I debate evolutionists quite often on a forum. And when I ask for the process of evolution of a certain organ, or species, I often often referred to animated videos as proof of evolution. And I am told this is proof of how it works. Now I work with flash animation. I know that animating what you cannot see is not proof because it requires you to use your imagination. Animating what has been seen and is considered “observed and documented animation”. An illustration of the observable. But as I show animated videos of evolution below, can you tell how much was actually observed? Yet this is considered by science to be an illustration of actual processes that can “never” be observed. Yet we are supposed to accept it as proof.
How much of the macro-evolution process was animated in each video? 100%, right? Macro-evolution will “always” have to be animated because there is no empirical evidence to support it. So why animate it? Well if you cannot prove it, and you need money to keep working at it, then you have to “sell” the possibility that it “might” have happened. So you sell your idea through animation. Which is a created virtual world of imagination that is if you are not animating what has been observed. So is macro-evolution observable? If it was, these videos, and others like it, would not be using so much animation to try and prove it or sell it to the masses.
Can any evolutionist provide empirical evidence for macro-evolution?