Maybe in the wildness of your lab mind, but never in a real scientific lab where over time the whole evolutionary process is shown to be true to a high degree of accuracy.
As all of the component claims made by Evilutionist are observable in the lab occurring in parallel, why do you assume that given umpteen million years we'd not be able to observe them in series?
It has been observe in the lab that:
- The mechanism for genetic duplication is imperfect.
- The imperfect copy can be deleterious, neutral or beneficial in effect relative to reproductive survival.
- Reproductive success is the gold standard of genetic perfection; in other words, there is no template for what a gene should look like.
- There is no mechanism to correct "excessive" neutral and beneficial genetic variation.
- Two successful genetic lines are not necessarily compatible.
- Non-compatible genetic lines trend to greater non-compatibility.
- Blah-blah-blah .
And it is possible that I've understated the case. If I'm not mistaken in what I've read in this forum, the entire list has also been observed occurring in series in the lab.
[impulsive curiosity]Please, to anyone who knows, how does one differentiate specialization in bacteria? [/impulsive curiosity]
Every Evilutionist on earth agrees with you that a germ turning into a puppy has never been observed; and this failure of observation has been explained to you four score times: Evilutionists clearly state that such an observation would falsify the Theory of Evilution ” so it's not necessary for you to repeat said bit of drivel. But does this not make you question your understanding of what it is you rile against?
It is not yet possible to compress time in the lab (put a sock in it, you pedant physicists), so your requirement for real time, evolutionary superfamily emergence is not a fact on hand. Science only calls for a Theory to be "the best possible explanation" for the facts on hand. Evolution is, therefore, science.
Evilutionists have clearly defined their argument: X. It is X that you must rebut. They have even been so good as to tell you explicitly what would show X to be wrong. Which anti-X have you established?
Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.
™ Version 4.2
