there are no facts about evolution. Its pure opininated, conjectural theory.
Rubbish. On the contrary, there is a veritable mountain of facts that support the theory of common descent. It is neither a matter of opinion nor conjecture that humans and chimpanzees are genetically related, and very closely at that - it is a plain fact. It is also a plain fact that the human genome shares a high degree of sequence homology with all other mammals, and (to differing extents) all other lifeforms. Given that the "coincidence" concept is refuted by creationists and evolutionists alike, there remains only two possible explanations for the degree of homology between the human genome and those of other species - common descent and special creation. The fact is that the evidence (fossil, anatomical and genetic) supports the common descent hypothesis
completely. Whether it also supports the special creation hypothesis too is a moot point, not least because there is
no way to falsify the special creation hypothesis. Conversely, the common descent hypothesis is easily falsifiable - so easy infact that it would only take
one individual of one single species to do it, and yet, guess what, we're still waiting. Indeed, evolutionary biology and comparative genomics reveals the fundamental and irrefutable fact that all lifeforms yet discovered share common characteristics - cells, genomes, gene sequences, proteins etc. This is in total agreement with the common descent hypothesis. The factual evidence available in the form of the fossil record, comparative anatomy, and now also comparative genomics, has confirmed the common descent hypothesis at every turn. It is merely your opinion that this amounts to "pure opininated, conjectural theory", so pardon me for disagreeing.
As you say "In your opinion". Is your opinion so weakly based that it cannot withstand a legitimate challenge to it?
-
Since the fossil record is a logical place to find evidence of the transitional "claimed evolving", why is that not a legitimate question?
His example might be a poor, again subject to opinion, but the overriding principle, still asks a logical question which the answer if anything goes against evolution.
While it is perfectly legitimate to ask the question, it is
not legitimate to then answer your own question with stuff you just pull out of thin air, and pretend that it is a legitimate answer when it is infact not. It is a plain fact that the book you mention is misleading - it is my opinion that this is being done on purpose.
there is no definitive, bonifide proof that anything has ever evolved.
There is definitive proof of common descent - it is written in the genome of every living creature. The genetic similarities observed across the living world prove beyond doubt that the mechanism of common descent is a valid one. On the contrary, there is not a single living creature whose genome is not consistent with the theory of common descent. As I said before, it would only take one individual of one species to do so, and yet....
There is also ample proof that two genetically distinct populations of animal can arise from the same common ancestral population - not only is the evidence all around us, this has actually been tested and observed in a single human lifetime. Furthermore, it has been shown - beyond doubt - that new characteristics and abilities can arise in a descendant population from an ancestral population that did not have them before. This has been observed many, many times.
As for 'natural selection', once again this is a case of a hypothesis that has yet to be disproven. The biological machinery that every living thing is endowed with specifically allows it to happen - but yet, that needn't be the case. You have to ask, if all living things were 'specially created', why have they been created in such a way as to make them look like they evolved?? Why are they endowed with the ability to create new individuals that are genetically distinct from their direct ancestors i.e. through sexual reproduction, like we are, and not simply asexually reproduced clones of each other (which, of course, also happens in nature)? This ability to create new mixtures of genes i.e. to create new genomes, coupled with the proven ability of DNA sequences to mutate (this has been proven beyond all doubt, and yes it can be done artificially too), may not "prove" that natural selection occurs - but it does prove that natural selection
can occur. Again, why would a creator design a system with the ability to do this, but intend for it not to happen??
SCJ
to the contrary, there is proof that: "everything reproduces after its own kind", 'Always has, and always will". It is not alterable even with intervention, much less without it.
As I mention above, "not alterable even with intervention" is simply not true - indeed, "descent with modification" is a natural fact, and can be observed in the genes of every newborn baby. Given that evolution - or "descent with modification" - occurs over many, many generations, it is perhaps easy to understand how the illusion of the immutability of species comes about. But it is a bit like saying that a city has been exactly the way it is now since time began, simply because you have never seen it any differently - and you are not able (because of the absence of time machines) to go back in time and see how different the city was long ago. Simply put, we haven't been watching for anywhere near long enough to be able to claim that we have witnessed macroevolution (or speciation) first-hand in most cases, but that does not mean to say that it cannot be (or indeed, has not been) observed in principle, nor does it detract from the vast amount of evidence all around us that allows us to infer, beyond all reasonable doubt, that we do indeed have a long and complex ancestry that betrays the myth that humans have 'always been' the way we are today.
It deeply saddens me to see people who are so blindly ensconced in a theoritical fantasy that has no basis in fact, that they are void of any objectivity to the contrary, deluded to the point of acceptance that it is factual.
History has shown repeatedly it is unwise to proceed in that fashion.
It is no more intellectual fraud than the representation of a totally unprovable theory as fact.
If you chose to look at the facts - the real facts, and not the distorted garbage that you present as facts - then you would know that evolution theory is very far from "theoretical fantasy", but the plain and simple, elegant and beautiful truth.
).
) but iTunes only sells iPhone apps over here, .mp3s and other stuff are blocked. Same for Amazon .mp3s. I saw this one on Audible.com, not sure if it sells to Brazil though, and I don't have U$ 20 to spend on it right now anyway.
