Uhhhh .. can you explain how 'selective breeding' works then?
Oh - it doesn't?
That's funny - and I thought that it had been used for years on everything from food to fauna ...
Another thing - why is there a prohibition on people marrying their close family members - is there some 'genetic thing' that results in - omigod - the possible crreation of a 'weak' genetic being (wherein normally recessive undesireable genetic characteristics may appear)?
1. The unsubstantiation of a Darwinian mechanism of evolution
Uhhhh .. intelligence? A specific goal being worked toward? Unwanted traits being bred out?
How does an unthinking, unplanning process do that?
Creationism is a pseudo-science that grew up mainly for legal reasons. The courts said that only science, not religion, could be taught in the public schools. This provoked a response that the Genesis account is scientific, which is something of a distortion. This is not to say that it isn't true, but it's not science in the usual sense of the word. You can't blame the creationists for doing what they did. Rather the fault was with the courts, for banning God, the Bible, and morality from the schools. That was a disastrous and unconstitutional error.
Intelligent design theory, on the other hand, is science. And it makes more sense than the general theory of evolution.
You can't prove the truths of Christianity by scientific method. It's a matter of revelation and belief. But you can demonstrate that the hypothesis that the universe was created by an intelligent designer is much likelier than the hypothesis that it arose by blind chance. There are just too many problems for Darwin's theory to hold up.
It is right there in the text. Either argue with that or try again.
In breeding, humans select traits already existing in a species and mate individuals with those traits to reinforce the trait. The genes for these traits already exist in the species, no new traits are created therefore it does not give any proof for evolutionists. Evolution needs new genes for the miriad different species out there. Breeding creates no new genes.
Uhhhh .. can you explain how 'selective breeding' works then?
Oh - it doesn't?
That's funny - and I thought that it had been used for years on everything from food to fauna ...
Breeders have never once bred one kind of animal into another. Moreover, you can take the extreme values they get for any one species, such as great danes and chihauhaus and turn them loose in the forest and, five generations later, all which will be left is your ordinary 50-lb. hunting dog seen all over the world, or the norm for the given species.
Likewise, breeders in the 1800s told Chuck Darwin he was full of $#!T and that all anybody trying to breed a new kind of animal would ever get would be sterile individuals and individuals which returned boomarang-like to the norm for the species they were working with.
Guess what? The scientists who conducted the famous fruit-fly experiments in the early 1900's saw only sterile individuals and individuals which returend, boomarang-like, to the norm for fruit flies. These experiments with a creature which produces new generations every few days went on for many years and involved everything known to cause mutations, electricity, radiation, chemicals, temperature extremes, and deliberate efforts to combine mutants, and all they ever got was fruit flies.
The results presented so overwhelming a case against evolution that a number of the scientists publically disavowed evolution. The most notable such case was Goldschmidt with his "hopeful monster" theory, who afterwards claimed to be being subjected to something like the "two minute hate" sessions described by Orwell by his colleagues.