[Frooxius]

@Maravilla: You are wrong, I have provided you with several scientific sources and studies that prove that the theory of evolution is true. You don't get to ignore all these just so you can insist that it's wrong, that's very intellectually dishonest thing to do. Not to mention that you haven't provided any sources at all, even though explicitly I asked you to support a claim.

1) Again, can you please actually learn anything about how evolution works and what it says?

This is another of the very common misconceptions about evolution. Every organism has fully functional parts, there are no "half legs" or "half wings", that is complete nonsense and theory of evolution doesn't say any of that. At each point the developing traits of the organism serve some function.

2) You're talking nonsense. As I've said, genome diversification and speciation is one of the mechanisms of evolution and thus saying it disproves it is one of the most stupid things you can say.

Just like saying "Computers don't work, because they're following their programming and performing millions of calculations per second". Humans and chimps have different genomes, but very large portion is similar, since we share relatively early common ancestor.

3) They are not assumptions, they are proper scientific studies. The only difference between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" is time, as the changes accumulate.

You're yet again using the strawman logical fallacy: Evolution doesn't say anything about dogs becoming cats or foxes becoming goats. Large changes in the species take a lot of time (hundreds of thousands of years) for the mutations to accumulate.

And more importantly I gave you an example of one species of lizard changing significantly, which you conveniently ignored.

Also examples from computer science, which actually allows us to simulate thousands of generations and show that very large changes occur over enough generations. Which you also conveniently ignored.

And you also ignore the most important piece of evidence: DNA evidence, which shows us the ancestral tree of various organisms of species.

What's important is that all this evidence from various areas, obtained by variety of methods converges on the same answers and points to the same result.

There is no reputable scientific source that would refute all this evidence, just a bunch of people twisting and misinterpreting it (or simply ignoring the convenient bits) and act like they "refuted it". Where are their peer reviewed studies?

And don't give me the "I could point you somewhere where they refuted all this". That's not a way to argue something. Addressing the actual claims is.

---

I already explained to you that evolution doesn't say anything about dog becoming cat or a fish, so why are you stating that it's funny that "you guys" believe that? I already told you, we don't. So you're either purposefully ignoring anything that's inconvenient to your "argument" or you don't/can't read properly.

---

About the frog... These are not even your own words. I've heard that before and it's quite ridiculous and doesn't really represent the claims of evolution. Yes, things take time to change (it also takes time to develop a piece of software, for crops to grow, for person to grow up and such, some processes in the world just take a lot of time, some do more than others), but trying to make it sound ridiculous (while ignoring or not properly addressing the actual evidence presented) is not a proper argument.

---

About science disproving intelligent design. Again, I already told you, science doesn't work like that. If you want to argue about something intelligently, please stop ignoring the points that don't suit you.

Science doesn't disprove things like that. You need to prove that your claim is true. There's no default claim that wins by default, so even if evolution was untrue (or if we didn't have any evidence for it), you would still have to provide evidence to support intelligent design.

And there is no solid, peer reviewed (by a reputable source, not one of those creationist "peer review" groups, which aren't a reputable source, since no reputable scientists publish in them) evidence to support intelligent design.

Science doesn't have to disprove it. You have to prove that it's right.

---

You've demonstrated a lot of serious misconceptions about evolution and I have an inkling that you're just copying them from somewhere, since these were repeated again and again and were shown to be very wrong by various biologists and other advocates of science so often, it's striking that people still use them.

I already asked you to actually get the facts straight first and find what the theory of evolution really says, but all you do is attacking and arguing against distorted, caricatured and completely misinterpreted "version" of it.

If you want to have an intellectual debate and disagree with something, you don't get to ignore the inconvenient bits and most importantly, you should actually learn what you are arguing against first to not look ignorant and attacking a strawman, instead of the actual point.

Are you actually interested in finding out the truth and learning about something or just putting fingers in your ears and going "la la la" whenever you hear something you don't like and then just stating your "arguments" regardless of what the other person said?