Give me just one piece of observable evidence of neoDarwinian evolution.

There are many.

Human evolution is pretty well documented in textbooks, for example.

However, given that all of this is very well-known, and the presumptuous negative tone of your OP, I'll guess that you are willfully ignorant of science and that your religious views prevent you from accepting obvious truths.

Your reply will probably confirm my suspicions.

 Live long and prosper.

seems very impatient too

Here's one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi

Impossible is illogical.
Lack of evidence is not proof.
 +  = 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_naledi

First, let me thank you sincerely for at least offering something other than complaining about my post.

Homo naledi is an ancient human as shown by Wikipedia (the same source that you used).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

Sure humans change over time but in the end they are still humans right?

Do you have an example of something non human changing to a human?

"Knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

What exactly do you classify as 'human'?


_________________
Come, lovely child! Oh come thou with me!
For many a game I will play with thee!

What exactly do you classify as 'human'?

My own opinions on what should be determined as human are irrelevant. The scientific community considers homo naledi to be part of the "homo" evolution, that is to say the evolution of humans.

I even linked to a page in my previous comment in Wikipedia that cites the mainstream scientific views that was entitled: "List of human evolution fossils with homo naledi being right on the list."

Here it is again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

My OP never at all suggested that evolution does not take place. It is a simple fact that both natural selection and selective breeding can and does change the populations over time. Observation shows these changes to be cyclical (like finch beaks in the Golopogos islands for example.) The beaks change shape to accomodate the environment but never turn into a trunk, or a different structure altogether. Nor do the finches ever change into anything else but a finch.

Evolution (meaning that adaptation or micro-evolution)is a simple fact by this narrow definition. It is a fact by observable and testable conditions too not by appealing to scientific opinion.

The question in my OP was whether or not these changes could eventually lead to the transformation of one animal kind into others. If so I wanted to see one piece of observable evidence that met scientific standards.

This is different from just appealing to the authority or the collective number of scientists who share the opinion based on homology in structures, DNA testing (which can prove similarities but not common decent), etc.



"Knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

There are many.

That's good. Could you show me just one please?

However, given that all of this is very well-known, and the presumptuous negative tone of your OP, I'll guess that you are willfully ignorant of science and that your religious views prevent you from accepting obvious truths.

Well known by those that support the neoDarwinian model of course but refuted by those who are skeptical of it.

I am sorry if asking for a piece of evidence to support a notion that is taught in school as fact on a science message board is viewed as presumptuous.

Nothing about what happened in great antiquity is "obvious." Scientists are still struggling today with the root causes and mechanisms of the origin of life.

Adaptation, natural selection, and selective breeding are "obvious" in that they are irrefutable facts that can be observed therefore proven.

The neoDarwinian model of evolutionary theory is not "obvious" and still has failed to convince large numbers of the world population and even is not 100% unanimous among all material scientists (although the vast majority do support the model.)

Truth is measured by evidence not by popularity or appeals to authority.

The term "obvious" for something that cannot be proven by direct observation and relies on an interpretation of the fossil record and DNA similarity is a gross overstatement.

Your assumption that I must be willfully ignorant of science or have some kind of religious agenda is a product of your own emotional response to my OP.



"Knowledge is power"

Bobby G. McIlvaine

Well known by those that support the neoDarwinian model of course but refuted by those who are skeptical of it.

Really? Can you direct me to the peer-reviewed publication where this was accomplished? It should definitely be a shoo-in for the Nobel prize.

Thank you in advance,
--Drew