wow, little bitter are we Theodor?
What, no welcome to the forum?
The middle discrict court means nothing. Macro-evolutions foundation is inference from similarities. A dog and a human have a similar limb therefore they are related? inference not testable, yet ID critics as I am assuming you are denounce ID because it is apparently not testable. The phylogentic tree is a mess and some say it needs to be discarded. Macro is also a product of slow step by step selected mutaional advantage passed down from generation to generation. Then comes Horizontal Gene Transfer. Now co-opted by evolution as an important evolutionary process.
How many generations of e-coli have been grown over the last decades with no appreciable changes. Most if not all are changes involving loss of information not gain. Broken bridges not new ones. The fruit fly experiments were dismal too. What else does macro stand on? Speciation, the fruit flies "evolved" I say experience some variation, into new species and could not breed together anymore, then it was discovered, not so fast, yes they could.
Darwin's famous finches. The headliner for evolution, again, just variation, was proven a net gain as their beaks returned to normal after the drought ended. Funny, that isn't in any of the
If there was not a crisis, censorship and personal attacks like the one that began this reply, would not be needed. Letters to congress to stifle ID would not be needed. Firing people just for publishing Id peer reviewed papers would not be needed. Look what happened over at "Preceedings" for publishing Meyers paper. The Sternburg was roasted by his own people. It is pathetic in my opinion, the lengths evolution politics goes. I won't even get into the "Quest for the missing links" promotions. All signs of a hypothesis in need of validation. From Neanderthols interbreeding with humans to DNA pointing to one branch while RNA points to an entirely diferent one, to areas of the human genome more in common with Orangutans than chimps and on and on.
I am not saying there isn't a case for investigation, I am tired of the "its a fact" rant all over the place, like if it is said enough times it will come true.
Tell me, outside of fossil inference and genome inference (which is just as likely to be inferred common design) What is there? finch beaks and moths? anti-biotic resistance? new evidence points to horizontal gene transfer for that not selection. So, what is there? What ya got?
Edited by idscience, : No reason given.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
