Greatest scientific evidence for evolution?

[thanny]

Final-Fan said:
This ... this is such massive fail ... I'm too tired to be as detailed as Rath, I'll probably come back in the morning ... unless I smarten up and decide not to even try.

Sneak peek:
"There is actually six different kinds of evolution. You will hear people refer to evolution when they talk about the origin of the universe (cosmic evolution i.e. the big bang). There is also chemical evolution (every element evolving from hydrogen. all i have to say about this one is WTF). Stellar evolution. A lot of scientists think they know how stars have formed. This is questionable as it has never been observed. And then there is biological evolution (abiogenesis). All of these along with macro evolution have never been observed, whereas micro evolution has."

1. "Chemical evolution" I believe you're referring to the idea that all of the elements in the Earth -- silicon, iron, gold, etc. -- were created by fusion in the stars from what started out as hydrogen. Hydrogen became helium, etc. Do you know that this is the same process as what happens in what is referred to as a "hydrogen bomb" AKA "H-bomb"? Hiroshima was nuked by a fission bomb but we created fusion bombs after a while and tested them; I believe Bikini Atoll is famous for such a test.

IF FUSION WAS BULLSHIT, as you clearly believe, THEN THE BOMB WOULDN'T HAVE WORKED right -- no?

2. If by abiogenesis you mean the chemical process that (*sigh* allegedly) became self-replicating, evolving, etc., I don't think the part where it STARTED could really be called "evolution" instead of "a chemical reaction".

I dont think anyone is denying that fusion is an actual process... obviously fusion is fact. Its happening in stars constantly; proton-proton chain fusing and He fusing. Natural fusion reactions in stars can only, however, produce up to element 26 (Fe). and yet elements naturally occuring goes up to 92 (U).