I'm sorry, but repeating talking points from some creationist website is not the same as dissecting, from a scientific standpoint, the theory. How can a scientist possibly apply "pre-existing knowledge after the fact," when the whole point of science is to reveal new knowledge?
There is nothing in evolutinary 'theory' that would inform you as to whether canids and fungi would have any metabolic pathways in common either, much less what similaritities and differences you would expect to see between those pathways.
Really? You are so sure of that? I'm so glad I have you to tell me that the methodology I've been using throughout my whole entire scientific career doesn't actually work.
How about, instead of repeating creationist talking points, you try to learn (objectively!) something about the theory which you are trying to discredit. The only way to legitimately discredit it is through understanding it.
What in this life has neutral political, cultural, and religious consequences?
Answer: ***Almost nothing! ****
This is why our Founding Fathers constructed a **limited** government, because nearly everything the government touches has NON-neutral political, cultural, and religious consequences that impact the real lives of citizens.
While the process of the scientific method are dispassionately defined the findings uncovered are almost never politically, culturally, or religiously neutral and do have non-neutral consequences for real people.
If there were NO government K-12 schools, and **all** colleges and universities were privately funded, and if **all** research ( except for military defense) were private, the extreme animosity among the evolutionists, creationists, and IDers would drip up like dew on hot summer's day.
Much of the tension among these three groups is because they seriously do not want their tax dollars going toward teaching the next generation of voters a worldview, or to promote a worldview, that they find politically, culturally, and religiously abhorrent!
The above applies equally to all of the groups participating in this tug of war for government control over the worldview of its citizens.
(By the way...In my homeschool, with my children, evolution was taught, and we are a deeply Christian family.)
Maybe the moderators would consider a Science Caucus. No scientific topic can be discussed in Free Republic without it devolving into this kind of squabble. There is no basis in trust, of philosophy, or even a common fact base for productive conversation to go on so I think it would just be best for everyone concerned to separate the two sides with a caucus barrier.
I'm sorry, but misrepresenting my comments and responding with evolutionist talking points is not the same as answering the criticism with lucid responses.
"How can a scientist possibly apply "pre-existing knowledge after the fact," when the whole point of science is to reveal new knowledge?"
Oh really? Do you discover everything about an organism all over again every time you look at it?
"Really? You are so sure of that? I'm so glad I have you to tell me that the methodology I've been using throughout my whole entire scientific career doesn't actually work."
Really? Are you sure of that? You keep repeating that evolutionist talking point but never give examples of just how evolution has uniquely 'helped' you. We should just trust you, right? Typical 'scientific' response because the reality is so much less impressive than the claim.
"How about, instead of repeating creationist talking points, you try to learn (objectively!) something about the theory which you are trying to discredit. The only way to legitimately discredit it is through understanding it."
How about taking your own advice instead of repeating evolutionist talking points.
I would be most happy to teach you to look at 'evolution' objectively but you refuse to engage. You simply repeat the evolutionist mantra that 'nothing in biology makes sense without evolution' without actually showing how that is true. Of course, the truth would be so much less convincing than just saying, "I am a scientist and you should believe me." Yes, I know all about 'scientists'.
I asked you how the biological observations would differ between an 'evolved' biology and a biology that was created with a broad ability to adapt and you responded with a strawman IIRC. You are so committed to evolution that you simply couldn't conceptually engage any new paradigm.
Evolution is discredited by people who do understand it. It is only the true believers who set up strawman alternatives and regurgitate evolutionist talking points that still believe.