^^^ However, you are assuming that your assumptions have something to do with evolution. They are too generally stated to know for sure if they do.
The thing that they don't prove is evolution theory evolution. Have you found anyone who has examined the DNA of descendants of descendants over thousands of years of history, just to see if there are really any changes? Until you do, evolution is a fun story. But if you claim it is fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
The thing that they don't prove is evolution theory evolution. Have you found anyone who has examined the DNA of descendants of descendants over thousands of years of history, just to see if there are really any changes? Until you do, evolution is a fun story. But if you claim it is fact...
Evolution is a hoax.
Yeah, after reading your interactions with other people, it's very obvious that you have no desire to argue in good faith.
What I'm not sure about is whether you're a troll, or if you suffer from some cognitive deficit.
How about a thought experiment? What if I put the burden of proof on you, how would you prove that evolution is a hoax?
I'm very interested in what the crux of your argument is, if you have an argument to begin with.
If you went out into the woods, and dug up the skeletons of a couple of raccoons that had been dead for 20 years, there might be some DNA left in their bone marrow or in their teeth. If you were a very good geneticist, you might be able to tell if these two raccoons were related from their DNA, and maybe even if one of them was the parent of the other. But you would have to be very good to tell this with certainty.
If you know of a way that you can show that some fossils were the literal parents of other fossils, how does it work without any guesswork? DNA is long gone.
How about if there was an ancestor/descendant relationship between a couple of fossils of completely different animals? How does anybody know it for sure? DNA is long gone.
How do you know if the two fossils that you say are ancestor/descendant, are not really two completely different animals that came about completely separately with no ancestor/descendant relationship at all? Saying that there had to be a relationship - THERE JUST HAD TO BE - doesn't cut it scientifically. Why not suggest that ALL the different animals came about separately, with absolutely NO ancestor/descendant relationship?
So, how do you determine it? If you don't have a really factual way, then nobody knows if there even is any kind of the evolution that evolution theory suggests exists. What is the way that tells us factually. Even Astargath hasn't been able to explain this. But maybe you are a better explainer than he is. So print it out right here in simple, brief language so we all know.
And don't go about copying and pasting some gibberish that some orator who doesn't know anything about evolution proof just spouted out. We want the proof principle in simple language that shows us the proof for evolution over the multiple thousands of years of ancient prehistory times.