Replies

Rather it is found in 200 years of painstaking research by tens of thousands of biologists and geologists, and their cumulative publications. If you have a case to present, it will need to be sufficient to overthrow nearly all of physics, chemistry, geology biology, and astronomy -- or it will at least have to present a mathematically self-consistent alternative to all those sciences. You really can't single out evolution as the bad guy without taking on all of science.

And that is utterly absurd and without foundation. Evolution is not science. It has been related as science in a guilt by association method; but, it is not science. And you can't offer a best case of "cumulative proof" when you don't have anything to point to as a proof to begin with. The only thing you have is opinion attached to evidences which cannot confirm evolution. What is observeable is as useful as what is not observeable in proving evolution a lie, and that is it's core reliance on what you call speciation - speciation isn't happening in the manner you describe it nor is there evolution being witnessed today. In at least the last 3000 years, no one has ever witnessed a chimp giving birth to a human being or anything similar. Argument sunk.. period. That sort of change has to be falsifiable. You can't do that with dead bones and no witness to the event. Not possible.

... no one has ever witnessed a chimp giving birth to a human being or anything similar.

I retire from the debate and never post on this topic again if you can show me a professional, juried publication in which a respected scientist has predicted such an event or suggested such and event has happened in the history of the earth. This may sound unfair, but I have to limit this offer to publications from the past hundred years. I rather doubt that you could find such a statement in the writings of Darwin. Only a complete idiot would suggest that such a thing was part of evolutionary theory.