Here's why Creatards might be right

[jenny1972]

well im not a scientist they are its not my job to conduct testing or come up with scientific proof . im not arguing against evolution im arguing against your claim that evolution has been tested and documented

---

yes the current process can be documented and tested and so we can be 100% sure about current evolution that has been documented

But that's just it; we can look at the puzzle of the DNA code and see into the past, because we know each generation had to inherit the code from the previous ones. We know which sites are not altered by Natural Selection pressure or recombination, so we can look for those sites and keep track of the changes. We call them "markers". By reassembling the slow process of change in the markers, we can "back-build" the tree of interrelationships. It's how we did the National Genographic Project, figuring out the migrations of every person throughout ancient pre-history, based on our mtDNA. Just looking at the "scars" left over from ancient viral infections, which got deleted but preserved in the junk-DNA (spaces between parts that actually do stuff) and passed down to each set of offspring down to the present day, we can tell that we are the cousins of chimpanzees; we share a common ancestor with them. We can use the same method to prove we and they (closely related to one another) are slightly more distantly related to gorillas. And so on.

We can also compare our results from this method to other methods we had used prior to 1985, when scanning DNA sequences really became possible. We have dozens of inter-woven threads of evidence, each of which would destroy our picture of the past if it did not back-up and verify the other threads. NONE OF THESE WOULD AGREE WITH EACH OTHER if any of them were wrong.

We can use those methods to confirm that the processes we observe today are the same ones that have always been going on. We can know this from visual observations (same stuff found in same layers, worldwide), from comparative testing/analysis of what we do find, and from chemical testing (including DNA, proteins, and other fun stuff in our cells). All of these methods must agree, in a field where disproving your fellow scientists not only wins you fame, but is the basic definition of what science is: peer-review means tearing down the other guy's ideas, if you can, explaining why he was wrong, and possibly setting out better methods of testing/analysis.

The short version is, we do know what happened in the past, because we see evidence of it, and we know that it worked then the same way it works now because that's what the fossil record and every other method of testing we have shows. Again, we don't need a time machine to know what happened because things that happen, especially things that happen all across the planet for billions of years, leave evidence that they happened, and we can put those puzzle pieces together.

yes its based on interpretation of the things that are available to scientists

---

and didnt you put me on your ignore list ?

He can't see you, Jenny, but he can see (like here) where people reply to you.

oh so its best to just ignore his comments then since he really isnt following the conversation