So why does NS as the theory of Evolution fail to provide:
Predictions about future evolution?
Stronger definitions of terms, like species instead of weaker ones.
Real, replicable experiments, that reinforce the hypothesis.
I like reading talkorigins, it is a fascinating place. They are really into the idea that Evolution happens.
That is not the theory. Natural Selection is. That is the rub.
Talk origins admits there are very few transitional species in the fossil record. That is pivotal evidence (proof if it will make you unhappy) of NS as the Theory of Evolution.
So why do you believe that any of these species trees are unable to reproduce with their ancestors? Morphology?
How is the useful in a predictive way?
DK
I'm not a creationist. Don't go there. I am aghast at how useless NS as a theory is.
First of all, what O what is NS as the theory of Evolution? Why do none of you creationists know how to state what the theory is?
The Darwinian Theory of Evolution is that the species of life on Earth originated by common descent via a mechanism of random variation and natural selection. You ignore common descent, even though you obviously question it if you are arguing (as you are) that holes in the record are real holes in the history. That can only mean you are arguing for separate creation, which means you think somebody with some pretty advanced capabilities is running around poofing new things into being suddenly. That has implications for some of your later protests.
Most of your creationist confreres throw away natural selection and foam at the mouth all day about randomness won't do this or that. They have that all wrong, too. While your approach is different, it's still wrong. None of you correctly state the theory you are claiming to be wrong. That's dazzling.
The best list of predictions and potential falsifications is in the 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. It's basically organized along the lines of prediction, potential falsification, and actual evidence. Your personal list is a field of strawmen which would as well be applied to meteorology, astronomy, or any other field with chaotic interactions. Being supposedly familiar with TO, it's funny you don't know any better.
Talk origins admits there are very few transitional species in the fossil record.
Their Transitional Vertebrates FAQ lets you trace fish transitioning to elephants, as Ichneumon has demonstrated at times. Good thing the fossil record isn't any sketchier, huh?
So why do you believe that any of these species trees are unable to reproduce with their ancestors? Morphology?
Because I can't reproduce with any of my ancestors? How dumb do you want to play this?
I'm not a creationist. Don't go there.
That must be in the talking points memo for June. All the other creationists are lying about who they are, too. It has happened once before, back sometime in 2000 or so. This, too, will pass.