Evolution debate persists because it's not science

But did you ever wonder why Darwinism's general theory of evolution, sometimes called macroevolution, has been debated for over 150 years without resolution? The surprising answer is Darwin's macroevolution theory is not a legitimate science. The National Academy of Sciences clearly defined science in its 1998 guidebook for science teachers. The definition begins with [stating that] science is a particular way of knowing about the world, and ends with, "Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not part of science." In other words, a legitimate scientific theory (a hypothesis or idea) must be observable in real time and must be testable, yielding reproducible results. That is the core of the scientific method that has brought man out of the Dark Ages.

Because confirmable observations and generating experimental data are impossible for unique events like life's origin and macroevolution theory, world-famous evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr prompts evolutionists to construct historical narratives to try to explain evolutionary events or processes. In other words, stories are all evolutionists can muster to support macroevolution theory. If macroevolution theory, which must rest on faith in a story and is considered to be scientific, why not the creation story. With that in mind, it is no wonder the molecules-to-man debate has persisted for 150 years...

You in post #557: “but not all those *failed* plans need be fatal, as in the case of limbs developing to flippers. A limb going to flipper is not a serious enough failure in change that the individual would not not make it to birth. That is not a fatal birth defect.

But what good would a partially formed limb that is transitioning from leg to flipper be? It would be a liability to a land creature, leaving it more susceptible to injury and death as the land creature could not use a hybrid leg/flipper for locomotion very easily, nor could it use a hybrid arm/flipper to gather food.”

Obviously a seal doesn’t see the same problem in having a partial flipper partial leg that you do. And your later claim that I was the one that brought it up?

You in Post #640 “Nobody said anything about transitional limbs being useless either and yet you keep harping on that as if someone stated it. No one brought it up but you.

I said that a transitional limb does not function as well as a fully formed one for the purposes it’s used for. A transitional flipper/limb isn’t as useful for walking and running as a fully formed leg nor would it be as useful for swimming as a fully formed flipper. Watching seals lurch along on the ice demonstrates that.”

But obviously a seal not swimming as well as if it had a fully functional flipper or walking as well as if it had a fully functional leg is not a detriment to seals survival. They both swim well enough and walk well enough to survive and thrive.

Doesn’t seal survival demonstrate to you that your premise is fundamentally flawed?

If not then there is little sense one can impart to you.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.