Protecting Windows 7 and 8 From Windows 10

Yes, they're going to keep pushing win10 updates and telemetry. But here's a way to clean your windows machine of upgrade and telemetry updates with what we know today:

[Don't do this if you ever plan to upgrade to 10]

wusa /uninstall /KB:2952664 /norestart /quiet
wusa /uninstall /KB:2990214 /norestart /quiet
wusa /uninstall /KB:3021917 /norestart /quiet
wusa /uninstall /KB:3022345 /norestart /quiet
wusa /uninstall /KB:3035583 /norestart /quiet
wusa /uninstall /KB:3044374 /norestart /quiet
wusa /uninstall /KB:3068708 /norestart /quiet 
wusa /uninstall /KB:3075249 /norestart /quiet
wusa /uninstall /KB:3080149 /norestart /quiet

You can save that as a .bat file and run it. You may need to run as administrator. Or you can just run each command in the console (drop /quiet to see output).

Go back into the windows update tool, find any of these numbers, then right-click and select "Hide update". You won't see it offered again (unless they change the KB number).

Links to KB pages:

• KB2952664
• KB2990214
• KB3021917
• KB3022345
• KB3035583
• KB3044374
• KB3068708
• KB3075249
• KB3080149

KB cleaning reddit threads that I found:

• Removing Windows 10 Update Popup - Text Tutorial
• Found a few things for Windows 10

Work Boots

I'm very ambivalent to these questions. They get asked - a lot!

There's no speaker for the boot industry, that can wrap everything into a consensus for people to immediately digest however.

For very obvious reasons, especially before the mass production we have been able to achieve in the past few decades, there used to be a lot more boot makers. This quantity was required to supply workers pre-massive production, pre-Walmart level. Most of these boots were strictly sold to workers.

RM Williams is a good example, since they were made for the outback people in Australia. In the past decade, they were bought out, and that audience has changed. The worker used to be RM Williams thriving point and inspiration. They thrived to work for this audience, replacing outsoles, elastic, etcetera. Suffice, this is not the case anymore. Production has increased, and the market is very much for fashion now.

There's a couple of big points here:

1) Every one of these companies has had a very real hit from mass production. There used to be a much bigger industry around well-made clothing in the states (wool mills, leather making, etcetera). A majority of these companies have either sold out or gone out of business. I realize this may seem like common sense, but since this was pre and in the beginning of the internet, I believe many of us do not realize the scale in which these companies have changed.

2) The market has changed. As with RM Williams, most of these companies today have gotten more people buying these products from Japan (having a fashion around old Americana) and yuppies from StyleForum, etcetera. They're not going to be in the rolling hills of the Pacific Northwest, nor is their leather going to touch any woods.

Natural material upkeep. This applies to every clothing industry here, particularly for the outdoor's goes. There's been a dramatic shift to synthetic materials. Fleece, synthetic leathers, nylon shell's, goretex, etcetera that we've been spoiled by the tv dinnerness of easy upkeep, through replacing versus repairing, and having garments that takes care of itself. With older clothing, tin clothing needs to be redressed, wool must be stored (is heavier), leather must be cleaned and have oiling. I'm going to put a shameless plug here for hemp too, since it should be alongside leather, wool and quality canvas. However, synthetic's tend to promote themselves as cheap, maintenance free, and lighter weight - so again, market shift. Less sales, and then the people that do make something heavier, like a wool garment, are going to use a thinner wool since the market just wants to look like a sailor with their fleece underliner.

Suffice, i'd say 99% of maker's have compromised somewhere as a result of competing with mass production. Some will use thinner leathers because their audience complains of break-in. Some will switch to cementing soles since no one will pay the extra to resole their boots, much less oil them.

I have been to Danner's factory several times. They use thinner leathers. Mind you, they have USA made and China made Danner's. The USA one's are better, and resoleable. Regardless, the leather is thin, even on their better models like the Ft Lewis, Acadia, etcetera. The goretex isn't very good, and it causes water to get trapped between the leather and the goretex before it breaks down. I'd never consider Danner the best, but the company needs to be restructured for its US outfit and fix some details. Their Stumptown is also showing a shift in selling to yuppies.

