No, I didn't. Behe and others have. Evolution science has failed to provide that map. You think that because you found B you have solved the problem, but that still doesn't provide a map.
Also, since you seem so dead-set on trying to disprove the central theory of biology, what do you propose as an alternative?
I do not need to propose an alternative. That will be your job when the scientific community realizes that evolution is implausible. It doesn't take a tailor to realize when the emperor is naked.
When you breed that cat, you'll multiply the number of cats with the extra strong leg gene that enables them to jump the chasm.
You killed the rest through natural selection. You can't breed one cat. But seriously, this illustrates an assumption evolutionists make: That all the many negative to neutral mutations will eventually add up to produce a positive change. While that may be possible, it produces a show your homework requirement. But rather than do the homework, you point to the cat on the other side of the chasm. You haven't ruled anything out, you are just claiming credit for what happened. You haven't demonstrated how the cat evolved.
The material at your link was clearly not written by scientists. I prefer articles backed up with scientific references, like this one.
Did you bother to read it? It basically repeats the link I posted as to the problems with RNA self-replication, it just doesn't stress them.
That's good. Is that an original?
Behe and the other creationist charlatans have done nothing of the sort. Behe has not done a single experiment that shows that genetic drift, selective pressures, chromosome rearrangement, horizontal gene transfer, random spontaneous mutation, random induced mutation, etc., etc., etc., do not happen. Or, to put it shortly, he has done nothing to show that DNA is static and unchangeable, which would be an important step in establishing that evolution is actually impossible. All Behe has done is snipe at scientists.
I do not need to propose an alternative. That will be your job when the scientific community realizes that evolution is implausible. It doesn't take a tailor to realize when the emperor is naked.
I can't imagine any circumstance which would cause scientists to reject the central theory of life science. Its strength as a framework that ties all the facts together into a coherent whole, and its utility for formulating workable and testable hypotheses are simply too great.
I think that at anti-science sites like Answers in Genesis (.org), they try to paint a picture where scientists are trying desperately to "prove" evolution (instead of, I presume, doing the research trying to cure diseases and so forth, which they're paid to do). The truth is that the science community was aware of evolution long before Darwin and others formulated theories about it. Even the ancient Greeks were aware of it.
You killed the rest through natural selection. You can't breed one cat. But seriously, this illustrates an assumption evolutionists make: That all the many negative to neutral mutations will eventually add up to produce a positive change. While that may be possible, it produces a show your homework requirement. But rather than do the homework, you point to the cat on the other side of the chasm. You haven't ruled anything out, you are just claiming credit for what happened. You haven't demonstrated how the cat evolved.
So, I go to the pound and get another cat, which I breed to my surviving cat. Or I keep making more cats jump the chasm until I have a male and female survivor. That's a digression, anyway--the take home message is that it doesn't matter how many organisms don't survive, the only criterion is being able to survive to reproduce.
Of course I demonstrated evolution in the cat. That one cat had a mutation that, under the cats' normal environment may have spread through the population or disappeared because it was essentially neutral; when a selective pressure was applied, that mutation was favored. Evolutionary mechanisms such as those and others operate constantly.
Did you bother to read it? It basically repeats the link I posted as to the problems with RNA self-replication, it just doesn't stress them.
I looked at the link long enough to ascertain that its author(s) used a common tactic of anti-scientists: build up a straw man as if it accurately reflects scientific knowledge, and then maybe find one reference in the literature that contains one sentence or paragraph that can be cherry-picked to support the ensuing tearing apart of the straw man. The text at that link had the superscripted numbers 1, 2, and 3, and mentioned some names as if it was actually referencing something, but there were no actual references. It took about 30 seconds to determine that the link wasn't worth reading, much less time than it has taken me to explain the features that alerted me that it's not worth reading.
If you want to know how to discern whether an article is a legitimate discussion of the science, look at the references. An anti-science article uses a minimum of references, which the author quote-mines and then discusses the mined quotes at great length, not only misrepresenting them, but exaggerating their significance. A legitimate science article uses a lot of references, and does not give undue significance to any of them. Where the anti-science article may devote several paragraphs to discussing a single quote mined from a reference, almost every sentence in a legitimate article is referenced, sometimes with more than one reference.
Note how many references were included in this research article. The portions of the article where the authors describe their experiments and results contain relatively few references, but the introduction and discussion, where they give the context behind their work and its relevance to the body of existing knowledge are heavily referenced. This article has the format typical of most scientific research articles.