I think at some point evolutionist theory as it pertains to origins makes the claim dinosaurs turned into birds.
Again, we have to distinguish between theory and history.
What the theory says is that species change over time, and then it gets into the nuts and bolts of how species change.
Naturally, once we know that species change we want to know their ancestry. That takes us into history. Here the evidence pertains not to the how of evolution but to the relationships among species.
The evidence strongly suggests that birds ARE dinosaurs in much the same way that poodles are dogs. We have no problem with the idea that a wolf-like ancestor was modified over time (both by nature and by breeders) into a wide variety of canine forms. One of them is poodles.
What the theory of evolution claims is that the same sort of thing happens in nature all the time (without the help of human breeders). So a therapod dinosaur was modified over time into a wide variety of forms. One of them are what we now call birds, and then, when the rest of the dinosaurs went extinct, the group we call birds didn't.
The fact we call them birds doesn't mean they are not dinosaurs any more than calling a poodle a poodle means it is not a dog. So dinosaurs did not precisely "turn into" birds as if birds were something different than dinosaur. That would be like saying dogs "turned into" poodles but poodles are not dogs. Rather, birds are one form of dinosaur like poodles are one form of dog.
btw, this is always the meaning of when scientists say one group "evolved" from another.
That depends on what type of evolution you are talking about, chemical, stellar, planetary, Abiogenesis etc. Given evolution is a secular theory that seeks to deny God (And I think we both agree only manages to find God) , as God is not a reasonable hypothesis in secular theory evolution requires everything from the singularity right through to now and it seeks to find the methodology through unguided randomness.
The theory of evolution in science only covers biological evolution. As a general term "evolution" only means "change" and there are processes of chemical, stellar, etc. change tagged "evolution" but they are quite different processes. Further, I don't know of any objections to accepting those processes except where they impinge on biological evolution. So discussions of evolution are 99%+ about biological evolution, and raising other uses of the term "evolution" is just a red herring.
Even given single celled Prokaryotes to man, I'm yet to see an answer to the question
Well, you asked about proof, and as Papias says, science does not offer proof. It offers evidence. One problem you may have is that you don't know what evidence there is and/or you don't know what evidence is called for by the theory and why.
What sort of evidence do you think is needed?
I think you are missing the point of the question. I'm not worried if the example is molecule to man or any point along that track, or any other track. The point is to provide proof of evolutionary origins, without assumptions, or logical fallacies.
Again, no proof. But lots of evidence. What would "evolutionary origins" look like in terms of evidence?
Yes
But my point is the theory of evolution as it pertains to origins demands such changes are possible.
What changes? Bacteria to eukaryotes? Unicellular organisms to complex organisms? Others?
Which changes called for by the theory of evolution do you think are not possible?
Yes HIV
I think you missed the point here too
Corn is corn and has been bred in thousands of varieties, but they never get anything but corn, a corn plant growing something that is not corn (regardless of what it is) would be more proof for evolution than it growing corn ...
This is one of the most common misconceptions about evolution. Actually, that would be evidence against evolution. The theory of evolution actually implies that corn will always produce corn---though the corn itself may be modified. Indeed the corn we are familiar with today is very different from the teosinte it evolved from.
NativeTech: Native American History of Corn
In fact, there is a saying that goes round some evolutionist circles along the lines of "if a cat gave birth to a dog, a creationist would think it proved evolution and an evolutionist would consider it proof that evolution is a false theory." Nor does it make any difference if that transformation happens over many generations. That sort of history is impossible given the way evolution works.
However the theory of evolution is not innocent of making the following claims:
Non life became living
This is not a claim of the theory of evolution. That theory doesn't relate to anything which took place before there was reproduction and inheritance.
Of course, it is not a claim Christians should quarrel with either. We know from scripture that non-life did become living when God commanded the earth to bring forth life.
Even though you can't have DNA without Cells and you cant have Cells without DNA somehow these formed independently or sequentially (At the same time would imply by design).
This is an error of fact. You can have DNA without cells. Viruses are not cells but they have DNA and/or RNA. In fact one theory of the origin of life is that the earliest life-forms (which were not cells yet) used RNA, not DNA.
That living life increased its information in the genome
Yes, that claim is made and several ways of increasing information in the genome are known. It is also known that natural selection is very important to increasing information in the genome. Kenneth Miller discusses this in his book Only a Theory.
That Dinosaurs turned into birds
That a Cow-like thing turned into a whale
That a rat-like ancestor turned into apes
That (some) those ape ancestors turned into humans
See above on the difference between "turning into" and "evolving from".
And many other fanciful ideas in the imagination of scientists.
It is easy to say it is imagination before the evidence has been found. I remember a very funny presentation by Duane Gish in the early 1980's on the terrestrial ancestry of whales. It sure did seem fanciful provided one knew nothing about whale anatomy. But within 15 years a whole slew of fossil forms connecting the anatomy of terrestrial forms like Pakicetus to modern whales had been found, and more recently the close genetic relationship of whales to hippopotami was confirmed. These things are not imagination. They are not fancies. They are a stunning confirmation of a prediction based solely on comparative anatomy over a century earlier.
Here is another bit of evidence to ponder.
Sirenians are another group of marine mammals with terrestrial ancestry, but they are not closely related to hippopotami. Their nearest terrestrial relatives are elephants, rhinoceroses and tapirs (which are all closely related to each other). Take a look at these two pictures:
http://www.stockphotopro.com/photo-thumbs-2/AR9N65.jpg
http://www.locolobo.org/manateenails.JPG
The first is an elephant's foot focusing especially on the hooves.
The second is a Sirenian foot, which also has rudimentary hooves.
Why does a marine mammal have hooves, even rudimentary ones?