Red Wing is also a problem customer. Red Wing gets mentioned - a lot! Unfortunately, most the people that are recommending them are still using their 20 year old pair, from back in the day. Their newer China stuff is trash, and their USA Heritage collection is made to be casual boots. They are -not- made for hard use of any kind.

White's is another one that gets recommended here. They were recently bought by a fashion label, and all the fans say nothing's going to change. I have seen this trend too many times before, and will wait things out before my wallet nears it. As far as i've heard, they plan to increase production, which isn't entirely good.

I'd say as a value brand, Chippewa and Thorogood are good and capable. The leather works and can be resoled, for the most part - particularly the made in USA. Take note that the Vibram white wedge outsole is a comfort outsole and wears down very fast. It's important to segway here, that while the customer -should not- be having to do this level of research to find the best quality boot, at this point in time, you have to. You will find better deals and better quality online. Most stores do not stock quality gear. Order from a place with a good return policy. Read other's sizing information, etcetera. You are shooting yourself in the foot. It sucks, I hate shipping, I hate how retailers stock dog shit, I hate that the industry can't use similar lasts, I hate that we can't all use the metric system, I hate doing the research for boot makers, the whole industry is lined in ever-puking horseshit, but IT IS WHAT IT IS. I take a deep breath and go through with it to get my fair share.

Moving on along the quality value of boot makers, everything I have read about Redback and Rossi have been very good. The leather is thick. Note that Polyeurthane soles need to be used regularly or else the sole deteriorates. Not good for storage. Polyeurthane is light though and durable. So it wouldn't be resolable, but last well into use for these two makers.

At the tip of the iceberg, I recommend Dayton (Canadian/Style), Dehner (Equestrian/Military), Limmer (heavy Outdoors), Nick's (Logging), Wesco (Logging/Motorcycle), Viberg (Canadian/Logging/Style), and William Lennon/Rufflander (British/Work). All of these are very well-made, resoleable, blah, blah, blah, last long time if you take good care (read: maintenance. Oiling X amount of months, rotating, not hot drying, and making sure to leave them out muddy). I will also put in a plug for Arrow Moccasin for making the best moccasins money can buy.

There's other good one's out there. Solovair, for example, albeit they don't offer their own resoling service, many cobblers can resole them. Doc Martens For Life are a value, albeit have a clumsy fit.

Most of what i'm saying won't fit for hard workwear, but in case any other's stumble upon this thread.

Note: I don't have a particular issue to yuppies, and I am generalizing. It's just when a workwear label begins to place a higher value in style, then what's practical takes two steps back.

SOURCE

Complete Guide to Sheets

First up! we have thread count! Every bedding company and their mom is riding the "highest thread count" train. But does thread count actually affect the durability of sheets? Yes, but not in the way that you think!

The way that companies are able to squeeze more and more threads per square inch into their sheets is by thinning the threads. The thinner the thread, the more of 'em they can pack into that space. Unfortunately, the thinner the thread, the more likely it is going to break. With infinitesimally small broken threads, you're going to be looking at the most uncomfortable problem with old sheets: pilling. (Yuuuck!) Nothing will make you suspect someone ate crackers in your bed faster than pilly sheets.

So DON'T go for some of the more insanely-high thread-count sheets.

There is one thing you do have to decide before determining which strata of thread count you want (thick-thread/average count, or thin-thread/higher count). Do you like your sheets crisp, stiff-feeling, kinda snappy? Are you the type of person who actually sleeps with a top sheet? tucked in under the mattress with a blanket and a coverlet on top? Or, do you like your sheets to be silky, smooth-feeling and drapey? Do you always wind up with your blankets wrapped around your legs and don't even bother with a top sheet anymore because it just gets all twisted up anyway?

