RE: Proving Evolution
Don't you see? Evolution is a continuum. A spectrum.
The notion of a red/blue pair is an completely arbitrary one. Classifications are us simply drawing a line in the text and declaring something 'purple' or 'bluish', but ultimately that demarcation is made up.
Consider the evolution of language - you may have a ancestor language like Latin. Latin then branches to beget Franch, Spanish, English, Italian, etc.
Those demarcations are very easily seen as we've zoomed out, included time, and drawn those arbitrary lines. However, when Latin was first traveling around the globe, the Western speakers and Eastern speakers could probably still communicate, could probably interact just fine. But, with additional time, group isolation, and essentially random changes, they eventually became distinct.
As it is with biology. We are all still evolving and the demarcations we create are arbitrary. All the creatures are the planet are still red-ish or blue-ish on their way to something even more red-ish or blue-ish that may or may not help them survive against selection pressures within their environment.
And yes, I would agree that beliefs and ignorance are hallmarks of religious belief and psuedo-science. Traits you seem to be exercising in spades.
Have a great Monday!
The language metaphor is powerful if misguided.
It would be great for analogy if languages changed randomly, accidentally, and imperceptibly. On closer inspection, none of that is true.
Folks purposely coin new terms. They get tired of old language and pronounce things different. They accidentally overhear words and misuse them, too, but that is not random chance, it is due to the perception of vocal cues and mistakes.
In macro evolution, we would need to have the same kind of fluid changes of creatures happening through natural and random forces.
You move the goalposts to score.
Furthermore, language did not arise on its own at random. It would seem more scientific to presuppose that language was borne out of purpose and design, and whatever words you would intentionally eschew in a debate on evolution.
That was an unforced error on your part. Language is clearly not evolutionary in its creation story. It is rooted in purpose, and meaning, and defining the environment by fiat. It has living elements that direct both its genesis and its structure and its propagation through time and space. It cannot be disconnected from its creators (that is, presumably man) and its changing character (clearly driven by man).
To interpret the branching languages in the earth as an evolutionary process is too short-sighted and unscientific to not point out your egregious error. You might want to reconsider not just your analogy, but even use this as a meta-example of the creative processes at work in the earth.
Thanks for your insight! I liked the chart. I am somewhat a history buff.
I also liked how you deflected the search for the missing linked pairs... to a discussion in which missing links cannot or should not exist.