Okay, here is your evidence.

Observation.

It is supposed to be a foundational tenant of Science. You build off of what you can observe.

What have you or anyone else ever observed produced by the chance mixing of chemicals?

The answer is usually chaos. Certainly nothing near the complexity of the simplest strand of DNA, which by the way, the Science of Probability and Statistics has verified is so remote that it is impossible. ( And yes there is a point at which things become impossible).

And,… if a strand of DNA could overcome impossibility and “fall together”… it would be useless without RNA to carry out its messages. The RNA would face the same  impossible odds of course.

And then both would be destroyed quickly without a fully functioning cell to protect them and power them.

This has been observed. This I will accept as Science.

Over the years I’ve many articles proclaiming ” Feathered Dinosaurs”. But then when its proven that the “feathers” were never present at all, just  ”inferred”,  then that bit of information is in small print on the last page or paragraph or in someone else’s explanation that the fossil was actually surrounded by minerals deposited during the decay process.

So if someone sticks their hand up and says ” where’s the proof?”, it doesn’t seem to be real science to castigate them and proclaim that they should accept the impossible because you don’t like  the implications of not accepting evolution.

Your response to the former writer showed that you didn’t like what he said, yet, I want to credit you for being pretty respectful toward him. Maybe if we share facts and thought instead of anger we will all gain.  

As for evolution…do you have a better idea.  One that can be backed with one tiny piece of hard evidence?  Or have you taken hold of the religious right’s INFERENCE/OPINION that we all came into existance at the whim of some old man who lives in the clouds “POOF”!  Really Tim…all we ask is that you think before you open your mouth…

But on a larger animal, with much thicker skin, those heavy duty mouth parts would be appropriate.

But on a larger animal, with much thicker skin, those heavy duty mouth parts would be appropriate.

Which part is imagination?The fleas fed on feathered dinosaurs.This is pure imagination.  Zero evidence to support that claim.  No way to verify it.

Based on this experiment is the headline “Inch Long Jurassic Fleas slurped feathered dinosaur blood” deceptive?  YES!

Which part is imagination?The fleas fed on feathered dinosaurs.This is pure imagination.  Zero evidence to support that claim.  No way to verify it.

Based on this experiment is the headline “Inch Long Jurassic Fleas slurped feathered dinosaur blood” deceptive?  YES!