You're just not getting it. You weren't there I wasn't there to witness the processes of animals and human origins nor the process of evolution you tout, nor the process of creation I believe.
No. I do get it. You do not understand the nature of what is being said in science, the evidence or the logic behind it.
So it is considered historical science, not empirical.
That some of this is history is not reason to consider it invalid. The Bible is history too. Just because people were alive then, does not change the fact that no living person today was alive than. The standard you are using for science applies to the Bible as well as to historical science. Otherwise, it is a double standard applied arbitrarily and capriciously.
So, to see who's theory is closer to what happened in the past we observe what is happening in the present, we make a hypothesis, and do experiments and test according to what we believe happened from what we see today right?
No. Not at all. Observations lead to hypotheses. Hypotheses are tested. Evidence is gathered. Continual testing leads to more evidence. Theories are formulated to explain the evidence. The best explanations stand the test of time and continual discovery. Evolution has done this. It continues to hold up and no other theory explains the evidence so well and no other theory in science is so well supported.
Well, when we do this we see evolution is bankrupt and flawed to say the least.
You can continue to believe what you want and think wishfully, but it will not change the facts or make your wishes become the truth.
Why?
1, we don't see organisms jumping classes as was said to happen in the past millions of years ago. Example, Reptiles turning into birds.
Birds evolved from a reptile ancestry. The evidence supports this. There is no jumping classes, since the class Aves did not exist for reptiles to jump to. Your description is a fiction. A straw man of what is actually stated in science. The evidence indicates that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs.
2, we don't see organisms reproducing things other then themselves.
I did not reproduce myself.
Cats don't give birth to dogs, dogs don't give birth to monkeys, and humans don't give birth to jelly fish.
Why would anyone that understands biology and the theory of evolution expect something as ridiculous as what you are suggesting. Next you will have crocoducks running all through your posts. If what you say were to occur, it would be evidence to reject the theory of evolution, but it is not anything the theory describes, explains or predicts. Perhaps you should stop repeating straw man arguments and look at what the theory says. I know. I know. You will claim to have reviewed it completely. But really, none of this suggests that you have.
3, Mutations don't give rise to new organisms,
Not immediately. Not one or a few, but over time, many changes can lead to new species. I could say kind and you have nothing to argue that my use of it is any less valid than claiming it means taxonomic family. Changes in regulatory elements can lead to significant phenotypic changes with just a few mutations.
and they don't add new creative information to the genome.
Incorrect. They do. It has been demonstrated. Even disease conditions are new information.
They corrupt information that already exists in the cell.
Sure. Diseases can result from mutation, but it is new information, just not good news. Sanford's book was validly repudiated before it even hit the news stands.
If there is no instructions in the DNA to make a fish grow legs then a mutation is not going to make a fish grow legs being the instructions are not present in the cell.
You are using more straw here. If there are no genes for a trait, there is no expectation for that trait. That is not a revelation. That is something that makes no sense to say otherwise. It is common knowledge. Why do you think that scientists say that traits would be the result of genes that are not there? They do not.
What you may be suggesting here is a macromutation. They have been observed, but even they are not this crazy saltation that you are claiming.
Now it can make a fish grow an extra fin, or a smaller fin than the other like Nemo, or no fins at all.
You think that a gene that is not there can cause an extra fin to grow or grow imperfectly? You must mean a mutated gene, but one that is in an organisms genome. You do realize that cherry picking deleterioius mutations is still illustrating natural selection?
But it can't make a leg grow.
No one is saying this is how evolution operates. You have created a crazy--just repeating a crazy straw man without understanding--about what evolution says and then attacking that straw man. Evolution does not say what you claim it does.
That information would have to come from outside the cell which evolutionist have no answer for.
Actually, scientists do know where new information comes from. Mutations. You know. That thing you keep denying and providing bogus information about.
As for Biblical creation what do we see?
1, God says in Genesis 1:11,21,24,25, for living things to reproduce after their kinds. We still see this today. Kinds is the same level as families. The wolf dog kind(Canidae). Variations within a species. Caused by natural selection and other factors. This is why you can go from a wolf to a dog but not the other way around. Genetic information is lost in natural selection, which is the opposite of evolution which teaches microbes to man. Huge amounts of information with complexity would have to be added to the genome of the organism to make such huge leaps. So theres a contradiction in your theory.
Kinds can be anything. There is no scientific definition for kind. Arbitrarily assigning family level to kind after the fact does not save it from the ambiguity that makes it useless and without meaning.
Kinds could be varieties, populations, species, genera, families, classes, who knows. There is no clarity from the Bible. The arbitrary assignment was done by people and only for reasons to reject science.
The facts support mutations leading to useful traits in populations as well as being neutral and deleterious.
2. Mutations are mostly destructive in organisms not beneficial. Look at Mutations in humans, Down syndrome, Cystic fibrosis,
Look at lactase persistence. Very beneficial.
yet those who have these remain human beings.
What does this have to do with anything. It is gratuitous. No one is claiming that a person with a disease is not human. Science does not claim that.
Yes you can get some beneficial traits from Mutations such as resistance to antibiotics in bacteria, BUT THE BACTERIA REMAIN BACTERIA. THEY DONT JUMP CLASSES and morph into something else.
You will have to enlighten us all on your vast knowledge of bacterial genetics and taxonomy when you support your claims. I would be interested to know how you have solved some of the current and important questions in bacterial taxonomy. You are contradicting yourself on some of this.
The evolution of those traits is still evolution. Show us in the theory where it claims that evolution has be the evolution of new taxa in order to qualify as evolution.
Again, Mutations don't give rise to new organisms as evolution teaches.
Not your straw man version. Sure. Not when you ignore all the evidence. I could do the same with anything and draw the conclusion I wanted regardless of the evidence.
Whatever it is that has the mutation remains what it is. We see in the fossil record that organisms show up fully formed, not transitional.
Stephen Jay Gould quote:
"Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species DOES NOT arise gradually BY THE STEADY TRANSFORMATION OF ITS ANCESTORS; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” "The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change", p. 182
What we see in the fossil record is different modes of evolution including stasis and rapid change. The periods of change that are pointed out in punctuated equilibrium still occur over substantial periods of time and PE is not observed in every lineage. I do note that in order to continue your argument, you were forced to turn to the very thing you deny to support your claim. You took it out of context, but it still remains ironic.
