[Tribune7]

The animal equivalent would be to catch an animal and observe it in a zoo - that'll tell you all about what this animal is like, but it doesn't tell you where it came from, what caused this animal to come to be.

No, the animal equivalent would be to observe how the chemical compound DNA reacts to particular stimula, find that this causes the code to direct the one-celled creatures to become multi-celled ones, then extrapolate that to all biology.

Now, the evidence for evolution usually presented on these threads is the fossil record, the recognition that some life is more akin to other life (phylogenic tree), and the observation of natural mutations.

Why would one be satisfied with these?

[js1138]

No, the animal equivalent would be to observe how the chemical compound DNA reacts to particular stimula, find that this causes the code to direct the one-celled creatures to become multi-celled ones, then extrapolate that to all biology.

This simply makes no sense.

[general_re]

Not at all - simply observing current spectra doesn't tell you what the star was like yesterday, and it certainly doesn't tell you where it came from, so your analogy is bad from the start.

Now, the evidence for evolution usually presented on these threads is the fossil record, the recognition that some life is more akin to other life (phylogenic tree), and the observation of natural mutations.

Why would one be satisfied with these?

You tell me. What evidence would you consider compelling? What would it take to convince you that evolution is a fact?