"Best" evidence for evolution.

Wishful thinking and fantasy don't qualify as evidence. Despite the discovery of several BST* preCambrian fossil deposits, no fossil evidence of evolutionary lines of descent that link preCambrian to Cambrian biota has been found. Wake up, Bozo, and stop dreaming.* BST (Burgess Shale Type) deposits are noted for their ability to fossilize soft-bodied organisms)Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

Not "no fossil evidence" but not as much as we would like.There is a reason for that.Pre-Cambrian Life | GSA Bulletin | GeoScienceWorld
Just a moment...
Just a moment...So life was evolving early in the pre-cambrian and life continued to evolve during the cambrian. No need for some god to poof up another creation with one already in full swing.Such fantasies are the core disconnect with reality.We have fossils from both sides of the cambrian period.You have nothing for your crazy fiat creation.Again, the actual physical data, though scant, IS there. We have it in museums and scholar collections world wide.You present nothing to evidence your alternative fantasies.Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : No reason given.

Edited by AZPaul3, : The Moose correction. Thanx Moose.

Despite the discovery of several BST* preCambrian fossil deposits, no fossil evidence of evolutionary lines of descent that link preCambrian to Cambrian biota has been found.* BST (Burgess Shale Type) deposits are noted for their ability to fossilize soft-bodied organisms)

Again, not none but not as many as we would like.While you have an absolute zero as evidence. Pure fantasy.

Are you sure a God creating new organisms is not part of reality?Science is yet to explain how novel organs and body plans could arise (good luck with that, btw).

Boy, you really are ignorant of the most basic concepts.Do you have Google Scholar? Search history of a specific organ and, in many cases, you will find theories on how/why that capability evolved.I'm not going to feed your bullshit insistence on a step-by-step chain from here to there. It's in the literature if you can bother to get your nose out of the bible and look at reality.The fact, demostrable with years of study, is that your list of deficiencies in evolution are non-existant or dramatically overblown.You're a religious carnie barker with no facts, no data, no intellect.

There is no reason to entertain such a ridiculous notion.

If it is, then evolution is the means that God used.

I'm still having trouble making sense of this. Aren't the problems with your view obvious? For example, isn't there an absence of any evidence that the creatures you believe were created only 6000 or so years ago are any different from those of today? Or maybe you're thinking of the changes within a species wrought by breeders (which is still evolution, but by directed selection instead of natural selection)?And because changes over time recorded in the fossil record (though not often in just 6000 years because that's usually too short a period for detectable change) are explained by evolution, why do you say, "I don't think anyone else knows either"? Are you just casually stating an opinion, or do you think you possess information invalidating evolution and believe you are stating a fact? If the latter, what is that information?For the sake of discussion let us say that the creatures you believe God created 6000 years ago have changed over time to a degree greater than can be brought about by breeders. Given that that's the definition of evolution, how is that not evolution? It would be an unusual amount of evolution for just 6000 years, and such rapid evolution would require explanation, but it would still be evolution.--Percy

When I drop phrases you've used into a search engine I find them all over the Internet. There are many flavors of creationism, the two major groups of thinking being YEC vs OEC, but why do you think you represent a unique one that hasn't already been seen here many times?--Percy

That is incorrect. We already know you would never be able to understand it.

Not really the topic of this thread, but find an appropriate thread or propose a new one and present your evidence for a) God; and b) God creating new organisms. It might be more accurate to say that you reject scientifically developed hypotheses and theories of how novelty arises.Evolution effects change through tiny incremental changes. Scientists have no had no trouble developing hypotheses and theories for the origin of all organs and body plans.--Percy

Dredge, you quote: ... and go on to say: What you forget is that humans are fallible, scientists not excepted. Phylogenies are not the absolute truth, they are man-made approximations of the relatedness of life at various levels in the supposed 'tree of life'. So it is not surprising that contradictions sometimes occur in the endeavour to create a complete and accurate picture of the phylogenetic tree.However, there is a great amount of overlap between a multiplicity of attempts at building a complete picture. And that's just in the area of phylogenetics proper. With the inclusion of relatively new evidence such as DNA-sequencing and other molecular techniques, the picture becomes ever more consistent. You are right in saying that different forms of evidence should all point to one, unambiguous phylogenetic tree. Increasingly, all the evidence combined does exactly that.

That seems fairly descriptive already.

I am doing no such thing.Rather you are doing that yourself. For that matter, you are working overtime in demonstrating that you are one of the worst kinds of creationist troll.To be honest, you have been away for so long that I honestly did not remember what kind of completely and utter ludicrous nonsense you had presented before. Now that's starting to come back to me.Even without any kind of forum history, everything you have presented here in this most recent outburst demonstrates conclusively that you are nothing more than the most base bottom-feeding creationist troll. With absolutely nothing of any worth to contribute to any discussion.Pity, that.There are so many dark corners in the creationist mind that could illuminate that particular sickness were we allowed to examine them. Sadly, you sick creationists remain silent where it would most matter.Edited by dwise1, : he's a troll

Edited by dwise1, : added "where it would most matter"