If you're the first type, go for percale sheets, 200-300 thread count. Yup. I know that sounds craaazy! 200 threads/square inch? Ah, but there's a method to this madness. Percale sheets have a high thread-thickness (also called denier), and it's quite difficult to shove more than that in the measurable space. Because of this, they are aaaahmazing workhorse sheets. I have hand-me-down percale sheets my grandmother got when she was a teenager! working at Penney's that look brand-spankin' new. These sheets were in heavy rotation among herself, my grandpa and their 10 kids, but I have zero qualms about using them now.

If you're the latter type of person, I'd recommend a sateen weave (NOT satin weave!) of about 400-800 threads per square inch. Any more than that and the company is either a) lying and counting the number of threads in the twistof the yarn, rather than the single yarn thread, or b) is spinning so small they won't last a season, much less BIFL.

Oh, and jersey sheets? Just don't do that to yourself. Whoever thought of turning a tee shirt into a sheet was an idiot.

I'm cutting this off now, so it doesn't get too long, but I'll reply to this comment to add more food for thought.

Edit, misspelled sateen cuz it's midnight.

Ok, next there's a multitude of fibers to choose from: cotton, combed cotton, egyptian cotton, cotton flannel, cotton/poly, poly/cotton, polyester microfiber, rayon microfiber, microfiber, linen, cotton/linen, linen/cotton, silk (real, from worms), wool. These all have their pluses and minuses, but the real question you have to ask yourself is: what's my sleeping temperature?

Cotton is obviously a popular choice, partially because it's so versatile. It can be crisp, if it's a percale; silky, if it's a sateen; fuzzy, if it's a flannel, but it can't be all of these things at the same time. Crisp cotton is best if you run hot. Since the sheet doesn't mold to your body, it introduces an element of air flow appreciated by many. Sateen is sorta-neutral, sorta-warm. Since it molds around you, it tends to mirror your own body. I don't like sateen because for some reason my thighs are always sweaty while my feet are always freezing. Flannel, since it's fuzzy, is able to trap warm air pockets in the sheets to keep you warm. NOT to be used by the furnace-sleepers out there, and if you share a bed with a furnace-sleeper, don't even try to make flannel work. The downside to all cotton is that once it gets wet, it stays wet. And it feels super yucky when wet

Linen is the coolest of all the materials. And it is a royal bitch to find. Not only do most vendors catagorize all their sheets as "linens," but even when you sort by fiber, a few son-uva-bitches call cotton sheets "linen." (bastards.) Anywho, linen has the amazing ability to draw just a crap-ton of moisture away from your body and never feel damp or yucky. The Company Store has been the only place I've ever purchased linen sheets and I would recommend them. They aren't for sale on amazon (they list there, but you can't buy through amazon). Linen in general is heart-attack expensive.

Wool is more of a flexible fiber. Everyone knows it's great at keeping things warm, but it can also be used in the summer. Since wool locks moisture away in the fiber, it can keep mildly sweaty people from feeling like they showered in bed. It does take a long time to air-dry if it does get wet, can smell a bit like sheep, can be scratchy if you've a wool allergy-- oh, hell... there're reasons why no one other than Irishmen or New Zealanders buys wool sheets--get wool blankets, instead!

Silk's number one downside is the cost. Now, when I say silk, I mean from real worm, not-vegan silk. Not that rayon-silk shit, or some silk-look/habuti shit or some polyester-satin shit people call silk but doesn't act, feel, look or any other way even remind people of silk once they actually feel and appreciate silk. Silk sheets are what I have in my amazon wish list for when I'm wildly rich I can drop $500 on them just to use them on my anniversary (or have my kids use as my shroud when I die). Silk is the pinnacle of everything humans want next to their skin other than another human. It is tactile manna. I can't actually go on, I'm getting emotional just thinking about it.

Now, for man-made fibers. I will admit, I am a snob when it comes to natural vs. man-made fibers; so please do read some bias in this next paragraph (but not too much!) Polyester, rayon (yes, yes, I know rayon is derived from wood pulp), and any microfiber sheet are significantly hotter than any natural fiber would be. So, if you are ALWAYS freezing (a nurse, perhaps? or that lady in the office wearing a cardigan when it's 110*F outside?), you may want to sample a poly or poly-blend sheet. The benefit of these, is that the thread is stronger, thinner, longer than any natural fiber, so if you want insanely silky sheets without fear of pilling, here you go.

