And mere observation proves me right. All that is needed is a post or two and my theory proves out each and every time.
“Only the hardest of the hardcore Young Earth Creationists who have never, ever taken a basic biology course in their lives and were raised in the church, homeschooled, and barred from television, newspapers and magazines their entire lives can possible believe there “is no actual evidence for evolution.””
OK, I was raised in public school, with an evolutionist, atheist parent and have been barred from nothing. And there are scientists all over the world, plenty with Phds in Biology as well as all the scientific fields, who are six day creationists. So your statements are really off the charts, there. You are talking as though all degreed scientists oppose six day creation. To which I say: balderdash! Obvious balderdash.
“Please define what your idea of a “transitory life form” is.”
A life form in between one species and another. Say, a half man half ape. Or a partial bird partial dinosaur. There is no fossil record or present day example of any transitory life form. There should be millions were evolutionary theory correct. Take the most obvious: man. Did we spring from gorilla to human without any steps in between? Impossible. There would absolutely be such beings among us, and physical evidence as well. Their absence speaks volumes.
“The entire drug industry, the entire farming industry and its attendant industries (ie, pesticide and seed companies), the entire medical industry, the entire medical, pharmaceutical and medical research industries (to name a few) are based upon basic evolutionary principles.”
I disagree. My son is a BS in Physics, works medical research, nanotechnology, believes in 6 day creation, and does not base any of his experiments/programs on evolutionary biology. There has been no need of it, nor call for it.
No one who believes in six day creation disbelieves that mutations can occur within species. We all know viruses mutate. That doesn’t mean they become frogs. They remain viruses. I can breed cats for all sorts of characteristics. But they remain cats, and they always will.
In re: the cichlids, that was new to me, not being a cutting edge scientist or what have you - but found this response easily:
“These fish specialized to different microhabitats,” explained the University of Maryland’s Karen Carleton, one of the study team members. “The visual system then specialized to the light environment at these depths and the mating colors shifted to match. Once this happened, these two groups no longer interbred and so became new species.”
“In other words, one cichlid species that likely could see both types of light and included all of the possible colors has “evolved” (speciated) into separate species whose senses are limited and who only exhibit certain colors.
So as usual, rather than a case of information-adding evolution (which is required for the molecules-to-man narrative of Darwinism), this is just another observation of natural selection weeding out information as speciation occurs, resulting in organisms that are custom-tailored to their environment but lack the genetic diversity their ancestors had.”
Once again, it’s always a SUBTRACTION of genetic info, not any addition, which is what evolutionary theory is always speculating but never proving. Because that doesn’t happen. You claim to be motivated by factual evidence, but the most critical piece of evolutionary evidence - a missing link, an example of addition of genetic information - is simply nonexistent. Rather than admit that, you seem to be saying, as far as I understand, that amphibians are the missing link between fish and mammals? Not even evolution textbooks teach that.
Look, God is good, He told us how He started things, and there is a world of discovery still to be done as we examine what appears to be an infinite universe. Jesus referred to the creation account as literally true. He knew what He was talking about. He didn’t need a Darwinian Phd to come along and correct His thinking.