Quote:

What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species. I don't know if this was observed so far, but I think it's entirely possible.

Well this is my point exactly, the fact is that we dont see evolution of a new species and this is because evolution is only an educated guess guided by bias.

Quote:

but I think it's entirely possible.

Its entirely possible if evolution is true, but if its not true we will never be able to observe it.

Quote:

What you could see, theoretically, in a lab is the evolution of a new fly or bacteria species

I would be interested if even new types of simple proteins were synthesized, but the only thing happening with mutations today are changes in existing proteins.


Quote:

However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.

We certainly do have enough fossils to make a good survey of what existed: we have a sampling of 79% out of all the species represented on the earth, we have literally millions of fossils representing 250,000 species.



Quote:

Birds evolved from dinosaurs

Which dinosaurs? The theropods? Why then were they only found AFTER the archeaopteryx? Or perhaps you were not aware of this fact? Please respond on a case by case basis.

You cannot just come out with a statement that "we have plenty of fossils to prove evolution" and use a talkorigins link and call this a scientific debate. If you are truly objective, you should study the matter intently. If you dont look at thae facts closely then you really must a)admit your bias or b)admit that you have no idea if God created the world or not.


Quote:

However, "macro-mutations" leading to speciation are very well observed in nature - in the fossil record. Birds evolved from dinosaurs and mammals evolved from reptiles within some 10 million years. We have enough transient fossils to conclude that we observed most steps of both evolutions.

This is really just a new way to say "I am biased". There is nothing wrong with being biased as long as you admit it.

Essentially noone on this forum really understands the inner workings of a cell, DNA, proteins or the most intricate biochemistry. However, if you will allow yourself to understand you will realize that NOONE on earth really understands these things fully. The study of cells, microbiology is leading to new areas of excitement in nanotechnology and other fields yet it is largely an open field. So to put stock into science and scientists which claim expertise in these fields is also not a safe, sure foundation.

In the end, if your really objective you have to throw up your hands and say: "I have no idea".

Currently you have to look beyond science to find the answers to metaphysical questions. Its perhaps more relevant to ask ourselves why we have a built in mechanism which questions our origins anyway? Why cant we, like the monkeys, ignore this big question?

I admire atheists and scientists and all free thinkers which are Christian and non-Christian alike. There are too many people who are just satisfied to live life in ignorance...