Evolution Theory - please show the proofs

[NoGodaloud ?]

---

F. Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (Ticknor & Fields, New Haven & New York, 1982), p. 90.

The problem for Darwinians is in trying to find an explanation for the immense number of adaptations and mutations needed to change a small and primitive earthbound mammal, living alongside and dominated by dinosaurs, into a huge animal with a body uniquely shaped so as to be able to swim deep in the oceans, a vast environment previously unknown to mammals . . . all this had to evolve in at most five to ten million years—about the same time as the relatively trivial evolution of the first upright walking apes into ourselves.

I'm amused by how you think 'evolution changed more for some than others is wierd' is the same thing is 'evolution doesn't happen.' Your idea is wrong, but interesting.

Evolutionist M. Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Adler & Adler, 1985), p. 174.

". . . we must suppose the existence of innumerable collateral branches leading to many unknown types . . . one is inclined to think in terms of possibly hundreds, even thousands of transitional species on the most direct path between a hypothetical land ancestor and the common ancestor of modern whales . . . we are forced to admit with Darwin that in terms of gradual evolution, considering all the collateral branches that must have existed in the crossing of such gaps, the number of transitional species must have been inconceivably great.

Indeed it was inconcievabily great. I find it interesting that you think that because evolutionists find the task of finding all these transitional species to be daunting. We've found them in far greater numbers adn variety than we ever imagined, but it's interesting that you think that.

Compton's Interactive Encyclopedia (1996)

"Presumably, various physiological mechanisms for handling oxygen debt and lactic acid buildup, as well as the development of blubber for fat storage and for temperature regulation, evolved early, though evidence of the evolutionary history is unavailable."

Indeed it isn't. You can't find fossils with preserved fat. That's why dinosaur body temperature regulation is still a debate issue among archeologists.

Though you've provided interesting quotes, none of them disprove or even make more unlikely the concept of 'macroevolution' as you call it.

i perfectly agree with you. But i have brought this up as answer and challenge to TheDarkestOfAngels , which asserts, the theory of evolution, aka the assertion of common ancestry, is a proven fact. So he has here the platform to present the proofs, he asserts he has.

---

I certainly have. It's certainly easily provable... assuming I don't have to personally demonstrate it, not being a biologist and all, but despite the fact that I've linked several papers on studies doen by actual people working in this field and yet you've come to this conclusion, I can only assume that no proof is going to be good enough.

TheDarkestOfAngels Wrote:
MIT: No Easy Answers for the Evolution of Human Speech

ok. lets start with this paper. Please quote the part of the paper, which convinced you and gave you unquestionable proof, human speech was due and arose through gradual evolution.

and remember : any answer with explanations like " might be ", " probably ", " guess ", " its supposed " do not consist in proofs, but in guesswork.

will you accept the challenge, or not ??