Replies

It's been repeatedly disproven over a very long period of time, and from a dozen or more different angles, and yet the luddites go on with it. One example involved fruit flies which breed new generations every day or two. Comprehensive studies of fruit flies over several decades as was done in the early decades of the last century amounts to studying more generations of fruit flies than there have ever been of humans or anything much like humans. They subjected those fruit flies to every agent known to cause mutations and then recombined the mutants every possible way, and all they ever got was fruit flies, sterile freaks, and freaks which returned to being fruit flies after one generation because all the information there was in the genetic code for the fruit flies was how to build a fruit fly.

This amounted to a laboratory disproof which was so unambiguous that several major scientists publically repudiated Darwinism at the time, including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt who offered up his "hopeful monster" theory as an alternative. He subsequently claimed to be being subjected by colleagues to something similar to George Orwell's ten-minute hate sessions from "1984".

That's one angle on it, there are a dozen or so others.

Comprehensive studies of fruit flies.......

Similar point more forcefully argued by Michael Behe in his new Book "The Edge of Evolution."

Part of the problem people have is that "Evolution" is a term thrown around without context or definition. Even six-day creationists believe in certain kinds of evolution (and fairly rapid evolution).*

The rub comes with Darwinian Evolution, which has excluded the possibility of any "outside" mover (intelligent designer) from the outset. If you make yourself deaf, you cannot hear.

*for example, the races of man must have developed from a single pair over 6,000 years

Goldschmidt’s theory was a theory of evolution differing from previously accepted ideas. It was not at all a theory of non-evolution. That argument was settled long ago, and there is no scientific evidence that it was settled wrongly. Nothing in the research on fruit flies in any way refutes evolution (incidentally, geneticists like a certain species of fruit fly because it has only four pairs of chromosomes).

So one example of a species showing no signs of evolving over a small period of time (and your experiment does nothing to show that it is generations that matter more than time) means that no species evolved over any period of time?

You call THAT an absolute contradictory proof?!?
You clearly do not understand the scientific method.