1. How many times do Creationists have to be told that evolution is not about the origin of life? That is another topic entirely, and one which doesn't interest me personally at all. There are scientists who are interested in the question of the origin of life, and they are doing some interesting work, but they are mostly biochemists, and they work at a level (molecular) which is completely outside of the realm I work in, the realm of the organism.
2. Evolution is about the history of life on earth once life was present.
3. Tell me, Calypsis, what do you think of our modern system of Western jurisprudence? If we extend your approach to evolution to jurisprudence, then we can immediately reject punishment for any crime which was not directly witnessed. No witness to the murder? Then the murder didn't actually take place. No trial, no punishment possible.
4. Your approach to evolution is the same - the old Creationist saw "How do you know that the three-toed horse evolved into the one-toed horse? Were you there to see it?"
5. Secondly, the whole point to evolution is that it takes place over long periods of time. Fruit flies have been observed to change radically in the breeding experiments geneticists have done, but you are correct, they have not changed into a "new" species. The time scale simply isn't sufficient. Where can we have the proper time scale in which to observe the evolution of one species into another? In the fossil record.
1. If that is the case, and evolution doesn't solve the origin of life, (despite the title of Darwin's book)... Then why do evolutionists like Dawkins state that evolution has banished God from Biology (or something to that effect). Sounds like double standards....
They claim evolution solves all problems, but then complain when the origin of life is discussed with it.
2. No, evolution is about the proposed
history of Earth, unless you have a time machine you cannot verify the proposed history you claim
3. Science has nothing to do with how law works, you're attempt to muddy the water has failed. Unless you wish to claim that evolution doesn't follow the rules of science (empirical verification and experimentation)
4. I thought a scientist was meant to be "quick to doubt" seems like Calypsis is the scientist here. The question can easily be reversed, how do you "know" that it did evolve.
5. If its not a new species then no "radical" change has occured... Honestly evolution claims that species evolve into different species and you admit here that this is not what is observed.... Its not what the experiments indicate, (they only display changes within the species).... So why even believe in evolution when experiments don't support it?