What I wanted to say is this. If you show me a population of pinches, who's beeks change in size and shape depending on the environment and the food they have access to, and say this is descent with modification, then I will readily approve with you.
But if, after having shown me this, you tell me that such a mechanism, extrapolated to vast amounts of time, could turn a pinch into let's say, a horse, then I will not agree with you.
Neither would I, any one familiar with biology or an experts in the field. So you are in good company. :)
If you want to use the former (descent with modification) to prove the latter (dinosaurs are the ancestors of birds, modern apes and humans have a common ancestor, etc.) you will need much more than that.
Ok. How about genetics, fossils and similar morphology...?
This is why it would be interesting to discuss the Lenski experiment, since when I read the article back in 2007, it was actually the very first time that I said to myself: maybe they finally have it, maybe they do have a recorded example of a new trait evolving in a population.
Would bipedal features on a primate be considered a *new* trait...?
We can discuss the Lenski experiment if you want, honestly I'm not that familiar with the specifics, but the fossil record and genetics gives us the evidence we need to show *new* traits.
"I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks
"I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky