[Californiajones]

But none of these changes indicate a complete cross species leap or evolution.


Time should NOT be the errant element of proving a chemical DNA process of evolution.

If evolution is indeed a innate scientific process, it's formula should be definable and demonstrable in everyday experiments.

But -- it's not. Because -- it's bunk.

One would think with all the time scientists have had in the last one hunded and fifty years, there would be some demonstrable table or formula or easy to understand lab experiment demonstrating this creative chemical process labeled evolution.

[js1138]

If evolution is indeed a innate scientific process, it's formula should be definable and demonstrable in everyday experiments.

What phenomenon required by evolution has not been observed?

[BeHoldAPaleHorse]

"But none of these changes indicate a complete cross species leap or evolution."

Actually, they do, thank you very much. You may not like the scientific definition of "species," but that is the one used, not your own preference.

"Time should NOT be the errant element of proving a chemical DNA process of evolution."

If I understand this vaguely-worded objection correctly, you are saying that evolutionary events involving billions of gene pairs should occur instantaneously.

Pardon me while I laugh myself silly...there, I'm done.

"If evolution is indeed a innate scientific process, it's formula should be definable and demonstrable in everyday experiments."

You are, once again, frequently-repeated erroring.