Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[Esquilax]

Feel free to support that.

Easy. Very easy.

Maybe, maybe not.

"Nuh uh," isn't an answer, especially when we're talking about natural selection, which is easily observable.

First, I said I don't accept macroevolution because I haven't seen compelling scientific evidence. This isn't compelling scientific evidence.

So now we're moving the goalposts? I'm making the case that micro and macro aren't meaningful divisions to draw, and you're just going back to macro crap like I'm supposed to give a damn?

Second, you give a straight-line scenario, yet below acknowledge that changes don't go solidly in one direction.

Whether they go in one direction or regress back, the changes still occur, and more importantly, some changes do go solidly in one direction, while at the same time branching out into numerous other potential forms, as demonstrated by fossil and genetic evidence all over the place. It would literally take up more space than the character limit on this window for me to go through it all, but the fact that you're still insisting that there's no evidence, while demonstrating a clear lack of understanding of the subject, just goes to prove my initial point in the OP.

It's not my problem that you don't really understand how evolution and natural selection work, and that your only argument back is "it doesn't work that way in every case." Well, shit, we already knew that. But it works that way in so many cases that to pick out the few (or better yet, to fantasize about abstractions of cases so as to avoid doing even that much work) is simply ridiculous.