trolling? i have repeated asked for the lab results that demonstrate the claims made in this thread. so far such lab results are mysteriously missing.
And that is a classic instance of trolling: saying the same wrong thing over and over again. If you were a scientist, a precocious science student, or merely a well-educated layman like most of us, then you would be familiar with the steps in the scientific method. Controlled experiments are
not a required step in the testing of a hypothesis and its eventual rejection or acceptance. There are many other types of experiments.
Controlled experimentation is both possible and common in physics and chemistry, and much of their canon was indeed developed by that method. But it plays a much smaller role in the other sciences. Much of biology is limited to field experiments or even natural experiments. Geology and paleontology make do with observational studies. And, as the textbooks say, "We leave it as an exercise for the reader" to discover the kinds of experiments that support astronomy, the oldest of sciences.
The study of evolution clearly falls into this category since--like astronomy--the timeframes involved preclude direct observation of most of the key processes, except at the extreme micro level where the definition of species is a little blurry.
If this information is startlingly new to you then you're embarrassing yourself by participating in discussions that are beyond your level of education. If you're familiar with these points but reject them, then since your assertion contradicts a fundamental principle of science it is by defintion
extraordinary and the Rule of Laplace is hereby invoked: Extraordinary assertions must be supported by extraordinary evidence before anyone is obliged to treat them with respect.
You are hereby directed to cease all posting of this assertion until you provide evidence to support it. Specifically: Explain why you believe that laboratory results are essential before a hypothesis earns acceptance. Failure to heed this request would be trolling, a violation of the forum rules and grounds for banning.
the lab results that demonstrate one lifeform turning into another, different, lifeform. please, no tests that says fruitflies turn into a different variety of fruitfly.
The definition of "species" becomes more vague with every new discovery in genetics. Even "genus" has begun to blur. In my day a genus was a group of species that could interbreed, even if only by AI. Today we have species within the same genus that cannot hybridize, and species in two different genera that can.
The point at which two animals (or plants or fungi or members of the other kingdoms) with different DNA are no longer varieties, populations or subspecies of the same species isn't even clearly defined. It's one of those things that occurs on astronomical or geological timelines: Except at the extreme micro level no one will ever live long enough to watch it happen. The fastest speciation of a large organism that I'm aware of (which isn't saying much but it's a good illustration of the problem) was the polar bear, which took approximately 100,000 years. Even if that evolution had just happened (which it didn't, it happened during an ice age about 100,000 years previously), science and scientists didn't exist to observe it. Maybe the next time.
it must be pointed out that science is completely baffled at how these processes produced life.
It must also be pointed out that your use of the word "completely" is hyperbolic. Scientists were gathering tantalizing little pieces of that puzzle when I was working on Science Fair projects fifty years ago.
Science historians call the 19th century the Century of Chemistry and the 20th the Century of Physics. It's anticipated that this will be the Century of Biology. Perhaps you younger people will live to see abiogenesis cracked. If not, then I suspect it will be a long time before an alternative origin of life is understood, since that will veer into the realm of Cosmology, where physics, mathematics and philosophy merge into a muddle.
i can only say for sure the earth is over 6,000 to 7,000 years old.
Is this because you're waiting for a laboratory experiment to support the canonical theory of the origin of the Earth?
I think a three-day banning would give you some time to fill the embarrassing holes in your knowledge of science. I'll discuss it with the Moderator of this subforum.