What do you mean?
I don't see why you think that this ought to make people throw up their arms in despair over the theory of evolution. It would be more related to the age of the earth and its strata. We have multiple evidences that the earth is billions of years old and multiple evidences that this strata is millions of years old. When multiple tests are pointing you in the same direction and you have one anomaly, it's more likely that you just don't fully understand the anomaly rather than being completely wrong about the whole scenario.
Likewise we have multiple evidences that evolution has occurred and species are related by common descent. The data fits together so well that it would be difficult to disprove evolution with one or two anomalies.
So, some things that would indicate evolution is not true. If evolution is not true and YEC is we would expect to see a complete mixup in the fossil record--Permian creatures fossilized with Quaternary ones, no sorting of microfossils, and no lines of evolution with increasing complexity and specialization (we see these with foraminifera, ammonites, horses, stegosauri, etc.) The genetic data would be all mixed up and we wouldn't be able to use nested heirarchies based off multiple genes to organize phylogenies. The ERV and pseudogene data that indicates common ancestry of apes and humans would be absent.
In the geologic data we would not find sedimentary rocks containing fossils overlaid with igneous rock that indicates it was formed on dry land. Since YEC say in general that fossils were laid down during the Flood, overlaying igneous rocks should be in the form of pillow lava indicating deposition under water. Since coal seams were supposed to originate from vegetation mats deposited during the Flood, we would not see dinosaur tracks across coal seams indicating these originated as peat in swampy areas. Likewise, we wouldn't see fossilized rootlines growing down into the coal from when in the swamp trees grew in it. There would not be the sharp divisions in the stone we see caused by long-term variations in the levels of certain elements, such as the drastic change from green Permian rock to red, iron-rich Triassic rock. Since all fossils are supposed to have been deposited in the Flood, every fossil should carbon date to the same recent age.
Everything that we see indicates an old earth and old universe, and all of the fossil and genetic evidence indicates evolution and common descent. What's more, observation of living animals and examination of their genomes has provided us with a huge amount of information on by what mechanisms evolution could occur. We have come to see that mutations are not universally negative and that information can be added to a genome. We can observe natural selection occuring in front of our eyes. These observations provide all of the information needed to conclude that evolution can and did happen.
Ooh, wait, let me try this time...
"No it isn't! The Bible says you're wrong! Creationism is right!"
</sarc>
[whack!] ;-)
You know what I truly find refreshing when I read the creation sites? How often they don't use the all-inclusive terms that I find litered throughout so much of the evolution threads and sites. Does anyone know of a good (yet humble) evolution site that is willing to stick to the facts w/o telling jumping to conclusions not supported by the data?
Your thread sounds like multiple evidences for the missing link but please tell me, show me. Also you probably realize that we are most likely looking for missing chains not links...
Then in the last 2 paragraphs you indicate just about everything the www.creationscience.com debunks. If it were truly just one or two anomolies than I would never bother posting replies to this crevo thread. Please re-read the scientific method and stick to things that can be presented truthfully - please.
Precisely what I wrote, "This evidence should not be noteworthy, but it is."
This is to be viewed in light of the charge that ID is non-falsifiable. I contend that Darwinism is also non-falsifiable. Any evidence contrary to the dogma will be marginalized and ridiculed. Yet this evidence is noteworthy in the eyes of many and not due to any reason of its expectation.