open system theory applied to evolution., page-176

After Googling the meaning of ‘TL:DR’, all say it again; you are never going to see the observable evidence when you have your eyes shut.

Moving on.

So basically....

The Instigator of the debate (logicaldebator) asked the following:

‘I am asking for observable evidence for macroevolution (i.e., molecules-to-man type evolution). I want actual evidence that I can observe, not evidence I have to except by faith. I do not want evidence of microevolution, but macroevolution. If there is no evidence for macroevolution, then it cannot be considered science because science is a system of knowledge based on observations and experimentation.’

The Contender (MikNH) outlines four hypothesis that if true would falsify the claim that there is no observable evidence for evolution, provides examples to support the four hypothesis (the evolution of modern snakes from marine lizards to name just one) and highlights the Instigator’s misunderstanding of the basic concepts of biology.

Obviously there is a LOT I haven’t mentioned. It is worth the read for those who are interested.

One single observation on its own does not prove evolution; but the collection of many examples strengthens the case. We are now at a point where we have so much evidence that evolution is an undeniable FACT. There really is no arguement.