" Sure. Put a stake off Cape Cod, check back in a couple million years, and measure the drift with a tape measure. : )"
You are sorely confused. For example, the continental drift is measurable at about one inch per year for the Atlantic Ocean.
"I understood your objection to be the lack of eyewitnesses to long-durational speciation events, i.e., no one was there to "see" it, so there's no proof it happened."
The experiements that can be re-created show the classical scientific process -- these are duplicatable, verifiable, and falsifiable. Outside of these experiments Evolution can make suppositions but no real theoretical assertions. IOW, if someone claims that two animals have a common ancestor because of similarities, this is merely a supposition, not a statement of provable fact.
"To the extent this is, in fact, your objection, it's groundless. There's a whole lot of science that is premised on inference from circumstantial evidence (and a whole lot of criminals in jail based on the same inferential process)."
Interesting. I thought we were dealing with cold, hard, provable science. Now I realize by your admission that the Evos are not scientists, they are actually detectives. The rule of law has a much lower standard for declaring something as fact than science (at least science used to have a higher standard until it was co-opted). Law never requires proof which is repeatable and able to be falsified.
The existance of neutrinos, etc are not theories, they are predictions of a theory. Evolution also makes predictions which can be tested, and which are repeatable and falsifiable. All scientific theories, historical or not, including evolution, are based on observations and then formulating theories to explain those observations. Theories are not provable, certainly not in an absolute sense of the word. In fact I would say that the term "scientific proof" in reference to theories is kind of misleading.
Interesting. I thought we were dealing with cold, hard, provable science. Now I realize by your admission that the Evos are not scientists, they are actually detectives
The past existance of the dinosaurs is based on "inference from circumstantial evidence". Is that not science?
That was a joke. Hence that stupid little smiley face. And what you are referring to is clearly micro-drift. Where's the proof of this supposed macro-drift that happened over millions of years? Who was there to see that? Where are the eyewitnesses? : ) (see, there it is again)
Interesting. I thought we were dealing with cold, hard, provable science. Now I realize by your admission that the Evos are not scientists, they are actually detectives.
Heaven help us! Scientists making observations? Doing field research? Discerning patterns and making inferences? Acting like detectives? How dare they do that. Why, we all know that scientists wear white smocks and do experiments in laboratories . . . on stuff . . . with bunsen burners.
Similarities in DNA prove common ancestry. Ask any family court judge.
What happens when the genomes are analyzed and there are common errors in the DNA (pseudogenes, ERVs, etc - things that don't code for proteins)?
What happens when a few thousand of these genomic errors are analyzed, and the two organisms are seen to fit into a tree structure with other organisms on this basis, which just happens to match the tree structure based on the other similarities?
At some point, it seems silly to deny the common descent. Especially after it has been used to make true predictions.