An experiment started twenty years ago on E. Coli bacteria reveals proof of evolution.
The "proof of evolution opening statement" and the ensuing discussion certainly revealed that many posters understood something was being "proven" that was disputed. The thread originator does make it clear that he does not intend to make this a "how did life start" thread, yet he infers that this evidence does "prove" that evolution, as commonly taught, is proven by this experiment. If this thread was intended to "prove" what we all agree on--evolution within a species, then the proof was not really required as you don't need to prove what is already believed by all. The obvious inference in the thread is "here is proof, that when extrapolated can be used to prove the whole evolutionary theory."
We disagree that it proves any extrapolation probability beyond micro-evolution, which is not the point in dispute. So was the thread pointless or an attempt to prove a disputed point?
