Roger that. Typical evolutionary “goo to you through the zoo.” They fail to understand that their beliefs are just as much faith-based as those of us who believe in the Creator. They have no proof. Merely theory and conjecture, colored by their evolutionary beginning assumptions. Historical science is not in the same category as operational science.
Problem is, throwing a bunch of chemicals together and expecting them to form into the most “simple” (stupendously complex) single-celled organism is utterly laughable. When men thought that cells were just blobs of protoplasm, it’s understandable they could reach such a conclusion. We know better now.
And, instead of adding new information, mutation always reduces information, and usually makes the organism less viable. Thousands of generations of fruit flies have been artificially irradiated and, although some of them look freaky, they’re still just fruit flies.
I’m sure any of the many creation scientists would love to be published in secular publications. But we’ve recently seen how they go into full on freak-out when the word “creator” is even mentioned in one of their publications. There must be abject, debasing apologies for any hope of future research work.
And while the leg was turning into a wing over milions ofyears, being a lesser leg and lesser wing this entire time, both sub optimal, they would be prime targets for something else to eat.
Not to mention the soulder changes and muscle changes needed to make a wing it could flap to atually fly, and also weight considerations. And once its up there what about the tail feathers? All of this would have to magically mutate too. Just at the same rate. And reproduction? A suitable mate also mutated enough to, concidentally?
Takes more faith to believe evolution than creation that has let life adapt to diffrent environmental stresors. Brids come in al shapes and sizes due to geography and environments, but thy are all birds, you dont get something other than a bird from them.
Science, per se, does not use the term "proof" regarding hypotheses such as evolution.
The correct term is "confirmed", and evolution is classified as "theory" precisely because it has been innumerable times confirmed.
However, evolution theory is precisely equivalent to the forensic science by which our law enforcement proves and convicts criminals of crimes -- crimes which were not seen and so cannot be reproduced.
As with forensic science, evolution science looks at the evidence, down to the molecular & DNA levels, to theorize "beyond a reasonable doubt" about the events which produced it.
To claim otherwise is not correct.
afsnco: "Problem is, throwing a bunch of chemicals together and expecting them to form into the most “simple” (stupendously complex) single-celled organism is utterly laughable."
But of course, no scientist claims such a thing.
What has been demonstrated in labs is the ability of organic chemistry, under certain conditions, to self organize and begin to "complexify".
Yes, that's a far cry from "life in a test tube", but it shows that certain essential steps could happen in nature.
afsnco: ""And, instead of adding new information, mutation always reduces information, and usually makes the organism less viable. "
That is factually inaccurate, as demonstrated by certain mutations amongst human beings -- i.e., recent adaptations for high altitude living in the Himalayas and Andes, also DNA changes to protect against malaria.
Of course, your "tell" here is the weasel-word "usually", which is correct, but occasional beneficial mutations are accepted by natural selection and drive evolution, both short-term and long-term.
afsnco: "I’m sure any of the many creation scientists would love to be published in secular publications."
By US law, there's no such thing as a "creation scientist", since creationism is religion, not science.
But any creationists who wishes to do valid science is certainly welcome to submit their works for peer-review.