"Best" evidence for evolution.

To add one more log on the fire, I would add conservation of exons and divergence of introns to the list. Francis Collins (the guy who headed the NIH Human Genome Project) wrote and excellent essay called "Faith and the Human Genome" (found here). In it (pg 148) he talks about a gene that is conserved across quite a few vertebrates, from puffer fish to humans. He shows how areas of the exons are conserved while meaningless introns become much different through the accumulation of neutral mutations. To me, this is very compelling, especially in the Evolution v. Creationism forums. Why? Well, why would a creator change introns so that they exactly match evolutionary predictions? Why not just copy the introns exactly from one species to the next?

The IC argument was dealt the death blow before Behe was even born. This is a quote from 1918:"Most present day animals are the result of a long process of evolution, in which at least thousands of mutations must have taken place. Each new mutant in turn must have derived its survival value from the effect which it produced upon the "reaction system" that had been brought into being by the many previously formed factors in cooperation; thus a complicated machine was gradually built up whose effective working was dependent upon the interlocking action of very numerous elementary parts or factors, and many of the characters are factors which, when new, where originally merely an asset finally become necessary because other necessary characters and factors had subsequently become changed so as to be dependent on the former. It must result, in consequence, that a dropping out of, or even a slight change in any one of these parts is very likely to disturb fatally the whole machinery; ..."--"Genetic Variablity, Twin Hybrids and Constant Hybrids, in a Case of Balanced Lethal Factors", by Hermann J Muller, in Genetics, Vol 3, No 5, Sept 1918, pp 422-499.The ironic twist is that we should actually expect to see IC systems if evolution is true.

I avoided them in college, too. I went for a degree in zoology so I wouldn't have to take a botany class. With that said . . .We often focus on mammalian examples of human breeding programs, such as dogs. However, our cultivars are pretty impressive examples of evolution as well. One of the most impressive is teosinte, the wild version of corn. If you were to run across it in the wild you might mistake it for a wierd looking grass with a wheat-like head. Not so. The evolutio of teosinte into modern corn varieties is a very good story.

Then show me a single difference between the chimp and human genomes that could not have been accomplished by microevolution from a common ancestor. See above.

Every creature is born with DNA not found in either parent due to germline mutations. This has been directly observed. For example, we have observed that humans are born with between 50 and 100 substitution mutations.So what stops this process? If each person is born with mutations, what would stop them from accumulating over many generations? If it changes expression, then it has gone beyond the parameters.

It is normal for mutations to accumulate in every generation. You are saying that you can take one step, but you can't repeat the same exact process to walk across the house or down to the store. That makes no sense.Do you agree that mutations happen in every generation?