46% of Americans believe in Creationism

[Final-Fan]

OooSnap said:

Final-Fan said:

No, we cannot reasonably reproduce the evolution from non-flying animals to flying ones in laboratory setttings. 
Yes, scientists haveprduced observational evidence of fossils of creatures sequentially evolving to be more capable of flying. 

Evolutionary science doesn't have lower standards, it's just that you are so opposed to what that science is reporting that you view it with not only much more skepticism and attention to potential weak points but also with great eagerness to accept whatever criticism is offered even if the criticism is weak. 

The reason Dawkins said that we haven't observed it while it's happening is that an individual doesn't evolve.  Over time, the individuals in the species evolve to become physically different than what they used to be.  But this happens from generation to generation so you can't "see" them changing.  The difference in a single generation of individuals would probably be impossible to detect compared to the normal deviation of individuals within a species.  For instance, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that humans are evolving to be taller.  Well, there is still a great deal of variation within humanity as far as how tall people are, so if one generation was on average 1/5th of an inch taller than the older one, that wouldn't really be apparent. 

It's not that we don't see evolution because of how long it takes.  We don't see it because you literally can't see that evolution is happening.  You can only see that it has happened. 

I know scientists can't reproduce macroevolution. That's why it isn't hard science because of lack of observational data.
There are no transitional fossils according to scientists:
Yep, still a fruitfly, albeit a weaker kind.
Evolution - the story that you evolved from goo and evolved to you by the way of the zoo, doesn't hold up under the scientific method.Hit me up when real, hard scientific evidence is produced. I'm willing to look at it with an open mind.

1.  We can argue about the validity of the fossil record, but first:  ASIDE from the question of the validity/completeness/whatever of the fossil record, will you admit that fossils count as "observational evidence" since we are observing (the remains of) creatures that have lived and can make inferences about them based on where they were found in the various strata? 

2.  That statement is obviously wrong.  As for what you meant to say, that there are SOME scientists that claim there aren't any T-fossils (for short), I can tell that in many of those quotes that assertion is complete insanity—there is no possible interpretation a sane person could make that the quoted person believes T-fossils don't exist.  In many others, I can see that they are merely saying that due to the AGE of the certain fossils in question it is unsurprising that we have very incomplete records.  (And also, for many early animals, their bodies were very hard to fossilize well in the first place compared to later animals.)  Due to your incredible quote dumping I certainly don't have the time or inclination to do your job for you and sift through the obvious garbage to see if any of these people were actually claiming T-fossils don't exist. 

3.  If scientists make fruit flies evolve in response to artificial laboratory environments, it's not surprising that they would tend to revert to their normal state when removed from that environment, because their "normal state" is what they've evolved into to be well adapted to the environment they're being returned to.  As for a lot of the mutations being detrimental, that's a stupid objection.  Nature breaks a LOT of eggs to make its omelets. 

4.  You're very fond of that catchphrase, judging by how many times you've repeated it, but it doesn't constitute any kind of evidence or argument, and I think you're the only one in this thread who is susceptible to its emotional appeal.  You are simply turning a blind eye to the stupendous amount of evidence in the scientific body.  For one thing, there are entire branches of biological science that would just not even work if the basic idea of evolution was wrong; the fact that science is able to proceed down those roads is proof that scientists have got at least the broad concept close to right, even if they aren't 100% sure of the exact processes.