Evolution, religion, and ignorance.

[John V]

Perhaps. But there's still enough evidence to point to this being an evolutionary change that's still in progress, rather than something these skinks just do.

These skinks are only evidence of evolution if you've already bought into evolution. That two things are different does not imply that one changed into the other. You assume that.

No, it doesn't. Like I've said before, you'll find scientists that disagree with pretty much any scientific concept, the idea that any field has unanimity vastly misunderstands how human beings work.

And you would be wrong to then present such concepts as givens.

But as I've said before, if these scientists believe that macroevolution works on a different set of mechanisms to microevolution, or if they think that there's some line preventing micro changes from accumulating, then they are making positive claims that require evidence.

Again, argument from ignorance. If you think microevolution has accumulated to the point of macroevolution, that's a positive claim that requires evidence, evidence which you're loath to provide.

Well, actually, even if you had 1+1-1, you would still have gone somewhere and then come back, so it's not like there would be no indication that anything had happened.

I didn't say that nothing happened. I agree that evolution, by one definition, has occurred in this situation. Whoop-dee-do.

That quibble aside, you just keep showing that you aren't getting this; I'm not "talking out of both sides of my mouth," I'm being intellectually honest. Yes, there are some cases in which a trait evolves, and then regresses, so that no change overall occurs. Are you now saying that this happens in every case? What mechanism can you propose that makes this happen?

Again with the argument from ignorance. Come on, another evolutionist even called you out on this.