For care and keeping, white cotton or linen is the best way to go... all those care tags that say to wash cold, tumble dry low? First of all, that's all bullshit. Companies don't want to be held accountable for dye jobs fading, or fabrics pilling; and the colder the water/air, the less agitation, the longer a shitty fabric will last because it never gets clean in the first place!!!! Clean means that that third-rate mordant the Chinese factory used so the factory manager can skim some personal profit off the top gets washed out and that vibrant color only seen in jungle birds that the merchandiser in New York picked out fades.

There are three things that clean fabric other than a liquid medium: heat, agitation, detergent. Even when you dry clean stuff, it's not really DRY clean. They put the clothes in a special washer with a non-water-based solvent. It still gets wet and it still agitates.

So, what degrades (shitty) fabrics? Heat, yah? has your underwear or socks ever had the elastic/spandex break/unravel on you? Everyone's had that moment with a pair of panties whose elastic top is going and you just keep unwinding and unwinding and unwinding that elastic? Heh. No? Just me? Ok, then.... Point is! heat dries out that elastic and it loses it's suppleness. BTW, OT- NEVER EVER EVER EVER heat-dry your bras in the dryer, ladies!! The elastic in those are too small to be as obvious as a panty elastic and the whole thing will give out and just die on you, and you won't notice a thing--other than your favorite bra just became your worst nightmare.

<shakes self to get back on track> Ok! now, agitation can create pilling on crappier fabrics. If the thread isn't long/thick enough, it unweaves, curls up out of the fabric and is a lint magnet (i.e. a pill). It can also knock out teeeny tiny loose fibers from fabrics that didn't get wound tight enough (lint!) and thin them out. On clothing, agitation can also introduce rough decorative trims (zippers, MissMe jean pocket decals, etc) to fabrics and cause runs/tears. So, some things are legitimately gentle/delicate/hand wash only, but not everything for cripes sake!

Detergent, then, is what everyone has decided to place their trust in cleaning laundry. But what's this? Nothing (and I mean nothing) manufactured after 1995 calls for using chlorine bleach? what?! even white cotton calls for "non-chlorine bleach only"? is this right? No. No, it is not right. They mass-produce their labels and attach them to all the colors. They aren't going to stop in the middle of a run and switch the labels when the color tee shirt goes from heather gray to white. The textile industry is notoriously unregulated and one of the reasons it stays unregulated is that they avoid pissing off their consumers with their shitty products by recommending kid-glove treatment with everything they produce.

Here's the deal with laundry. HOT water is supposed to be 130F. Most people's water heaters have a governor that regulates the temperature at 120F. That means, even if you select "hot" on your washer, you clothes aren't washing in hot water unless your washer has an internal heating mechanism. WARM water is 110F, which after traveling through your pipes and despensing in a tub the ambient temperature of the room is what you're actually washing your clothes in when you set it "hot." COLD water is 90F which is bath-temperature water--not cold at all. When you use your cold setting, it just dumps the water from your home's pipes into the tub, meaning that in my area in the winter, my water is 58F. That isn't even an option in laundry care: near-freezing water.

So, since we've established that most people wash their clothes in too cool temperatures, with too much detergent and too low agitation; what does this all mean?

That, unless you're washing something incredibly precious or special, fussing around with a multitude of laundry settings and separating into various loads (warm-darks, warm-lights, cold-darks, cold-lights, warm-handwash, cold-hand wash, hot-whites) is crazy. If your clothing and linens can't hold up under a proper wash, they were not BIFL.

So, the real rules?

