One could say as much and not be completely outside the bounds of logic or reality. I prefer to speak of "biblical texts" as opposed to "The Bible." It is a more accurate way of denoting those things to which my reason and senses are subject.
It would be a falsification of evolution for a prediction of evolution to fail.
The problem is, all the "predictions" evolution can make WRT common ancestry are in a static record science cannot test and repeat. Furthermore, that record was not, and is not, subject to direct observation. Furthermore it lacks a great deal when it comes to a written record by humans who witnessed its creation.
If it is not attested by direct observation and written records related to the same, then it is the object of conjecture and little more. That is not to say conjecture is always wrong, or illogical, or not worth consideration. But it does not rise to the level of science as practiced for the betterment of knowledge.
The convergence predicted by evolution is visible where I said it is.
Of course. Given the assumptions of evolution, the evidence can plugged in at will and "Voila! We have convergence!"
You are citing the lack of a smooth continuum in extant beings between humans and apes as a lack of evidence for evolution.
Yep. But I never said Darwin claimed the same thing. In fact Darwin would avoid that, and so will his followers. But it is a good question to ask: "Why no continuum?" The only way the question is answered is through "extinction" (i.e. lack of evidence) or the suggestion that such evidence is not needed to support evolution.
I happen to differ. I think if evolution were indeed true there would be at least one or two cases where the distiction bewteen apes and humans was difficult. Curiously, the fuzziness only happens when bones and fossils are brought to the table.
. . . a theory with explanatory power for the fossil record, the molecular makeup of extant life, and the embryology of extant life is too important to chuck . . .
Most of evolutionism does not qualify as "theory" in the scientific sense. It needs to leave the science classroom quietly, walk down the hall, and take a seat in the history or philosophy class, right there where creationism has its place. No need to "chuck" it, but honesty demands it be labled and taught according to what it truly is, not what it's proponents wish it to be.
In Darwin's day, that record was far less complete than now. Darwin predicted that future finds would further outline a tree of common descent. Naysayers scoffed. Darwin was right. That's successful prediction.
If it is not attested by direct observation and written records related to the same, then it is the object of conjecture and little more.
This has been demolished by other posters on this thread already and all you do is repeat. Another fingers-in-the-ear Fester performance, but csense is reading it avidly for the 20th time, his lips forming the words.
Of course. Given the assumptions of evolution, the evidence can plugged in at will and "Voila! We have convergence!"
Mumble mumble mumble evolutionist assumptions mumble mumble mumble. All the evidence? 29+ Independent Lines? What assumptions underlie the study of cytochrome C which would make it yield the same tree of life as the fossil record?
Most of evolutionism does not qualify as "theory" in the scientific sense. It needs to leave the science classroom quietly, walk down the hall, and take a seat in the history or philosophy class, right there where creationism has its place. No need to "chuck" it, but honesty demands it be labled and taught according to what it truly is, not what it's proponents wish it to be.
Unsupported assertion. Now, if you want a statement that lacks explanatory power, try "Goddidit."