evolution vs. creationism: evolution wins

You seem to want some sort of single, detailed evidence of evolution, such as a fly mutating into a separate species of fly. The theory of evolution is not built upon such a singular example - so a species of bacteria becoming two doesn't prove evolution. Piles of data from countless examples do, collectively, support the theory of evolution; a notable example is the matching of the DNA-based "tree of life" to that based upon morphological studies.Perhaps you could give us an example of something you might consider to serve as evidence of evolution? Since you seem to discount all evidence presented to you, perhaps your belief is such that no amount or detail of evidence will ever stand against it. You'd prefer a detailed discussion where everyone agrees? How boring...

Good question. Science generally uses "model organisms" for a variety of fields of study, not just evolution. (Yeast is used to study aspects of cancer biology, for example - even though yeast is not capable of getting cancer.)Think about why someone wouldn't want to study monkey evolution in the lab - not only is cost and space prohibitive, more importantly the generation times are unreasonably long.So you've hit the nail on the head - bacteria are studied in part due to their incredibly short generation times. With bacteria you can study mutation rates over a hundred generations in a work day. With monkeys that many generations would span the lifetimes of several generations of human researchers.So bacteria are used as "models". So the important part of your question is: are bacterial models applicable to the study of mammalian evolution? I would argue "yes", since evolution in both bacteria and mammals relies on the same biological foundation: an imperfectly replicating genetic template. Such as the matching of the DNA- and morphology- based "trees of life"? Again, it seems that you are looking for a singular, detailed piece of evidence that proves evolution. You won't find it, and it is a fallicy to claim it exists, and demand its display.

You can ask for anything you want. Did you have a piece of evidence in mind that you think "proves absolutely, without a shadow of doubt, the germ theory of disease?"It is "just a theory", after all...

I'll say it again - you seem to want a specific, detailed example that "proves" evolution, and seem particularly obsessed with a sea-to-land transitional. Is that all it would take for you to believe evolution to be a valid theory?I don't believe you've responded to the agreement of the morphology- and DNA- based "Trees of Life". That is a heck of a lot more evidence than the presence or absence of a single transitional fossil...

Perhaps you don't understand what is meant by the DNA-based Tree of Life. It is not just that most life uses DNA as a template, or that DNA is "complex", it is that the comparison of sequences across species reiterates the relationship established by morphology. Why would an intelligent designer add the same miscellaneous mistakes/repeats/psuedogenes to similar organisms?I'll use the oft-cited example of the GLO gene, which is mutated and thus non-functional in humans, chimps, guinea pigs, and fruit bats. Perhaps you can explain to me why humans and chimps have an identical broken GLO gene, with a mutation different from that in either guinea pigs or fruit bats.In other words, why did the designer use the same broken building material for humans and chimps, but different broken building material for guinea pigs and fruit bats?More importantly, why is this "intelligent" designer using broken building materials to begin with?

No, they don't. The GLO gene doesn't work at all in humans, chimps, guinea pigs, and fruit bats. Because of the broken GLO gene, an entire metabolic pathway fails, preventing the production of vitamin C.So try again: Why would an intelligent creator put broken pathways in its creations?

xevolutionist - You almost seem to have a problem with how science proceeds, rather than with the theory of evolution itself. You are by far not the first to imply that scientific findings are invalid because they are in a constant state of revision. Instead of seeing revisionism as a weakness, I see it as science's greatest strength - without it science wouldn't exist, and the progress of knowledge would stagnate. Without revisionism we'd likely still believe "Biblical science" - that pi = 3, the Earth is flat, the moon produces its own light, hares are ruminants, and all animals were created in "kinds" that have remain unchanged.It seems you considered yourself an "evolutionist" because you had some ideas about "missing links" in the fossil record - when you found out that there wasn't a specific, single fossil that proved evolutionary theory, you changed your mind and became an "xevolutionist." Or perhaps you rejected evolution when you heard that people were shown to be wrong about certain fossils ("shown" by themselves or other scientists).In any case, you seem obsessed with the fifty-plus year-old coelacanth story, and whether or not the fish "walks" with its fins. If all you want to see is a fish walking on its fins, all you have to do is go to your local pet store and check out the Goby fishes, which generally walk on their fins. The "mudskipper" is in the goby family, and is a fish that leaves the water and walks about and hunts insects on land for fairly lengthy periods of time - it also uses its fins to climb trees. It has a vision system that operates both underwater and in air. Check out how the mudskipper uses its fins to walk, crawl, lift itself up. Its fins even look like legs.Looks like a living "transitional" to me. What do you think?

