From: "Robert Comer" 

> One method is to study animals that have spread over a large geographic
> area (where "large area" means "much greater than an
individual animal
> travels in their lifetime").

Sorry, that only talks probabilities, not actually observing evolution in action.

> Another is to observe lifeforms where generations are measured in minutes,
> not years.

We haven't observed something as dramatic as a species transition at even
that level yet without genetic muddling on our part, and without that, it's
still all theory, not fact, and you have to believe it's true.  (btw, I do
believe evolution exists, that's not my argument.)

--
Bob Comer


"John Beckett"  wrote
in message news:d3bjn1tn8tf2qce0r1s87255ko738iu1ri{at}4ax.com...
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news::
>> Then what it suggests is an implication; an assumption of some sort based
>> upon what can be observed.  To believe that what evolution suggests is
>> correct does take some amount of *belief* or *faith* if you will, because
>> it
>> cannot be directly observed.
>
> If you're asking a question ("can evolution be directly
observed?"), the
> answer is YES.
>
> One method is to study animals that have spread over a large geographic
> area (where "large area" means "much greater than an
individual animal
> travels in their lifetime").
>
> Another is to observe lifeforms where generations are measured in minutes,
> not years.
>
> John
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5