It's a problem when one is led to believe that the 'how' of Darwinist evolution is based on the scientific method, when it's not. Why would one behave in such a misleading manner?
Alright, Justlookkinla, following your suggestion, here is quote from you that I wish to respond to. It appears to me you are being rather arrogant and accusing evolution scientists of somehow deceiving you. See, the problem I have with such statements is that they appear way, way off base. Your are pointing the finger at a highly respectable, highly educated group of men and women, and , for no specified reason, claim they somehow are misleading you. Then you talk about the "scientific method." I didn't se any evidence here that you even begin to know what that really entails. Next, you keep harping on the"how" of evolution. It appears you think evolution is all washed up because, according to your personal definition of the scientific method, , the "how" has to be explained or else the whole idea of evolution or any other "scientific truth" should be thrown out as false. But, see, that is not the way true science operates. I mean, maybe in your own peculiar definition, but certainly not that held by the real world of science. Look, as I may have mentioned Newton had no real idea how gravity really works, and neither did anyone else at the time, and so Newton skid just do the math, period. Up to the 20th century no one was sure how it worked. And even after Einstein, we are still not sure. Getting back to Darwin, he did in fact give a very solid scientific case that natural selection is one major factor in how it works. And this definitely has ben born out my numerous studies. OK, true, Darwin himself admitted that he really didn't the whole story on how evolution works. Next step, along came another group of scientists, bringing in hard data from genetics. Hence, genetics is another part of how it works.
You also harp on your notion that evolution, specially the "how," has never been directly observed. Well, isn't there some solid research backing the idea that you can turn a fox into a dog, showing that foxes can be bread in such a way that they increasingly are showing more and more dog features? I can refer you to more than one solid scientific paper on research showing that a whole new species of bacteria can be created under the right conditions? Aren't lions and tigers separate species, and can it not be shown by mating that they produce a new species? Aren't horses and donkeys separate species, a mule?
I have seen you and others here admit that micro-evolution does happen and can be observed. OK, what that tells me is that macro-evolution is a definite go. I mean, what sense does it make for anyone to assign some barrier or arbitrary stopping point beyond which these evolutionary processes cannot go? If science sees some law working in one area, it is automatically assumed to work in every other. The laws of physics do not stop at you stove. And I think it equally irrational to assume evolution stops at some arbitrary boundary between the species.
