Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_evolutionary_history_of_life

Why does everyone keep reaffirming what Brian plainly said - we cannot directly observe macro evolution.

You can't watch wallpaper fade.

But you know for a fact it happened.......

Not that we cannot, but that we haven't (but I don't know, maybe we have). If humans are around for millions of years then I hope we have evidence from the last few hundred years to reflect on, in addition to the millions of years of evidence gathered moving forward.

He takes the leap of saying that since humans haven't observed macro evolution in our lifetimes (or even the last hundreds of years where evidence and science has really grown) that it's proof that ID is required.

That's an invalid argument.

That's a pretty common argumentative style by the god botherers. Essentially, they are saying that if anything occurs which science cannot immediately explain, that validates their "god did it" position. In fact, they are peddling the argument from ignorance fallacy. That fallacy effectively constructs a false dichotomy, arguing that if you cannot prove something, it can't be true. It excludes a third or fourth, or other explanations, and does not account for the absence of data.

What if it's not a fallacy? what if ID is true? I am just asking for an equal playing field. I agree with you, I think there should be a third or fourth explanation being looked at with the scientific study. There should be a study of biogenetics trying to prove random mutations can do it. And there should be a scientific study of ancient history looking for evidence of intelligent design. I never asked for us to stop studying random mutations' ability to cause macro evolution through natural selection. I just want ID to be studied scientifically without being ridiculed in our universities.

Ps. I do believe there is evidence of very ancient human civilization.

Every time you write "random mutation," not only is there good reason to assume that random means "rare," to you (and it doesn't), there is good reason to assume that you see mutation as a description of some kind of perversion or genetic damage (and it doesn't). As for your idiotic insistence on "intelligent design," if you make that claim, you have the burden of providing evidence. You have provided ZERO evidence for your goofy thesis. Like all the IDiots, you won't specify the nature of this alleged "intelligence," and like all the IDiots, you sedulously avoid all the evidence of dead-ends, wrong turns and hilariously idiotic "designs" your unnamed designing intelligence has come up with.

You're ignorant, you're dishonest (a liar, in fact), you're unwilling to inform yourself, and as far as I'm concerned, you're a boring, braying jackass. If you don't like reading things like that, don't respond to my posts, as they are no longer addressed to you, unless and until you stick your nose in my business.

When I say random mutations I mean random mutations the way those words are used scientifically. I have asked for cited studies showing the probability of random mutations being able to provide the complex information for natural selection to choose from. All I get is cited studies showing that natural selection has happened in the past. That is not what I am asking for. If ID is the way complex information is provided it is going to operate under natural selection also. As far as informing myself I cannot find any cited studies providing the information I am looking for that is why I am asking you it appears you can't find them either.

If you want me to provide historical evidence supporting who I think the intelligent designer is I can provide it. But I think that Should be discussed under another different topic.

Like how ancient?

More than 100,000 years ago.

You give a whole new spin to "old-earth creationism"... :-)

I'll bite. Show me your "evidence".

Such a civilization would mark little to no difference in our evolution.

There are a number of sites telling about this civilization. I didn't look into enough to know if any real scientists bought into it.

Those sites can only be far out there... 100,000 yr ago, current consensus is that Homo sapiens had not yet started speaking. The advent of "behavioral modernity" (aka culture, art, language) is dated around 50,000 yr ago, throught art and complex tools etc.

I looked through enough of them to see that scientists are not on board with such a story.

You went from the wrong direction. We would still be a stromolite without enough oxygen to survive as animals for millions of years.

Maybe you don't understand the meaning of 'directly'.

I think you should stop addressing your lying, willfully deceitful bullshit to me. I have no respect for you, and no interest in conversing with you.

Here, let me put in plainer English: f*ck off.