If it's a natural fiber and you DON'T care if it shrinks: Hot water. Sheets would go in this category--sheets should never shrink smaller than the size bed they're meant to go on... if they do, they're not a BIFL sheet. I also put duvet covers, pillowcases, towels, kitchen rags, dust rags, mop cloths, tableclothes, napkins, washclothes, socks, my husband's undershirts, practical/kid's underwear (cloth diapers in a seperate wash)... When I wash blankets/pillow protectors (monthly) and coverlets/comforters/pillows (quarterly) and down comforters/pillows (semi-annually), I also wash them on hot. Basically anything that I would need to be SURE came out clean and as close to sanitized as possible without boiling (I actually had my husband install a tankless water heater just so I can dial up the heat of my water for my laundry). I also try to make sure that all these things are white so I can bleach them as well. BLEACH is only effective in whitening/lightening when the clothes SOAK in the water. Accidentally splashing your tee shirt with pure bleach while doing the laundry is different, though, since it's not diluted it's going to bleach your tee. Sorry. Wear an apron or a white tee shirt (or do the laundry naked!) next time.

Warm water for everything else, sorted into lights/darks.

Cold water only for delicates, and I hand wash them.

Everything gets line-dried outside as long as the temperature is +35F, and if <35F, dried delicate, low-heat (or air dried, if I hand-washed). I'll actually pull them out still damp at the edges and iron the ironable ones and hang everything else on hangers for an hour on an H-rack until dry enough to get put away without smelling musty when it gets pulled out.

SOURCE

Roots of American Socialism and Why It's Been Maligned

I think what stuns me most often is how many people are totally ignorant of the socialist roots our country actually has. Capitalism nearly destroyed the world's economy post-WWI, and the Great Depression was a direct result of corporate and individual greed. In its wake, socialism was deemed a viable alternative, and it was through the 1930s and into the 1940s that many socialist programs were put into place in order to help American people from starving. Unfortunately, though, as war time waned, in order to keep factories producing high-grade steel, many unions' power was slashed, making it harder and harder for American workers to fight for what they needed. Prior to that point, unions were immensely useful in allowing American workers to reduce their hours and get better pay. Truman slashed their powers to break a union-led stalemate that was preventing American companies from supplying materials overseas and generating massive profits.

After WWII, American steel manufacturers were radically refitted from war-time use to supplying steel to Europe, and America basically rebuilt European infrastructure at an immense profit. Because unions were basically stripped of their powers, companies started making a huge amount of profit and a new rhetoric was adopted to keep that status quo the norm. Socialism, at that point, began to threaten the amount of power manufacturers and growing companies had over the workforce.

Conveniently, Soviet Russia quickly became America's greatest enemy after WWII, and so began a cultural war between the two world powers. America ramped up its patriotic rhetoric during the late 1940s and 1950s to indoctrinate Americans into believing that capitalism was the superior way of life, and so Americans, many of whom were enjoying an age of prosperity, bought into it wholesale. Schools began to educate students in the way of Christian moral values to fight against the godless Soviets, patriotism came at an all-time high, and the American people signed over their ability to organize and control their wages in order to avoid modern-day witch hunts instigated by a paranoid government egged on by powerful businesses.

That's not to say that there aren't obvious issues I haven't oversimplified, or that there weren't moments of socialist programs that grew out of a country steeped in capitalism (Eisenhower's highway system, for example, made our modern way of life possible). In the story of history, it's actually been the socialists who have been on the side of the people. It's those hunting socialists like the witches of old that have been the villainsaw.

Evolution Explained

The theory of evolution is the scientific theory that explains why there is so much variety and complexity in the natural world. Be warned that it doesn't explain what initially started life in the first place - all it explains is the variety of life we have. Also: it is not in any sense a moral philosophy. It is our understanding of our observations of the natural world. Evolution does not equal eugenics or anything like that. It's just a statement of the facts we see in the world. What we choose to do in light of understanding these facts does not come into it — in fact, understanding evolution can improve human wellbeing, as we can understand diseases much better.

