Most convincing evidence for evolutionary theory

sorry, just had to. You do realize, of course, that a huge chunk of research is about gathering evidence, right? In other words, you're asking us to "evidence" something before gathering the evidence to do the "evidencing". Talk about a contradiction.The other thing: Um, what? To begin with, the ToE describes what we see on Earth (as to the observed change in species over time, that is). And evolution itself is a fact--we witness species changing over time. The Theory merely explains how those changes happen. If you'll notice, it has nothing to do with "micro" or "macro" evolution.Essentially, what you're asking is nonsense. That, or is stemming from ignorance.And you'll notice that a lot of people in physics are discussing potential phenomenons that we're not entirely sure are right (one of the board physicists can correct me where necessary). So the ability to discuss phenomenon has no relation to whether or not it exists in reality. Actually, I'm an evolutionist who has admitted he is wrong where I am wrong. And if there is something wrong in the ToE that's found out, you can bet that most evolutionists, upon analyzing the evidence and discovering that yes, indeed, the ToE is wrong or incomplete, we'll admit it. That is, after all, how science progresses. If no one in the sciences ever admitted that something was incorrect, it's likely we might still think the solar system (and the universe) revolves around the sun, that the tectonic plates don't move, that ether does exist, that lamarkian evolution is true, that the earth is 6,000ish years old, you get the idea.Oh, and I swear this is the last thing. You have another contradiction: bolding mine So, in other words, you're saying that most important part of evidencing Evolution comes from the conclusions drawn from the minute research conducted, right? That's in total contradiction to the manipulative and unsustained premises for evidencing claims. As I said earlier, research is largely about collecting evidence.And since when did the Taliban have a monopoly on dogma? I hope I don't have to remind you that every religion has its own dogma. And the accusation of a "Talibinic dogma" is very close to the fallacious agurmentum ad Nazium (an attack on the other side in a debate by linking them to Nazism). All you've done is changed the bogey-man from Nazism and Hitler to the Taliban. Good job. With this fallacy, you're whole argument is out. In another thread, you were claiming to teach us about logic. If you're so good at logic, you'll see why this fallacy and your other contradictions invalidate your argument.

Rob, we already have one person in this thread spouting nonsense. Please don't add to the noise. Um, what!? Look at the definition of evolution, not the ToE. Evolution is the change in species over time. You have basically said that species changing over time is not equal to species over time. Now I see what happened. You've confused the theory for the fact, yet again. That, and you still have no clue what either the fact or theory is. The theory of evolution is intended to explain how and why species change over time.This is basic stuff Rob, even for you. You've been here long enough to have actually learned what the theory is and what it states and what it's for and to what the fact is. By the way, I don't. I call evolution the change in species over time. Try not to put words in my mouth. I know it may be difficult, but try not to.I'm not even going to begin going into the whole subject of abiogenesis and evolution being mixed into one by you again.And one last thing--I thought you were gone for good (for what, the third time now?)