Replies

That's precisely where Darwinists are hurting science. They show very small evidence, and then propound on it's applicability to massive and diverse changes.

I made a change in a bacteria, therefore all flora and fauna respond similarly.

I found a single example of speciation, therefore it is true for all species.

Without a rigorously defined mechanism, it pablum. Hardly a satisfying or robust theory.

I had to stop reading the 29 evidences for macroevolution because you could change a few words and say it was evidence for Intelligent Design. Just like the philosophical arguments for the existence or nonexistence of God. Semantic drivel that does not advance science or man one whit. If you cannot use NS as a predictive or quantitative model, it has limited usefulness as a theory.

RWP, predict something about NS that has not been seen, and will be according to NS? Of course the more trivial the prediction, the more trivial the theory.

DK

That's precisely where Darwinists are hurting science. They show very small evidence, and then propound on it's applicability to massive and diverse changes.

You mean like Newton saw an apple fall, and inferred the motion of the planets was a result of gravitation?

RWP, predict something about NS that has not been seen, and will be according to NS?

I'm presuming you mean evolution here. A NS prediction will be that any new antiobiotic will eventually result in a mutant population of bacteria resistant to the antibiotic.

An evolutionary prediction: the chimpanzee genome will be published this summer. I haven't seen it yet. Most genes will be very close in sequence to human genes; a fair number will be identical; very few will be closer to non-primate genes than human genes, and none will be closer to invertebrate genes than human genes. There will also be no more similarities to furry medium sized animals than can be expected from their phylogenies, despite any superficial similarities of niche or appearance. There will be a close relationship between the layouts of the genes on the chromosomes of humans and chimps, barring one break of a single chromosome into two.

That enough? You want some predictions about other soon-to-be-sequenced genomes?

That's precisely where Darwinists are hurting science. They show very small evidence, and then propound on it's applicability to massive and diverse changes.

Well said. I would argue that the diehard proponents of current evolutionary theory do much more harm to science than 10 times as many early earth creationists could ever dream of doing. It's insane to teach that there are no problems with the current theory of evolution. That's indoctrination, not science.

I agree with you, and what you said. I, of course, hold to the belief that we are created by a loving God. The Bible says He did it in 7 days. However, I would not begin to argue with anyone what even a day is too God. I can't, you can't, no one can. The reason being is we were not there.
I can not accept we just formed out of a single celled organism starting billions of years ago.

Evolution will never be proved conclusively, because it is based on ideas and concepts in which there just simply is no way to prove through a scientific method. People say because we have similarities with apes, we must have evolved with apes. How ridiculous a claim!!! I have always said, and will always say if evolution is real we should be able to find examples in various forms of the evolutionary process. Evolutionists would argue we are all evolving, it is just so slow we can't see it physically. I say it doesn't matter how slow it is, we should still see evidence of evolution in someone or some animal by virtue of the fact is every living thing is of different ages. An 80 year old woman for example, should have some measureable evolved difference as opposed to me, being a 32 year old man. This whole evolutionary claim is absurd, IMHO.