It is a flaw, be it by design or accident. The species have survived despite the flaw.Separate of the success or failure of a species, you still haven't countered the crux of my argument:Why would an intelligent designer put a broken molecule/pathway in one of its designs?Would an intelligent designer design a building with an intentionally non-functional elevator? or perhaps a car with an intentionally non-functional air conditioning system?See, according to your logic, it doesn't matter that these things are non-functional because the building/car are still usable overall, and thus "successful".However, that doesn't explain why the designer intentionally sabotaged those systems to begin with.

Hopefully you see that you have chosen a piss-poor example, since it was abandoned sixty-or-so-years ago. Doesn't sound like "accepting without question" to me. It is a living transitional that you can probably see at your local mall. I see it as an example of how a transition from aquatic to terrestial life may have occurred. In other words, we know that such a creature can exist, because it does. We don't have to conjure up a mythical beast to describe a fish that spends much of its time, and feeds, on solid ground; nor do we have to rely on fossils to show that such a creature could exist. You seem to hold preconceptions that speciation is an immediate event brought on by a single mutation event. Though it may be in rare cases, it is generally considered to be a much more gradual event, including physical isolation of a population into two groups, with each isolated group accumulating its own set of minor genetic changes until each group is distinct (and generally reproductively incompatible).Hopefully that makes sense - let me know if you have questions.

Not from what I read: Your questions made it quite obvious that you were referring to immediate speciation, since you were talking about offspring being reproductively distinct from their parents, with their only possible mates being their siblings.You know, it is okay if you don't know something. The point of these discussions is to learn, in my opinion. Try not to be so defensive - we're not your enemies. On a simple level, you won't see "observable changes" in the fossil record, because fossils are unchanging static snap-shots. So far it appears that you reject transitionals, so in a sense you are blinding yourself from seeing the "changes." What do you expect to see in the fossil record as "changes" that aren't represented there?An image representing the well-represented/examined horse lineage: Here is the complete website with the interactive form of the picture - you can click on the skulls to get images and more detailed info about the entire skeletal structure.Examine these and see if you can see "observable changes".Also, here's the extensive TalkOrigins site on transitionals,And the EvC thread "Show one complete lineage in evolution".All of these will answer your fossil questions better than I can. Abrupt how? and based on what evidence? You certainly will, since you don't seem to have the basics on evolutionary theory down yet.(You also haven't begun to give a response to the genetic "tree of life" and "broken" gene issues I raised above.)

I guess you haven't looked very "carefully", since the evidence is a few posts above in my last reply to you.Look at the skulls of Equus and Merychippus. You'll find an intermediate form between them, Dinohippus. Lots of other "intermediate forms" on that diagram.There's some evidence for you since you seemed to have missed it the first time.

xevolutionist-Your new quote-mining-based style isn't going to get you very far here.

So?When one species splits into two, one of them doesn't immediately become extinct. Your argument is analogous to claiming that my father can't be my father because he's alive at the same time I am.Again you are revealing your simple misconceptions about how evolution is thought to proceed.

Use evidence instead of others' conclusions, especially conclusions taken out of context. Wait a moment - a few pages ago you were arguing that all scientists blindly support without question any evidence that supports evolutionary theory. Now you state that scientists have different views. Which is it?Your argument seems to be this:
Scientists agree, which makes their conclusions suspect.
Scientists disagree, which makes their conclusions suspect.In other words, you find all scientific conclusions suspect. The quote is taken out of context to imply something the writer did not intend. See loudmouth's explanation of your first quote for an example of why what you did was "quote-mining" and not "quoting". Yes. It is taken out of context to mislead.Quotes should not be used as evidence in a scientific debate anyway, except perhaps to define historical context.

What would you expect a horse precursor to look like? This seems to be your MO. You demand fossil evidence and then ignore or dismiss it when presented to you.You demand to see an "intermediate" fossil. When presented to you, you call it a "subspecies", then again demand to see an "intermediate."