Of course. That is where the theory comes in - the tentative application of known process to past events to see if they can be explained by those processes.

This is one of the problems I have with the term "evolution" -- it means too many things. In biology it means a process, a theory and a whole scientific field. Outside biology it has several additional meanings that further confuse the issue. That is why I like to distinguish them:

Evolution (the process) is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation (you can also call this descent with modification, to use Darwin's 'naturalist' formulation, or the change in the frequency of alleles in populations over time, to use the 'genetic' formulation).

Evolution (the theory) is that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, from history, from the natural history of fossils and geology, and from the genetic record of heredity carried by DNA. This is testable: we can observe rates of evolution that occur today, and apply those to any set of fossils or skeletal remains to see how much change would be required to get from {A} to {B} with those rates, and we can compare the geological times to see if this means it was possible. For instance we can take current examples of life, a fish and an bird, and test if one could have evolved into the other in say a 5 thousand years. If we do this with known rates of evolution the answer is likely to be no. We can compare a wolf and a dog and ask the same question and the answer is likely to be yes.

Evolution (the science) is the process of applying the theory to the evidence and testing it to see if it is valid. Lab experiments, field experiments, surveys to uncover more information, data, on the current diversity of life, are all parts of the science of evolution. Developing theories for various mechanism by which the process of evolution occur, and basing theories on those mechanisms, such as punctuated equilibrium, is also part of the science of evolution.

(Bex quote omitted to save space.)

Ask yourself this: do you think it is possible to breed offspring that are not descended from their parents? I honestly do not know of any evolutionists that think so, and what this means to me is that this concept of descendents being able to "break that barrier" is a bad concept, and the real question is whether there is any barrier between existing species and what they may otherwise become in the future. I would also say that so far, the genetic evidence is that there is no section of DNA that is immune to mutation, and that this is the only way I can conceive of such a barrier existing. This may be my own limitation of imagination, however, and I am willing to be shown wrong on it.

Not at all, what I am doing is suggesting that we can look at the fossil record and see the degree of variation, adaptation and hereditary changes that occurs over time in the fossil/geological/physics time frame, and compare that to the evidence we have of evolution today.

And no, I do not need to "prove" that this actually happened, all that I need to do is show that it is possible, given known rates of evolution and known periods of time for the evolution as we know it (whether you call it microevolution or not) to explain the evidence in the fossil record, as what this proves is that the claim that evolution cannot account for it is false.

For instance we can take a known amount of variation within species as a measure of what is possible for variation within a speces. The variation in dogs from wolves is a good example of the amount of variation that can occur within a species. We can envisage this as a "cloud" around the basal form of the wolf, and say that anyting within that "cloud" is a possible variation based on known evolution of dogs from wolves. We can apply that "cloud" to other fossils, say of eohippus, to test horse evolution, and see if the different fossils fall within than cloud around eohippus. We can eliminate many contemporary (time and location) fossils, such as bears and sloths, but we can also see that mesohippus falls inside that cloud. With this approach we can (tentatively) conclude (but not prove) that it is possible that eohippus and mesohippus are related.[color:"red"] More importantly, we cannot eliminate the possibility that they are related. Science works by eliminating false concepts, not by proving theories. [/color]

Now it is perfectly possible that you may want to suggest an alternative theory that we can test at the same time. For instance we can hypothesis that all animals stay in strict kinds, that they are all descended from "original kinds" by microevolution, and that there is some kind of barrier between different kinds that prevents one evolving into a another kind, and we can test that against the evidence. Such testing of this theory of common descent from "original kinds" would then allow us to see if we can determine what those actual original kinds were. Do you see any problem with this application of these theories to the evidence?

[color:"red"]Science does not prove theory, it eliminates invalid concepts. Thus if we could show that dinosaurs could not possibly evolve into birds, then we would have to conclude that this did not happen. [/color]The problem is that there is a clear pattern of possible evolution in the fossil record, and it grows more complete every year. We have dinosaurs with bird bones (hollow) and bird lungs (using hollow bones as part of their breathing process), that exist before acheopterix and other feathered fossils. We have fossils of dinsaurs with non-flight feathers that are between those dinosaurs and archy in time and space, we have early feathered dinosaurs that may have glided or flown, with feathers on all four limbs, and with feathers that are symetrical (have not developed into flight feathers of today with narrow leading edges). We have archy with mixed dinosaur and bird traits.

[color:"red"] More importantly, we cannot eliminate the possibility that they are related and one has descended (with modification) from the other. [/color]

[color:"orange"] The only difference is growth. [/color] Both start from single cells, with DNA that is formed of exactly the same amino acids, with cellular structure that is identical, the only difference is the arrangement of those amino acids, and [color:"orange"]we know that mutations rearrange the structures of DNA in every organism in every generation today, and you claim that this is greater than the difference between an acorn and a full grown oak tree? [/color] Do you know - precisely and in detail - what the difference is between a bird zygote and a dinosaur zygote? Can you tell one from the other? If you looked at the cells from different animals could you tell which ones were which?