Seriously? But you think a bunch of single cell animals became fish and birds and every other type of animals. Where is the evidence? One day there were nothing but single cell animals and millions of years later there were other animals. So they must have evolved because no one can think of any other way. Is that proof?
The evidence -- not proof --is in the fossils, in the genetic codes, in the observation of the mechanisms described by the ToE.
Evolution would be the expected result of the observed mechanisms we see in nature.
We know Earth once had no life. We know it later had simple life, and later still, more complex life. The ToE is the best explanation of how this came about. It is, in fact, the only reasonable explanation anyone has thought of.
You're skeptical -- why? Personal incredulity? You expect to see evolution happen before your eyes? What reasonable alternative theory do you have?.
How many times have I dismissed your empty rhetoric as unsubstantiated nonsense? I only deliberately ignore your posts when you dish up the same excuses....none of which address anything I have said with real evidence.
You choose to ignore the evidence. Substantial evidence. Please explain why you find evolution incredible, when everyone who understands it finds it credible?
You could have fooled me....science likes to state all its opinions as if they were proven facts that cannot be contested....gathering and testing data, can never address science's first premise, for which it has absolutely nothing to back up its assertions.
Science contests its own assertions. That's part of the scientific process. Science doesn't claim to prove anything. Every scientific theory is provisional. You don't seem to see this. Nobody's more skeptical than the scientists themselves.
Stating that something "might have" happened is not the same as stating that something "must have" happened because science says so....what arrogance!
Science asserts something happened when there's clear evidence that it did happen. Ignore the evidence if you will, but it doesn't remove the evidence or the conclusions derived from it. How is following the evidence arrogance?
Science is not my god or my religion.
It's nobody's god or religion. It's an investigational modality, nothing more.
Apparently it challenges your faith, and you feel the best defense is a good offense. Reasonable, since you have no alternative theories or evidence thereof. But your criticisms and challenges are baseless, and indicate you don't understand either science or the specifics of the ToE.
It will still be a movie screen, no matter what color it ended up....do you understand that? There is absolutely no real substantiated evidence for evolution of the 'macro' kind. Hiding behind adaptation like it explains the process is nonsense because every single "repeatedly tested" experiment ever undertaken by scientists never took any creature outside of its taxonomy.
Deny it all you want. It's still there, for all to see. Change happens. It may be fast or slow, but it has been observed. The observed changes come about by the mechanisms described by the ToE.
What change, in your estimation, would constitute a change of kind? Why would such changes be any different from a change of fur density?
This is where we get the whole ridiculous "whale evolution" scenario by suggesting that the four legged furry creature Pakicetus was actually a "whale", because you could not call him anything else...otherwise your chain of evolution snaps and falls in a heap.
What do you notice about this graph? Do the math and tell me why the whales that we see today have basically remained unaltered for 34 million years...whilst the others morphed spectacularly in just a few million years?
If a design works, why would it change?
Species change when there is a
need to change, or an unutilized opportunity. 34M years is nothing. There are species that haven't needed to change for
billions of years. If it ain't broke, nature doesn't fix it.
What do you see regarding the lines representing "common ancestors" that go back 65 million years? Not one of them is identified......they "must have" existed because evolution cannot stand if they don't.
So you think someone made up the fossils; that they don't actually exist? What would constitute "identification?" A name? They have names.
As for common ancestors, I don't understand what you're getting at. Clarify?
So where are they? There must be countless millions of them that supposedly were responsible for branching out to become every species of creature on this earth......so where are they? How could they all be missing?
They're missing because fossilization is a rare event, and what fossils there are are not easy to find. We don't need to see every single footprint to follow the tracks.
The song and dance is not nearly so entertaining as the scientists having to resort to insults instead of evidence.
What insults? Declaring ignorance ignorance is not an insult, it's statement of fact. As for evidence, science operates on nothing but evidence. Do you think scientists are just puling their conclusions out of their hats?
By stating that I have no concrete evidence to support my assertions, don't you have to wonder why you have have none either?
But science does. Science can't go anywhere without evidence.
If science can virtually kill God, then it must have the goods....so far I haven't seen anything but educated guesses about what "might have" happened all those millions of years ago.
Kill God? Where are you getting this? Is it because the scientific conclusions contradict your theology? Which is better evidenced?
Deny the evidence all you want, but it's still there. The "educated guesses" are still evidenced, and are still put out there for criticism by others. Science actively attempts to disprove its own conclusions. It's part of the process. It yields more robust conclusions.
Religion, on the other hand, is based on questionable evidence, at best. Untested evidence. Evidence that's contested by other theologies, with equal supporting evidence.
Who turned "might have" into "must have" I wonder?
God is not dead to those of us who see through the smoke and mirrors.
What does God have to do with this? Are you proposing divine magic as a reasonable explanation? Unevidenced magic?
They might accumulate some traits different from their cousins on other continents, but they will never become something else.
You keep declaring this, but how do you come to your conclusions? Why would endless change over time not accumulate into significant change?
Darwin did not see any change in species, just adaptations in the same creatures he knew from the mainland. None were becoming something else.
How many adaptations does it take to create a new species? What would constitute a new species, in your opinion?
They will still be moths....and there may be more varieties...but they will all still be moths. None of them will have morphed into some other creature with invisible "common ancestors".
Again, you assert this, but why could endless small changes never accumulate into something significantly different from the original?
Ah...this old recurring chestnut.....creation taken over eons of time is not "magic"...it never was. The Creator is the inventor and producer of the materials he used for the living creatures he created. He fashioned them deliberately and thoughtfully to co-exist in perfect harmony with the habitats he created before they were even here.....well prepared in advance to receive them with food supply and water supply...along with all the mechanisms required for reproducing their "kind"......inbuilt genetic roadblocks would prevent one "kind" from wanting to mate with another....each instinctively knew who was a suitable mate. These creatures all came fully programmed to do as they were created to do. Instinct has never been fully explained by science, has it? How is it possible to be born with an inbuilt "program"...without a programmer?
Please demonstrate the mechanisms the creator used to achieve this. Magic is lack of mechanism.
Yet again, a lot of assertions, but no support for them. Why do you believe these things? Why can we not see the evidence that led to these claims?
Inbuilt programs and instincts, like anatomy or physiology, are adaptive. They're selected for, by the same mechanisms long hair or color are selected for.
You're mystified by the mechanisms of evolution, so you declare them absurd. You're arguing from personal incredulity.