"Best" evidence for evolution.

In the "Is it science" topic, there is a thread for best evidence for creation.I would like to hear what people consider to be the foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.Edited by wardog25, : No reason given.

In response to The Matt, Agobot, and maybe Huntard (depending on what aspect of genetics you were referring to):Why is it that microevolution is so often presented as foundational to the theory of evolution when microevolution is both accepted and celebrated by creationists and evolutionists alike?To me it seems that microevolution is just a matter of interpretation, and cannot be used as evidence for one side or the other.

But this is my point entirely. No species has ever been shown to change into another species, yet evolutionists insist it is possible and even (as you mentioned) define the terms to support their side.So it is a matter of interpretation whether microevolution demonstrates evolution or not. Creationists completely affirm that animals change within species (or kind). We just know that there are limits. Evolutionists know there are limits too, they just insist there aren't any limits in certain areas.For example: Say I'm breeding dogs and I get a dog that is 1 foot taller. Could we keep breeding for millions of years (provided we could stay alive that long) and get a dog that is 200 feet tall? No, there are limits.So if you can't breed indefinitely and get a 200 foot tall dog, why can you breed indefinitely and get a completely different kind of animal?Changes within a species do not demonstrate that the species can change to something else entirely. Therefore microevolution is not foundational evidence for the theory of evolution.Edited by wardog25, : No reason given.Edited by wardog25, : Quote was not showing correctly.

Could you provide me with any specific scientific procedures that have resulted in a gain of NEW genetic material for an organism? (not a changing of current material, nor a doubling of current material. New material. New genes, proteins, etc.)What evolutionists claim is the mechanism for evolution is what I call microevolution. Everyone is free to call it whatever they like. But that's what I call it.Bottom line is, it has to add NEW genetic material for the mechanism to work.So thousands of laboratory tests = many changes in current genetic material, but nothing new. This supports creation: that animals can change within their "kind".We are still waiting for the tests that show the introduction of new genetic material. So at this point, the evolutionary mechanism gives more support to creation than it does to the theory of evolution.(and I appologize for my use of the word "species". I forget that I come from other forums where people freak out if you use anything Biblically referenced.)

Wow. Very tightly moderated board. I guess that's a good thing with these topics.Sorry about getting off track. I am interested in hearing what people think is foundational for evolution. It's very telling.