Evolution Theory - please show the proofs

[NoGodaloud ?]

Do you speak dolphin? No? Then how do you know how well they can communicate?

because they cannot accomplish, what we can.

Of course, you have the scale on which you rate 'quality.' Can you make a sound underwater that can be heard by humans for miles? I would say that is a special quality. I find quality to be a subjective thing, capability as well. Other animals can communicate just as well as we can. You just have to look at it from a usefulness perspective. I sincerely doubt that they miss the technology that comes with human communication.

they communicate in a way, which fits their need for survival and socialize. But their level and quality of communication is far distinct from ours. Animals are limited in their way of communication. We can express our feelings, emotions, thinking, ideas, imagination, beauty, etc. in a way, animals cannot. In short, we can share and exchange information, feelings, and ideas. Animals can't . Beside this, we can express our thoughts through symbols of common agreement. Animals can't do this either. Beside this, animal vocalisation, chattering etc. cannot be defined as language, with its enormous possibility of expression of the most diverse variation of things.We can also express ourself, and speak about the past, and the future, about reality, and hypothetical things. we can lie, and say the truth. We can decide to do things, or not. We can create new things, which is also a essencial and exclusive trait of us. Our language has grammatics, and we can write down, what we think. Animals don't.

I think Einstein's Gulf brings it really to the point :

http://www.christiscreator.com/evolutionclass101.htm

But all of the foregoing is hardly apt to be seen as a great difficulty to the lumbering clumsy logic that evolutionists typically apply. Nevertheless, Einstein's Gulf is hard to get around. For any materialistic theory of evolution-i.e., the kinds espoused by Darwin, Freud, Marx, Hitler, Stalin, Sagan, Gould, etc.-all of which propose that non-living chemicals sprang to life which eventually evolved abstract thought, Einstein's Gulf produces a logical burden under which they collapse. All those theories fail to show in a comprehensible and plausible way how it is possible for inert matter to cross Einstein's Gulf.

What is required is the transformation of an undifferentiated continuum of chaos into the articulate design known to us only through a common human language.
Only through the powers uniquely vested in the human language capacity, which is certainly not shared by apes, is it possible for us even to define what is meant by the realm of abstract ideas. The fact that such abstractions can be systematically associated with the material world in the manner of true representations is an undeniable miracle (exactly as Einstein claimed).

The fact that it is comprehensible is a miracle. At any rate, no one who has offered a denial , has given even a slightly plausible account of how material objects can be spontaneously forced to enter the realm of articulate and intelligent thought.

In fact, empirical studies undermine that hope of orthodox evolution that accidents of history enabled some ape-like ancestor to cross Einstein's Gulf by accidentally starting to speak intelligibly through arbitrarily chosen, conventional symbols. MIT professor Noam Chomsky wrote in 1972 that: "Human language appears to be a unique phenomenon, without significant analogue in the animal world (1972, p. 68)."

The real problem is that there is no plausible way to imagine the transformation of concrete substance into abstract representation without the preexistence and intervention of a well-designed embodied intelligence. What is required is something along the lines of a being created in the image of God.

---

You keep waffling on about “absolute proof”.

You keep bringing up a argument, which i clearly demonstrated, is not. Since i only demanded proof, because thedarkestofangels asserted he had proof of evolution.