[[I would rather discuss “could be’s” as opposed to what some consider “facts”..]]
i can chime in here- and point to a few facts of science-
—it’s a fact species have biological limits that if exceeded result in species degredation to hte point hwere hte species is no logner fit- this isn’t just an opinion, this is a study/tested fact
—Mutations cause stresses o n a system and result in loss of information
—Macroevolution needs icnreases in non species specific information- Nature does not provide that htrough mutaitons
—it’s a fact that the bible said there was no death of spirit or bloodshed before the fall- in order for macroevolution to have happened, were it even a biological possibility, the bible would have to have stated a lie about sin and death
—it’s a fact that it is mathematically impossible for mutaitons to create new non species specific infromation
—it’s a fact that it’s biologically impossibile for chemicals to produce metainformation and hte heirarchal system of information needed before Macroevolution even has a slight chance of being a possibility
—it’s a fact that metainformation NEEDS to be inpalce first before any new non species specific informaiton can be itnroduced- otherwise the species receives nothign but noise that the species system can not cope with- introducing non species specific info also results in again, loss of species specific info, and degrades the species specific info resulting in less fitness for hte species.
—it’s a fact, that when species experience change due to mutaiton, that hwen left to their own, they tend to begin shedding htose changes, and return to their original fitness levels- the do not keep moving away fro mtheir originally created kind as woudl be needed IF mutaitons could possibily result in macroevolution- which it can’t at any rate. this is a studied and tested fact.
— it is a fact that the second law is detrimental to living systems- whether it be in an open system or a closed on, and in order for macroevolution to be possible, the second law woudl have had to have been violated in billions of species trillions of times all through hte process
—it’s a fact that we have no examples of living systems being able to violate the principle of hte second law except in one single species of bacteria, and even there, the species is STILL beholden to hte law, but has hte ability to renew it’s DNA AFTER it’s old DNA gets too degraded to continue on- this is a unique ability however, and is only seen in one bacteria species, and infact is not an actual violation of hte second law, but a delaying due to the unique ability to renew it’s own DNA thus delaying hte inevitable.
—it’s a fact that an objetive look at hte fossil record shows discontinuity, and hte only way to claim continuity, is by assuming naturalism without any evidence to back the assumptions up
—it’s a fact that there was an ‘explosion’ of fully formed species during what is called hte cambrian age- most species which were the same hten as they are now- with perhaps minor trait changes, which as we know is microevolution, not macroevolution
—it’s a fact that micro and macro evolution are two entirely different biological processes- one causes change to info already present, the other is a result of the creation or introduction of new non species specific information
—it’s a fact that macroevolutionists try to equate hte two processes as beign hte same, but they are not.
There’s lots of facts- not just opinions based on beyond reasonable doubt conclusions based on the evidences present.
And that you are not "spinning minutia" in abbreviated form to make a point?..
If so, your opinion is your opinion.. and thats a fact.. in my opinion..
The fossil record shows, not only discontinuity, but stasis: the preservation of species morphological form over extended periods of time, unto the hundreds of thousands of years or more. In light of these facts, one wonders where the macroevolutionist got the idea that the evolution of species (as "simulated" by the fossil record) is in any way "continuous" is beyond me. Stasis and continuity are mutually exclusive terms. There seems to be nothing "empirical" about such a claim.