Replies

I have been looking for all this evidence.

Not very hard. Instead of demanding to be spoon fed, you could actually visit your local university library, and you could peruse the approximately 93,000 journal articles available here. It takes time and effort to learn the specifics of evolutionary biology. I know, I know. It really should be as easy as watching TV. But it's not.

If macro evolution were true, the proofs would be more readily apparent.

Adaptations within species are extrapolated as a basis for assuming one species can become another.

At least not until the recent dumbing down of the definition of “species”.

The idea that mutations have occurred and prevailed in any given species, at the same time, in sufficient numbers to sustain the mutation, and have that trait become dominant, and result in a new species, is as ridiculous as the number of commas and conditions in this sentence.

Not very hard. Instead of demanding to be spoon fed, you could actually visit your local university library, and you could peruse the approximately 93,000 journal articles available here. It takes time and effort to learn the specifics of evolutionary biology. I know, I know. It really should be as easy as watching TV. But it's not.

I didn't have to read 93,000 articles in order to learn about all the other sciences I've dabbled in. This one's a special case, I'm telling you! :-)

But I'm seeing a theme here. I ask for the best evidence -- and people keep responding with lists of thousands of hits. Why not just provide me with a good one? Or do I have to read thousands of articles and make it my life's work to learn evolutionary biology in order to see the evidence? What constitutes trying hard enough? Are only those who devote their life to studying it able to ever learn enough to see these solid mountains of evidence?

I've got to be real here. After enough of this same thing -- being referred to 93 thousand articles when one good one would get me started -- it's only logical for me to wonder if the evidence really doesn't stand on its own too well, so inquirers should be thrown thousands of pages which they cannot possible read entirely, in an effort to frustrate them till they give up and go away.

Is there a particular article in there I should read in order to understand? or do I have to read them all? What does constitute trying hard enough?

Thanks,

-Jesse

and you could peruse the approximately 93,000 journal articles available here

I searched a bit on the nice government website you gave me a link for. Found some interesting things. It almost looks like evolution is a religion -- a government approved religion!

The search word you provided me gave 93000 articles allegedly supporting evolution. But I searched for "Intelligent Design" and found a few interesting ones. Titles that one wouldn't expect on a scientific government site. Like, for example the title Don’t be stupid about intelligent design Amazing! or perhaps this one: Defending science education against intelligent design: a call to action Wow! A call to action? That doesn't sound very scientific.

So does all the research and evidence point to evolution being true, or does all the government research money point to evolution being true? Thousands of pro-evolution research articles are government funded, including intelligent design bashing articles.

How much government money needs to be thrown behind a theory before it's hard to tell whether the theory lives on the evidence or lives on the government funding?

I can see that such a website as I've linked to above is much more a propaganda mill rather then a scientific research resource.

-Jesse