"There are Many well documented branches in the evolutionary tree."
Can you point to one? Well documented should make that easy.
"Do we really Need point to point?"
I want something fairly point to point. For example, it is said that water based mammals (like whales) evolved from land based mammals. OK. I don't know of any land based mammal that looks or acts remotely close to that of a whale. Show me fossil evidence of something like a mammoth (if that was a mammal). Then a somewhat later time period animal that's pretty similar but spent much more time in water and has a few clear adaptations to such (such as consumed only water borne food, rather than whatever mammoth's ate on land). Then a somewhat later time period mammal a little bit more water like (perhaps gave birth in the water?). Etc., etc., etc. And end with a whale.
"Evolution has been replicated in the lab (and in the barns and kennels) numerous times. Not to the level of species, but pretty darn close in some cases."
Again, can you point to any examples? Evolution requires mutations, i.e. creation of new DNA that didn't exist before, that is then Darwinistically selected as an improvement, to explain the step from one species to the next. I know of no such experiment every occurring.
Cross-breeding and hybriding generate different combinations of existing DNA types. It easily explains the variety and Darwinistic selection within a species, but it's too tame of a modification to explain the leap from cold-blooded to warm-blooded species.
"Evolutionary models have predicted multiple intermediate species before they were found."
Again, can you show me that?
I don't mean to sound contrary. I just haven't looked for data beyond that which I casually ran across in my life. And none of that proves 'evolution' to any extent close to other scientific theories (like gravity, or the electron). Of course, those fields I did some formal training in, so that may explain why I'm more aware of their data points. |
