While there is obviously a great deal of incompetence among the creationist "authors", it is unfortunately true that there is a large amount of dishonesty as well. Check out the links I provided -- many of them involve creationists who continue to repeat their falsehoods even after they've been given indisputable evidence that they *were* falsehoods (e.g., pointing out that they were misquoting a researcher and the researcher specifically repudiated the creationist's misstatement of the research, etc.)
There IS no answer that either "proves" or "disproves" Darwin theory as to the origin of species
Well of course not -- science does not deal in "proofs". On the other hand, science *can* disprove a theory (known as falsification) if its predictions don't match the evidence. And for over 100 years evolutionary theory has survived all such potential "disproof" tests.
- all the Darwin theory does is concentrate a greater number of particular genetic combinations for specific conditions, but it does not, CANNOT, explain differences in chromosome numbers,
Please support this claim of yours. I've seen it explain differences in chromosome numbers quite well.
or further interactions that cause sharp inheritable differences from the parent stock,
And this one.
sufficiently so to rationalize calling the offspring a different species altogether. Porcupines do not produce bears, and worms do not produce butterflies.
Of course not, but then evolutionary biology doesn't say that they do. Are you sure you understand the science you're attempting to critique? Isn't knowing something about a field a necessary prerequisite to actually being able to determine if it's valid or not?
Flaming is such an unattractive quality.
Indeed. Please direct that excellent advice to Terriergal.
Evolution may occur. Postulated theories SEEM to support this point of view. The question I am attempting to raise, however, is, "What is the driving force for evolution?"
It is approaching the preposterous to assert this is all just "a random chain of circumstances" as seems to be implied.
Automobiles, for example, do not "evolve", they are the result of applied engineering, tested to the point of destruction, and the lessons learned from the failures are applied as modifications to the original design, so we go from 1903 Olds runabouts to a 2005 Toyota Prius. But we do not simply add parts to the runabout to make a Prius.
The point I am trying to make, is that there is an "engineer" that goes back and does the tinkering, far outside the realm of random chance that some good modification may come along and just magically apply itself to the failed design. Wherein comes this "intelligent design" argument.
Science may not deal in "proofs". But mathematics, on which the science is based, DOES insist on "proofs". Have you ever tried to explain to your geometry teacher that you "discovered" how to trisect an angle? At whatever level, the geometry instructor simply scoffs. Seems there is no demonstratable "proof" of the theorem. Therefore trisecting an angle is a mere "trick" and regardless of the number of times it may be replicated, is not accepted. But the technique has never been disproved, either. As an engineering concept, it would work just fine.
Biology is just a specialized branch of engineering, where pragmatic deductions are made from the observed reactions of the subject under study to various stimuli or situations. The study has gotten VASTLY more refined in the past fifty years, as the more intricate parts of the mechanisms have been recognized and their function studied, but we are still a long ways from knowing how the design was introduced in the first place.
Which brings us back to "intelligent design". Biological entities do not "evolve", they adapt to their environment. New life models are introduced, by some mechanism we yet do not know, to replace the failed entities that cannot adapt.
But Darwin does not begin to explain how some different life form arises from what is adduced to be a more primitive form. Does some virus infect the host, and add or transfer genetic material, making the changes permanent, irreversible, and incompatible with the parent stock, all the while maintaining viability? Because any biologist worth his salt is well aware that the vast majority of mutant genetic changes are either deleterious to the point of being downright lethal, or have no known positive effect. And the more the change, the more the negative effect is compounded.
Which means that the death rate of the incompletely or poorly adapted offspring would be horrendous before reaching the age of reproduction, and there is no certainty that there would be offspring in sufficient number to assure a minimum number to maintain a population.
Sko I ask one more time, "What is the driving force for evolution?"