Replies

Alas! The topic list of the lines of evidence runs to 29 items. There's too much evidence to describe as simplistically as you'd like.

Well, you could provide the top two or three. You're not suggesting that you have to read the entire link provided to come to a conclusive as to the plausibility of macro-evolution are you?

I scanned the link and saw a few arguments with which I was familiar but nothing that seemed to indicate a slam-dunk debate ender.

I'm not "anti-evolution" in the sense that if evolution should be determined to be true my sensibilities would be offended. I just think we'd be better off treating it with some detached skepticism.

I'm with you. It seems we have two groups arguing extremes with no room for objectivity. I like you did not read all of the tread but from what I have read don't put a whole lot of stock in either sides proclamations.

What puzzles me is why this article was written. It seems to be manifesto of some sort? Then maybe again it was written to stir up the emotions which it seems to have done quite well.

Well, you could provide the top two or three. You're not suggesting that you have to read the entire link provided to come to a conclusive as to the plausibility of macro-evolution are you?

1) The fossil record and geologic column. Call it "faunal succession." I've littered up this thread with figures related to this.
2) Observed instances of speciation. See BMCDA's ring-species posts on this thread just for two examples.
3) Molecular clock evidence (phylogenetic trees that parallel the preexisting morphological ones).
4) The ability of the evolutionary model to explain what we see and predict things we should not see.
5) The lack of any other model with even a pretense of real information content or usefulness as a framework.

Now ask me what the heck I mean by that and where's the proof etc. etc. That link I gave you is the concise summary, really. Those 29 items are separate lines, not individual items, of evidence for evolution.