More objective thinking please.
Blind faith evolutionism says "
a pile of dirt will sure-enough turn into a rabbit over time - given a sufficiently talented and large pile of dirt (Earth) and a sufficiently talented and long period of time filled with improbable just-so stories that are easy enough to tell - but they are not science".
What is more - bacteria are far more genetically inclined to adapt to their environment "by design" than are humans. They have no enclosed nucleus - they wear their genetic material "on their sleeves" so to speak. In 5000 generations humans are imagined by evolutionists to have "evolved" into being - but in 50,000 generations - bacteria are OBSERVED NOT to have evolved!!
Your argument is that observations in nature - are not to be trusted over "imaginings" in evolutionism??!!
Genetic difference that cannot be expressed in phenotype beyond that which is observed in nature to exist between humans and chimps - is not really genetic 'difference' after all.
What is more - you are comparing just 2% or 4% of the genetic code in the case of chimps and humans "were we simply not supposed to notice"???
Its called "story easy enough to tell" - the fossil exists but nothing at all in the fossil record about its ancestor or descendant.
Why?
[
The reason is that
statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no
there is no way of answering the question.
"
stories easy enough to tell - but they are not science" - Collin Patterson - atheist evolutionist - scientist
Collin Patterson - Paleontologist British Museum of Natural history
On April 10, 1979, Patterson replied to the author (Sunderland) in a most candid letter as follows:
April 10, 1979 Letter from Colin Patterson to Sunderland
==========================================
“ I
fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew
of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them.
You suggest that
an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from?
I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not
mislead the reader?
I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it.
Yet Gould and the American Museum people are
hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much
occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record.
You say thatI should
at least show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.
I will lay it on the line-
there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.[
The reason is that
statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no
there is no way of answering the question. It is
easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection.
But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test. So, much
as I should like to oblige you by jumping to the defence of gradualism, and fleshing out the
transitions between the major types of animals and plants, I find myself a bit
short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job “
[Ref: Patterson, personal communication. Documented in Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland, Master Books, El Cajon, CA, 1988, pp. 88-90.]
=====================================
No biology textbook says this and neither does any scientific research. This is a dishonest strawman that you have built up in your head. You do not even hold an elementary understanding of science. .
Your dislike "of the wording" -- noted.
Your complete failure to point to a single fact to support your objection - also noted.