John 10:10 writes:
Seriously, Parasomnium, you should know better than to propose this. If you don't bother to recognize that the time span needed to prove the ToE disqualifies it from ever becoming a scientific law, why should I bother talking to you?
And this from someone who takes his definitions from a site that specifically lists misconceptions about science. I saw that upthread and it utterly, utterly staggered me. Even Kent Hovind has never produced such a gaffe. You are truly exceptional, John. And it would be a misconception to take that as a compliment. I'll repeat the word for you, in case you miss it (again): MISCONCEPTION.
To the point: the only reason I mentioned the enormous time span involved is because you said you want to be shown the real process from beginning to end. The only way to achieve that is to sit it out for a couple of billions of years, because that's roughly how long it took from single-celled organisms to something like a man. I wanted you to realise the absurdity of what you asked. But apparently it went over your head.
The time span is by no means needed to "prove" the fact of evolution. For the same reason that we don't have to recreate a murder in a lab to get a suspect convicted, we don't have to recreate evolution in a lab to show it's true. Just like a criminal investigation involves many different kinds of evidence to indict the suspect, there are many lines of investigation to support evolution too. The phylogenetic tree, genome sequencing and comparison, radiometric dating, are just a few of the possibilities.
Just take some time to read a few good textbooks on science, and do some studying of your own. The Bible isn't the only interesting book, you know.
Edited by Parasomnium, : No reason given.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
™ Version 4.2