I suspect you're actually taking a lot of that by faith. Do you actually know these things or are you just basing them on your faith in the scores of other people who believe and teach them -- just like the creationist people do with regards to their trusted leaders?
I have not found noteworthy evidence (other then the idea of inherited retrovirus dna, about which I do not know enough to be certain of) supporting ASBE. (All Species By Evolution.) The transitional form fossils are vastly scares and take huge leaps compared to the millions of generations which lived. Having grown up on a farm and just in general payed attention to the world around me, I know that there are occasional grotesque mutations. There are also extremes in size. I also know that if I gave you a bucket full of randomly sized and randomly colored marbles you could select out ones to demonstrate that the bigger ones were brighter colored or by selecting different ones you could demonstrate just the opposite.
If we had fossils from every 10 generations or so, going back a million years, that would be convincing. But we don't. What we have is a sparse collection of bone fragments, often consisting more of plaster then bone, and I have no way of knowing just what selectivity was performed in lining up those specimens. Only to a mind that believes with all their heart with a religious fervor that all life must have evolved does this appear as evidence.
See this lineup showing what microevolution has done. Look at the variation there. I see nothing in any of the fossil evidences that couldn't have been caused by the amount of normal variation as seen here.
But as to whether the theory of ASBE and your statement that the fossil records have not falsified it, I'm not so sure. I agree that people who are convinced that all came from nothing will buy easily into the idea - but not having that dogma myself, I have to ask myself "How long can we go on waiting for substantial solid evidence before the lack thereof does begin to falsify?" I also like to ask how much government money can we through behind a theory before it becomes impossible to tell whether the theory lives on the evidence or on the cash flow.
To those who are not bound by the dogma that "We know it came from nothing," the evidence is just not nearly so convincing. To us, it looks like the evolutionist believes with all his heart that all came from nothing and that one day the evidence will all come in, but in the mean time they just pretend that it's already in. Faith is the hope in things not yet seen.
By the way, I think this falsifies the theory of ASBE: Many mammals are vulnerable in two places, both of which are likely candidates to eliminate the victim from the gene pool either as a result of intentional harm by an enemy or wild animal or as a result of just getting slashed by a stationary stick while running through the woods. One is the jugular veins, right out in the open, just under the skin. I mean, the eyes, the spinal cord, the heart, lungs, etc., are all protected by a bone-armor plating. The eye only peers out as it needs to, but on all other sides is protected. As to the other unlikely vulnerability, I'll let you figure that one out, but here's a clue, if you've ever played back-yard soccer as a child or watched boys playing back-yard soccer you know what I'm talking about.
Just how much of a detriment does evolution have to cause before we admit that yeah, this doesn't make sense?
So do you agree that the jugular and balls example I cite above does falsify the theory of ASBE?
Thanks,
-Jesse
I take the fossil record stuff on trust. My original background is microbiology, that I don't take on trust.
I agree that people who are convinced that all came from nothing will buy easily into the idea - but not having that dogma myself,
This something from nothing concept seems to be a major problem for you. What if I told you that everything is made up of waves of nothing. That matter is simply an emergent property of those waves of nothing. What if I also told you that the theories that those observations are based on are the most precise and accurate theories that we have. They are much more precise than any of Newtons Theories by an order of magnitude, even if they are probabilistic. And to answer your next question I have done the Stern-Gerlach and double slit experiment myself, many times actually. So I am not taking that on faith.
So do you agree that the jugular and balls example I cite above does falsify the theory of ASBE?
I don't think that it confirms or denies ASBE. If anything though it confirms it. The fact that in many ways we seem to be poorly designed lends credence to the theory. We also seem to have a lot of extraneous features, like a tail bone, appendix, and sinus cavities. Then there are the poor and vulnerable structural designs, from a structural engineering view point our knees are a nightmare, the same as our hips and spinal connection.
Here is something for you to think about. Your parents each contributed a living cell from themselves to create you. 'Soon' we will be able to trace your genetic lineage back as far as we want, differentiating the sources. Your DNA does a remarkably good job preserving the data. At some point we will be able to compare anyone's or any species genetic data and show when they had a single common ancestor. Right now, we are just doing crude comparison matches, very soon though, in the next 10 to 20 years they will be able to take any two samples and be able to determine how many generations back they had the same parents. At some point in the past you and I have the same parents, at some point in the past a chimpanzee and I have the same parents, at some point in the past I have the same parent as an earthworm, etc. Right now all we can do is crude comparisons and determine how much of the DNA is identical, so we know we are on the right track, but soon we will be able to identify the exact generational split. We carry our histories in us.