If we've observed changes in animals that inherit genes related to their appearance, it's completely logical to infer that a fossil of an animal with the same traits is an ancestor.
It could be proof for a common ancestor yes, but it's also just as good proof for a common designer.
Dumbass.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that I can't be sure whether or not it's true unless I go dig a hole and start comparing it to the time scale. If I can't be sure that it's true then why should I accept it as good evidence?
1. Dogs don't change species. Canis Lupis IS a species.
2. Things change to different kinds of animals all the time. The peppered moth is an example. Just because it didn't change into a different species doesn't matter. stuff like that doesn't happen in a period of 50 years and natural selection doesn't imply that it does.
That's not how natural selection occurs at all.
1. Ok, I had a brain fart. You can have that
2. changing color I don't think would qualify it to be considered a different kind of animal. Nor do I think an insect changing color is good enough proof to say that I came from some sort of chimp
You have literally no idea what you're talking about and you're spouting the same incorrect jargen since you entered the thread. Read the loving link I sent to you about natural selection and then summarize it for me, or just shut the forget up.
If that's not a 4th grade level summary of what evolution is, then what is it? (and yes, I know I forgot to mention the part fred said, other than that though I don't think there's anything wrong with my explanation.)
I wasn't going to go into detail, I was just giving a simple summary.
What. What the forget is this?
it's a brain fart
Anyways, I can see I'm getting nowhere. And since the majority of you don't want me in this conversation then I'll stop