Replies

Pray tell, how do you test the effect of millions of years on living things in a laboratory?

I was of course only claiming that we can and do routinely demonstrate the adaptive (at the population level) effects of mutation and natural selection in the laboratory. This is particularly easy with bacteria as already noted, although it's often done with fruit flies. But, then, mutation and natural selection are the parts you left out in describing what evolution even is so perhaps you don't think such experiments demonstrate evolution.

However, the evidence for common descent, the part of evolution you have heard of, is overwhelming. The frequently cited "just as good" hypothesis of "common designer," among its weaknesses, is far less tight. In fact, it excludes nothing at all. Anything anyone will ever show you, you can point at it and say, "The Designer left it looking like that." Furthermore, as has been pointed out, what the designer could have been thinking--or drinking--can hardly be imagined.

"I was of course only claiming that we can and do routinely demonstrate the adaptive (at the population level) effects of mutation and natural selection in the laboratory. This is particularly easy with bacteria as already noted, although it's often done with fruit flies. But, then, mutation and natural selection are the parts you left out in describing what evolution even is so perhaps you don't think such experiments demonstrate evolution."

OK. I understand these are PART of evolutionary theory, but they are not unique to it. Adaptive mutation and natural selection are simple observations of biology. Hopefully everyone debating this issue agrees to that.

What we disagree about is the assumption that universal common ancestry is the only explanation for a variety of species with similar characteristics. Having a common designer explains these facts just as well. And, as far as I know, that is the real issue where evolutionists and creationists (or ID proponents) disagree.

(Notwithstanding, Biblical creationists commonly, though not universally, do not believe in an ancient earth. While I do not consider this position essential to the Biblical creationist view, I remain unpersuaded by arguments in favor of an earth billions of years old. An ancient earth, at least more than a few thousand years, is essential to the common descent premise of current evolutionary theory. So I view this as a weakness of the common descent premise even if others do not.)

The link you provided made this statement: "Modern organisms are the genetic descendants of one original species or communal gene pool." If we are only talking about a communal gene pool (not residing within a single organism) then we do not NECESSARILY have a conflict with creationism. The problem is assuming all species descended from a single organism (which even the statement above does not say, it only says one original species). In a sense, modern living organisms share a communal gene pool, though genetic information does not easily pass from one species to another because that does not happen in the ordinary mechanism of reproductive processes.

"Furthermore, as has been pointed out, what the designer could have been thinking--or drinking--can hardly be imagined."

So you have more of a problem with "intelligent" than "design"?

What examples can you provide of a possible designer being unintelligent?