Another thing: the word 'theory'. In normal everyday language, we usually use theory to mean 'guess' or 'hypothesis'. In scientific terms, the theory is an explanation of the observable facts. A body of knowledge, if you will. For instance, 'music theory' is the body of knowledge surrounding musical composition. 'Germ theory' is the body of knowledge that explains illness and disease. 'Cell theory' is the theory that explains that all life is made of cells. 'The theory of gravity' is the study of gravity, and the explanations for the facts (or even laws) of gravity that we see in nature. The theory of evolution is no different. Evolution is a scientific, observable, fact, just like cells, germs, and gravity. The 'theory of evolution' is the study and explanation of these facts. If you've ever heard a creationist say 'evolution is still only a theory' or 'evolution is not yet a law' or 'they're still trying to prove the theory of evolution', then they are simply wrong, and misunderstanding the scientific meaning of the word theory. Theories don't become laws — theoriescontain laws. A law is just a simple mathematical observation that always seems to be true e.g. in electronics, ohm's law is that electrical current is equal to the voltage divided by resistance. Ohm's law is a part of the 'theory of electronics' if you like, although that term isn't really used.

Ok, let's take 3 basic principles and then extend them.

1. The children of parents are different to their parents. A puppy is not identical to its parents, just like you are not identical to your parents, but offspring does share qualities of both parents.
   
   
2. Some changes are actually due to 'mistakes' made when reproducing. Sometimes the genes of a parent are slightly distorted when they make a baby. Most of these mistakes have no noticeable effect on the offspring. However...
   
   
3. Some differences/mistakes can aid survival, some can cause premature death. For instance, an animal might be born with a genetic disease. This would be a 'bad' mutation. Alternatively, an animal might be born with slightly thicker fur. If this animal lived in a cold place, this would be a 'good' mutation. Organisms with better chance of survival have a better chance of passing their genes on to the next generation — including the new and improved 'mistake' genes. This is the most important principle. Once you fully internalise this, you will understand evolution.
   
   

Now take these principles, and let them do their thing for millions of years. Eventually, these tiny mistakes and changes will build up. If we start with a very simple organism, a series of very gradual changes could turn it into a more complex organism.

Now, is evolution 'chance'? No! But is it therefore designed with an end goal? Also no! So what is the guiding force behind evolution? Well, it's called natural selection. This also explains the variety of organisms in the world. The world is full of different kinds of place. Let's take 3 places in the world as examples. Arctic, desert and forest. And now let's take an organism - the fox. Foxes live in all 3 of these places, but they're very different. Let's imagine a creature called (for now) proto-fox who lived hundreds of thousands of years ago. And now imagine that proto-foxes have spread out all over the world. Proto-foxes with thicker fur and more fat will survive better in the arctic, so out of a given litter of proto-foxes, the fat furry ones are more likely to live to have babies and and the skinny bald ones are more likely to die. These changes are essentially random, but whether they live or die is not random. After many generations, there will be no skinny bald ones left - just furry ones.

Now let's look at the desert. Proto-foxes in the desert are better off skinny and with big ears to help them lose heat and keep cool. So out of a given litter, babies with bigger ears and skinny bodies are more likely to live and have more babies than fat ones with small ears. After many generations, there will be no fat small-eared proto-foxes left in the desert. Finally, the proto-foxes living in the forest will do better if they can eat lots of different things - there is such a variety of food in the forest, having a strong stomach able to handle all kinds of meat, fish and plant is a huge bonus. Baby proto-foxes living in the forest with strong stomachs are more likely to live and have more babies, while a baby with a weak stomach will more likely die and have no babies. Eventually, all the foxes in the forest will have strong stomachs.

Now these 3 animals are too different to be called a proto-fox. We just have arctic, desert and red foxes! By just putting these animals in a different habitat and letting them either live to have babies or die childless based on the random changes they inherited from their parents, we get 3 distinct strands of what was once the same animal. This works with plants, bacteria, animals and fungi - all living things inherit from their parents, and all can potentially make good or bad mistakes. Whether these mistakes are passed on to their young is decided by the place in which they live and other factors. Now remember, the offspring of these 3 kinds of fox may find themselves in new environment, which will cause the offspring to diverge still into more and more varieties. From this, we can start with a single cell billions of years ago, with variety in its offspring, who had variety in their offspring, who had variety in their offspring, who had variety in their offspring. This makes evolution a beautiful family tree. It means we can look at our cousin the chimpanzee and look for a common ancestor we both share. But it also means we can look at an oak tree, and discover that a much longer time ago, we share a common ancestor with this oak tree. A starfish is nothing like a human, but at some point in history, our ancestors were begat by a single species. All life on Earth is related distantly, because we all evolved from the first life.

