Is evolution based on empirical science?

[Paul]

huaxiong90 said:

Paul said:
These threads are such a waste of time. If someone can't be bothered to go through the vast amounts of research that has been done or is too dull to comprehend what it means, a few paragraphs in a video game forum definitely won't convince them.

"and as far me not supporting a theory without concrete evidence even though the scientific community says otherwise? That's a completely different story, and one best kept to myself."

It's absolutely pointless arguing with the above. It's like arguing with a 4 year old with his fingers in his ears.

You're missing my point...I was saying I support microevolution, but am not fully convinced about macroevolution. I've been told that I'm misunderstanding it, so I'm asking for it to be clarified.

But whatever you say...

There are many books on the subject written by experts in the field, written at a level where dullards like you and I can understand them. If those books don't convince you, you can enroll in the biology department at your local univesity. If you still aren't convinced after that you're a dullard.

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne is pretty good. You can start with that.

The example you're looking for would be how an ancient land animal (probably something that would look closest to a modern day hippo)  evolved over millions of years into whales. Whales actually have underformed leg bones that aren't connected to the rest of their skelleton, quite interesting.