Or falsehoods to bring protests from the innocent.
>> It is clear from the exchanges
>> I have had with a number of members that evolution is being accepted 'by
>> faith' rather than 'by sight'; the doctrine is based on the
>> interpretation of historica data, is untestable, and - as I have
>> attempted to demonstrate - because of its peculiar nature,
>I have a number of fundamental challenges to Evolutionists. If Evolution
>be considered scientific, these challenges must be met. So far, they
>haven't come close.
More of your "indefinite increase in complexity of a closed system"
>One of those challenges is for them to describe a viable animal that cannot
>be explained by Evolution.
How about a six-legged tetrapod, or an island containing animals identical
to modern forms but using a significantly different biochemistry, such as
right-handed amino acids and left-handed sugars. Even Vernon has agreed
that these would provide watertight refutations of evolution.
>Maybe Kevin O'Brian will again show us his measure of
>intelligence by again totally twisting plain and simple challenge as if he
>needs a remedial course in the English language.
You've been taking Eskimo song duel lessons from Peter Nyikos, haven't you.
If so, you need a better teacher.
>Even outside of that challenge, Evolutionists come up with a fat nothing
>when it comes to explaining how Evolution could be falsified.
Here are some additional ways to falsify evolution, which Vernon has also
Modern sea animal fossils in Devonian strata.
A modern human skeleton inside the rib cage of a tyrannosaurid.
A protein found in all living organisms that serves no useful purpose, but
has exactly the same amino acid sequence in all organisms.
Or a necessary protein found in all organisms whose different specific amino
acid sequences demonstrate absolutely no phylogenetic relationship.
>Darwin came up with some
>ways, and holding to Darwin's word, Evolution has been shown false (e.g.
>there aren't "innumerable" transitional forms in the fossil record.)
What would count as "innumerable"? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands? Millions?
Billions? Trillions? Infinity?
In any event, the number of transitional forms does not verify or refute
evolution, only their presence. Since we have found scores of transitional
forms, Darwin's prediction has been verified. Why don't you read the
>But, because Evolution is a nonscience....
And your evidence for this is?
>....any time a prediction (no matter how fundamental to
>the theory of Evolution) is found to be false, they just create a new
>get around the problem (the lack of transitionals is because of Punctuated
>Equilibrium -- a solution that is as blatantly false as the false theory it
>seeks to save Evolution from).
Punctuated equilibrium was not developed to explain a "lack" of transitional
forms; in fact, it depends upon transitional forms as much as Darwinism
does. It was developed to explain the long periods of stasis observed
fossil lineages, when no new forms were evolving. Why don't you read some
basic evolutionary theory before you go demonstrating your ignorance again?
Kevin L. O'Brien