We creationists are always assured of this evidence, but it turns out to be a bit squirmy when you try to pin it down. As you admit, there is no observation of the proposed macroevolution, since it is impossible to view.
But there IS still evidence, despite the fact that you choose to ignore it.
We were assured of the fossil record, but that hasn't panned out. You yourself had to explain the lack of evidence there.
Again, there's plenty of evidence in the fossil record, it's just not detailed enough for you. To say it hasn't "panned out" is a stretch, to say the least. What I explained is why we don't have a fossil of every stage of every animal that ever lived.
We are assured of transitional fossils, but given no firm lines of homology; they are more holy than the Pope's underwear. These transitional fossils are defined on the ultra-scientific principle of appearance, and often based on nothing more than a couple of teeth and skull fragments. (BTW, many are proven as frauds.)
Again, I'm not sure why you would expect to see a fossil from every stage of every animal. Think about the animals alive today. How often do you think a skeleton gets fossilized when one dies? There are plenty of transitional fossils, but they're not close enough for you. Most are far more than just fragments (remember the humanoid skulls I've shown you?). Oh, and BTW, I wouldn't say MANY are frauds, but there have been a scant few. Guess who pointed out that they were incorrect? Hint: not creationists.
We are given embryology as proof, and that too is shown to be fraud.
Another creationist claim that doesn't quite fit the facts. It's true that Haeckel falsified some drawings and misinterpreted the evidence. His biogenetic law was proven to be wrong (guess who!), and it's not part of evolutionary theory. That said, similarities in development do still bolster the evidence for evolution, despite what creationists claim.
We are given speciation but find them all defined by the weak definition (choices to mate as opposed to ability to mate)
All? Methinks you should reconsider that language.
We are given DNA evidence for random, unguided evolution and then told that DNA is a literal code with literal error correction, etc... To all experience, an indication of design.
DNA is not like any designed code we have. I'm sure you'll just say that's an indication of a more advanced designer. Without anything else from an advanced designer, how would you know?
We are told that scientists have designed simulations that prove random/natural/unguided mechanisms.
The simulations SIMULATE the processes. The results speak for themselves. Is it your position that simulations are worthless?
Whew! That's tiring. You should Google the "Gish Gallop" sometime. You've become quite adept at it.
Some answers
We creationists are always assured of this evidence, but it turns out to be a bit squirmy when you try to pin it down. As you admit, there is no observation of the proposed macroevolution, since it is impossible to view.
But there IS still evidence, despite the fact that you choose to ignore it.
We were assured of the fossil record, but that hasn't panned out. You yourself had to explain the lack of evidence there.
Again, there's plenty of evidence in the fossil record, it's just not detailed enough for you. To say it hasn't "panned out" is a stretch, to say the least. What I explained is why we don't have a fossil of every stage of every animal that ever lived.
We are assured of transitional fossils, but given no firm lines of homology; they are more holy than the Pope's underwear. These transitional fossils are defined on the ultra-scientific principle of appearance, and often based on nothing more than a couple of teeth and skull fragments. (BTW, many are proven as frauds.)
Again, I'm not sure why you would expect to see a fossil from every stage of every animal. Think about the animals alive today. How often do you think a skeleton gets fossilized when one dies? There are plenty of transitional fossils, but they're not close enough for you. Most are far more than just fragments (remember the humanoid skulls I've shown you?). Oh, and BTW, I wouldn't say MANY are frauds, but there have been a scant few. Guess who pointed out that they were incorrect? Hint: not creationists.
We are given embryology as proof, and that too is shown to be fraud.
Another creationist claim that doesn't quite fit the facts. It's true that Haeckel falsified some drawings and misinterpreted the evidence. His biogenetic law was proven to be wrong (guess who!), and it's not part of evolutionary theory. That said, similarities in development do still bolster the evidence for evolution, despite what creationists claim.
We are given speciation but find them all defined by the weak definition (choices to mate as opposed to ability to mate)
All? Methinks you should reconsider that language.
We are given DNA evidence for random, unguided evolution and then told that DNA is a literal code with literal error correction, etc... To all experience, an indication of design.
DNA is not like any designed code we have. I'm sure you'll just say that's an indication of a more advanced designer. Without anything else from an advanced designer, how would you know?
We are told that scientists have designed simulations that prove random/natural/unguided mechanisms.
The simulations SIMULATE the processes. The results speak for themselves. Is it your position that simulations are worthless?
Whew! That's tiring. You should Google the "Gish Gallop" sometime. You've become quite adept at it.