Thank's for your reply, Troubadour. Can I take it you no longer think that I am looking for evidence that evolution doesn't happen?

that he [Steve Shaw] and I cannot show that evolution happens.

No, I'm asking you to show me evolution happening with, I admit, the unspoken challenge that you cannot do so. Your post seems to admit as much. Perhaps I should remind you of Steve's position on this -

Evolution happens (only dimwits such as pete with his third-hand received unwisdom would demur). It is a phenomenon that definitely occurs and only an imbecile would deny it. Therefore evolution is true. But, you see, a phenomenon that self-evidently occurs is not science. My left hand self-evidently possesses five digits. It is not science to say that my left hand has five digits. It is not science to say that the bleedin' obvious occurs.
This thread - 14 Feb 14 - 08:19 PM

He seems to think that evolution is there for all to see. When you say "This mixture contains X% of substance Y" it is clearly not self-evident and probably involves a great deal of science.

In "The Descent of Man", Darwin, referring back to "The Origin of Species" says "I had two distinct objects in view; firstly, to show that species had not been separately created, and secondly, that natural selection had been the chief agent of change". His first aim, building on the work of others, was to establish the concept of evolution before moving on to the theory of evolution and the mechanisms for it including natural selection. Why would he do that if it was "bleedin' obvious"?

the weight of evidence for evolution.

Wrong way round. Nobody came up with the concept of evolution and then went out looking for evidence for it. The evidence was there in abundance in the form of the many and varied forms of life around us and in the fossil record. The challenge was to come up with an explanation. The old one was separate creation; the new one was evolution. The concept of evolution is a human construct not an observable natural phenomenon. It is a theory. Unfortunately "The Theory of Evolution" has been bagged for "The Origin of Species".

In fact, YOU give much greater support to Creationism by asserting that he is wrong

But he IS wrong. Do you want me to suppress that fact for the sake of defeating pete? Do you go along with Jack the Tar when he says " I'm trying to make up examples and analogies that are easy to understand without a scientific background."? Sorry, can't do it. I have said from the start that you can't defeat creationism with bad science. Getting the science right is what matters most. If pete doesn't understand it, what a pity, never mind. At least other people will be able to see that he hasn't' a clue what he's talking about.

I'll wait to see whether Steve can show me some evolution but, judging by his recent posts, we're unlikely to get anything coherent out of him.