The evidence for evolution: how do we know it is true? There is an overwhelming body of evidence for evolution. To roughly go over a few...

• The fossil record is one handy piece of evidence. Rocks lower down in the earth are 'older' (as more rock piles up over then, they get buried). In these older rocks, deeper in the earth, we find much simpler fossilised organisms, and can observe a change to more complex organisms in the higher up rocks. We know the rocks are older because we have many dating methods, which we can cross-reference when examining a rock. They give the same answer each time, which is strong evidence that the dating methods are accurate.
  
• Another way we know is by looking at DNA, the stuff that makes us us. Here's a triumphant example. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, but our closest relatives, the great apes - chimpanzees, gorillas and orang-utans - all have 24 pairs of chromosomes. This seems to suggest that the ancestor we all share had 24 pairs of chromosomes too (the great apes are not our ancestors - they are our cousins, like our 3 foxes above were cousins). Where did this chromosome go in humans? This would seem to put the theory of evolution in jeopardy, but no! We have mapped and understood all the chromosomes in both chimpanzees and humans and compared them and... what's this?? One of the pairs of chromosomes in humans is exactly the same as 2 of the chimp chromosomes but fused together! We can perfectly see the exact difference and mechanism by which human chromosomes became different from the other great apes - 2 of them joined together into a single chromosome.
• 
  The life on Earth is evidence of evolution itself. We can see the different stages of evolution in different organisms. Take, for instance, the amazingly complex and clever eye. Our eyes are very well developed compared with most animals (save some birds of prey etc). How could such a complex thing have evolved? Well, we have a pretty good idea how, and we can actually see every stage of eye evolution in other organisms. An eye at its most basic is a light sensitive cell. We can find those in nature. Next is a patch of cells in such a shape that can detect direction of light. We can find those too. Next is a hole of cells creating a simple pin-hole. We see those in nature. And then we find the next step up, creatures with a lens. Then animals with a further step, muscles to focus the lens. Each 'stage' of the eye can be found in other animals. We can use this to trace the development of our own eyes.
• 
  The last evidence for evolution I will mention here is observation. Evolution is an ongoing process - everything is still evolving and we can see it evolving. The easiest example is the bacteria and viruses that make us ill. These organisms live, die and reproduce so quickly that they evolve extremely quickly, too. Why do we need to have a new flu vaccination every year? Because the influenza virus evolves. Why do we need to finish a course of anti-biotics if they are prescribed? Because if we only use half of the anti-biotics, we only kill the weakest half of the bacteria making us ill. The strongest half lives on and reproduces even more (because they won't have competition from their weaker brethren). We'd be helping the bacteria to evolve. This experiment is an example of a way that we have actually observed evolution, including a new irreducibly complex adaptation — the ability to digest citric acid.

The mechanism for evolution - natural selection - is simple, logical and effective. The evidence is overwhelming (there is a lot more than what I mentioned above). In fact, there is more evidence for evolution than any other theory in science. Just remember: natural selection, natural selection, natural selection. Random good changes will help an organism have more babies thanks to their environment. Random bad changes will cause an organism to have fewer babies thanks to their environment. Nature naturally selects the best changes! From here it is a numbers game. Things die and things live. The genes of those who live long enough to reproduce are passed on.

There are other mechanisms than natural selection that guide evolution, but they have a much smaller impact.

Now, if you've been raised under creationism, you may have been taught some misleading things. If you have any objections or questions, please ask. I'd be happy to try to answer your questions - I was once a creationist myself and realised that a lot of what the people at my Church told me about evolution was not true.

tl;dr Random changes are naturally selected by non-random factors such as climate. Over millions of years, this produces big changes and a wide variety of species.

SOURCE