[BrandtMichaels]

OK - read your link re: About 29 lines of evidence agree. Sorry, but I still dis-agree.

That basically proved to me that talking with an EVO is not much different that reading more of their 'conclusions.' Simply and continually jumping to conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence.

Basically I'm left with "how can (macro) evolution be considered a fact (?) when no one can explain how it works!!!" Where's the empirical evidence?

Also are you in any way linked with the Wesayso corp.? /sarc/

[2nsdammit]

There are none so blind....

I'm astonished that people can continue to be presented with mountains of evidence, and keep right on saying "Evidence? I don't see any evidence!". It takes a special kind of mindset to remain that militantly ignorant....

[VadeRetro]

Doesn't it get a little silly to thump your chest and call ever-so-earnestly for evidence when the gimmick is that evidence couldn't be shot into your head on a notched bullet? Wouldn't it have been more honest up front to just announce, "I don't accept evidence I don't like?"

Simply and continually jumping to conclusions that are not supported by scientific evidence.

I gave you probably the best available summary of the evidence. You'd better hope no one else read it. Much of it cannot credibly be spun as "common design."

We see the forensic trail in the molecules. The ERV stuff is particularly hard to call "design."

We see the forensic trail in modern species, including ring species. We see it in the fossil record.

But here, maybe a different compilation: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1437264/posts?page=52#52.