514624
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
No creationist pseudo-scientist could make a before-the-fact prediction like that. All they can do is to make up pseudo-explanations after the fact of the finding.
I think you need to stop believing what you find in lying creationist web sites and books.
But to answer your question,
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/search/topicbrowse2.php?topic_id=47
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2009/02/evolutionary-co.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA215.html
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/pigliucci.html
Added:
@A Yahoo! user: "The problem is that mutations ALWAYS result in less information. A single Cell couldn't have evolved into a human. Why? It would have had to received more DNA in order to become more complicated."
That is creationist BS. Mutations do not "ALWAYS" result in less information. If you believe that they do, you don't know squat about genetics.
This site provides a list of other sites showing how genetic information can increase.
http://home.nctv.com/jackjan/item13.htm
@A Yahoo! user:"If the monkeys really turned into people then we would have THOUSANDS of transitional fossils to show to people as proof."
Thousands? You are hardly qualified to declare what must be found. Fossilization is a rare occurrence. The only reason we have as many fossils as we do is that it has been going on for millions of years. But for a complete sequence of every change through a particular lineage would be extremely rare.
Humans had a common ancestor with the apes. Here are some of the fossils. I had listed them above, but here they are again.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_hominina_fossils
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
As for other transitional fossils, what are these? Chopped liver?
http://truth-saves.com/Transitional_Fossils.php
http://truth-saves.com/Our_Ancestors.php
http://www.holysmoke.org/tran-icr.htm
http://blogs.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendId=229081369&blogId=371847244
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feathered_dinosaurs
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1081677.stm
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds.htm
http://dinosaurs.about.com/od/thedinobirdconnection/a/dinobirds_2.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#morphological_intermediates
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/videos/transitional-fossils
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm
http://www.theistic-evolution.com/transitional.html
As for DNA and human evolution, read what I said above concerning human chromosome 2.
Your problem is that you have been visiting too many lying creationist web sites.
Added:
And Ken Ham has proved that he is a liar for Jesus.
Added:
I see that @Lightning From the East is back with his list of links to creationist web sites that resort to misinformation, misrepresentation, falsehoods, outright lies, and reprehensible and despicable tactics in their attempts to refute evolution. Those web sites show those who promote creationism are utterly dishonest and have a hatred of facts and evidence.
He also repeats typical creationist nonsense.
@Lightning From the East: "Of course, neither can evolution be observed or tested, but that does not seem to be an issue with evolutionists."
Evolution has been tested by various means ever since Darwin proposed his theory, and it has always come through with flying colors. Regardless of whether @Lightning's ignorance of those tests is real or feigned, it just shows that what he says commands no credibility.
One test is performed every time a paleontologist digs in geologic strata--the results of which could falsify evolution if it is false and verify the creation model if it is true. The results, in fact, verify evolution and falsify the creation model.
That is because evolutionary theory would be falsified if any of the 5,000 present-day species of mammals or 10,000 present-day species of birds were found in the fossil strata where they should not be found (for example, in the same strata with dinosaur fossils). No such finds have been made. But, according to the creationist flood "model" those species should be found in those strata.
The theory of evolution is also tested through the ability to derive verifiable predictions from it. I provided an example above concerning human chromosome 2.
Again, no creationist pseudo-scientist could make a prediction like that. And numerous other successful predictions have been derived from evolutionary theory.
As for the links that @Lightning From the East provided:
The links labeled "Darwin's Deadly Legacy" are examples of the use of reprehensible and despicable tactics in grossly misrepresenting evolutionary theory by attributing Nazism to it.
In fact, Hitler got his inspiration from Martin Luther's invective against the Jews, and the Holocaust was the culmination of 1700 years of Christian antisemitism.
"He [Luther] argues that their synagogues and schools be set on fire, their prayer books destroyed, rabbis forbidden to preach, homes razed, and property and money confiscated. They should be shown no mercy or kindness, afforded no legal protection, and these "poisonous envenomed worms" should be drafted into forced labor or expelled for all time. He also seems to advocate their murder, writing "[w]e are at fault in not slaying them.""
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies
And if Hitler got his inspiration from Darwin, why then were Darwinian books on the Nazi's list of banned books? See item 6 under Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279. It's about two-thirds of the way down in the document.
http://www.library.arizona.edu/exhibits/burnedbooks/documents.htm
And most, if not all, of those who were rounding up the Jews, transporting them to the death camps, and manning the ovens were Christians.
It seems to me that Christians are trying to wash off their own guilt in the Holocaust by fostering the blame onto Darwin.
The links that are by Carl Baugh are full of pseudo-scientific nonsense and creationist frauds.
http://www.noanswersingenesis.org.au/carl_baugh_page.htm
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/wilker6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Baugh
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/degrees.html
http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/carl_baugh.htm
http://www.dallasobserver.com/1996-12-12/news/footprints-of-fantasy/
http://www.amazon.com/Why-Believe-Evolution-Against-Odds/product-reviews/1575580497/ref=cm_cr_dp_hist_1?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&filterBy=addOneStar
See item 6 here where it is noted that even Answers in Genesis and Creation Ministries International criticize Baugh.
http://www.reduciblycomplex.com/index.php/evidence-for-creation-debunked/
And Robert Gentry of the RATE Project which is referred to in the Why do creationists feel sorry for delusionists? link has been repeatedly refuted, and even religious web sites criticize the RATE Project.
See item 5 in the above link. See also:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/gentry.html
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/education/origins/rate-ri.htm
http://www.reasons.org/resources/non-staff-papers/DotheRATEFindingsNegateMainstreamScience
This site refutes virtually all of the other arguments against evolution that can be found in @Lightning's deceitfull links.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/