Re: Evolution in action

John, (sigh) you seem so reasonable when it comes to most other subjects.

Your analogies are absurd, naturally you know this.  And your arguments are not based on the accepted definitions, just on "your" definition of what evolution is - or what you want it to be.  Once again with feeling: EXAMPLES OF EVOLUTION IN ACTION DOES NOT MEAN SPECIATION -  It could, but it doesn't have to

No matter how "weak" you think this evidence is, it is still evidence.  There are millions of other examples of "weak evidence"    When compared to NO, zero, zilch, zipo, nada, rien evidence of all other ideas (creationists/ALIENS)  that makes evolution the only game in town.

Proof of evolution does not come from a single piece of evidence, but as Shermer writes, from "proof is derived through a convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry--multiple, independent inductions, all of which point to an unmistakable conclusion."

"We know evolution happened not because of transitional fossils such as A. natans but because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. No single discovery from any of these fields denotes proof of evolution, but together they reveal that life evolved in a certain sequence by a particular process."