We've talked about the fact that they've found interspecies fossils a few times. Maybe I just didn't enunciate it clearly enough for you when I said that they attempt to find fossils to make a link between now and back then.
If you visit the site that ziggy posted it has more than a few examples of interspecies fossils. MORE THAN A FEW. Along with many other connections between species, including how they can estimate which species should be where on the common descent list, how they are related, what they lead to and how accurate it is. So if i were you I'd consider clicking that link.
On that page they have an example of a whale with legs, the connection between mammal and reptilian jaw/ears, I think they mention the old Reptile-bird guy as well. Like I said, someone posts links that could satisfy you and you don't even click them to find out.
Ziggy's link to transitional species
What I want to know is how do you feel that they are capable of predicting so many aspects of this? If you read that entire link you'll get a fairly large list of predictions they have made that were accurate, and even predictions that would prove evolution wrong. I don't know if you know this but generally with mathematics if you're "Guessing' numbers your answer is probably going to be wrong. I think the same could be said with this, they are obviously doing something right if they can estimate as much as they have.
Um, okay, so if god created the universe from one, "Singularity" than what's so absurd about god creating life from one "Singularity"?
What happened was we were talking about how evolution should be in science classrooms because it's a part of science, and him and another guy started calling it a belief(which means it shouldn't be in science classrooms, or that creationism should also be in a class room) so we started comparing the two "Beliefs". So far we've inserted evidence of evolution on many levels, and they have inserted no evidence that God is the creator of the world(not that evolution says God didn't create the world). For some reason, to me, evidence implies that it is less of a belief, especially since evidence implies that it's proveable.
Preechr then challenged me to a duel.
There was something he said about how the pursuit of scientific truth is skewed by the governments search for power. Maybe that's how he thinks it's sociological?