The cop out story again?They can't get around the fact that genes,proteins,dna,etc. are all too highly complex,so they try to shrink the problem into primitive catagories.
Perhaps you don't realize that it only makes the problem worse,if the first life was so primitive it would be very easy to duplicate.We can put a man on the moon,cure some forms of cancer,harness the energy of the atom,but we can't reprodue something so simple and primitive?
In this manner, you are saying that we are the one who can't reproduce something and primitive.. Of course.. We can't but the species (including ourselves) can evolve and make a bush (branch)..
Just like this:
-Dobzhansky and Pavlosky witnessed the evolution of fruit flies descended from a single individual between 1958 and 1963 resulting in a new species (no longer able to interbreed with the parent species).
-Scientists in Japan have discovered a new strain of bacteria in a waste pond near a factory that has developed the ability to digest " nylon ". Since nylon didn't even exist before humans invented it in 1935, this is evidence of evolution of a new trait that could not have existed before (a new enzyme for digesting a polymer that didn't exist before).
Now, I know you are thinking "that's not evolution, its microevolution." You are demanding that we come up with a dinosaur becoming a bird, or a reptile becoming a mammal ... something that you "know" takes time longer than a human lifespan. That's not science ... that's playing a childish game of 'gotcha.'
It is childish because it ignores how we witness "ALL" things ... and says that science can only study things that are shorter than a human lifespan! Have you (or anyone) ever witnessed an acorn growing into a fully grown oak tree? Of course you haven't. Nobody has. Because that process can take 300 to 600 years, Does that mean that we cannot be sure that oak trees come from acorns? Of course not. We can see the stages within a human life span (an acorn growing to a sapling, a sapling growing to a small oak tree, a small oak tree growing into a larger one) within an observable lifespan, and from that we " know " that acorn-to-oak development occurs. That is " EXACTLY " the same process used to 'witness' how glaciers move, how beaches form, how continents drift, how mountains emerge, how stars are born ... and yes, how evolution occurs. To deny that is to deny pretty much " ALL " of science.
And where are you getting this 2.5 billion years from?
Fossils, providing evolution of organic evolution, have been deposited over a large stretch of the geological time scale. They provide a representation of the changing communities of living organisms, and change there has undoubtedly been..
Oh! I forgot to add:
Nice touch, pasting de_skudd's words in the middle of that other stuff. Really adds to the overall effect. Or affect. I forget which is more appropriate.
I don't get what are you implying for this..
Is this an another technique used by you ( creationists ) ... insisting that evolution should have a certain result (without any logical reason for it) and then faulting evolution for not producing such a result. They are not debating the actual theory of evolution ... but inventing a nonsensical straw man version of the theory of evolution, and then refuting " their own nonsensical theory " ?