I'm evangelical and yet I accept evolution. Course, what the EVOS tend to ignore is that only micro-evolution has been clearly proven scientifically. Too bad more EVOS aren't truthful enough to admit there is no evidence for macro-evolution. No evidence for one species evolving into another- none, nada, zilch, zippo.
Oh and yes, I have reviewed Patrick Henry's links which basically jump to conclusions just like so many 'proofs' provided here at FR. It's pure fabrication just like the quote from this article...
"Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin," it said. Clearly another jump to a conclusion not supported by scientific fact - commonalities can just as clearly assume a common designer. But since science can't prove God and the miraculous then we are supposed to accept millions upon billions of lucky mutations that just happened to continuously evolve from one species to the next. Sorry, not buying it.
Furthermore, the latest scientific discoveries in microbiology prove that what Darwin considered a 'small step' for macro-evolution has now widened to a 'step/jump' larger than the Grand Canyon.
Oh, really? And micro-evolution stops where? At speciation? The creation of a new genus? And what limits the continued divergence of "micro-evolved" populations? Science has identified no such stopping force. The positive evidence is that it doesn't exist. Just for one instance, the fish-to-elephant transition seems to have been about 50 steps of "microevlution."
Let's look at it from another angle. Are there created kinds distinct from all others with no hint of evolution from a common ancestor? Not that science can find.
Too bad more EVOS aren't truthful enough to admit there is no evidence for macro-evolution.
We don't "admit" it because it's not true. About 29 lines of evidence agree.
No evidence for one species evolving into another- none, nada, zilch, zippo.
Wrong, as shown above.
And what do yo think the age of the earth is?
Maybe that's true for the parts of the genome that do something. But it can't account for things like the shared error that prevents people, chimps, et al, from synthesizing ascorbic acid. The shared remains of viruses (ERVs) are another thing that is awkward for the anti-evolution activists. Were they deliberately inserted for some inscrutable purpose? Then why is it that if one is common to the two species of Asian apes (gibbon and orangutan) it is inevitably found in all African apes, including us? Why is it that if one is common to Old World monkeys and New World monkeys, it will also be found in all apes, including us?
The fact is, the precise pattern of genetic markers across species faithfully reflects the phylogenetic tress that had previously been constructed on anatomical, biogeograohic, etc, grounds.
Evolution is evolution. There's no micro/macro to it.