mrversatile48 said:
True science is based on observation...
True. And that means observation in depth, not a superficial glance. We can all make mistakes at first glance which are corrected when we examine things more closely.
...& if Darwin drivel were right, evolution from 1 species to another, to another & another, would still go on
True. And it does. So?
So what do our eyes plainly see?
Clear differences between all species
Clearly you have not gone beyond superficial observation. In particular you have not looked at the observed instances of speciation. Where is the clear difference between the herring gull and the lesser black-backed gull, for example?
So where are all the smart apes struggling to turn head honcho human?
Why would modern apes "struggle" to become human? Evolution is not a program to turn all species into humans. There is no struggle on the part of any species (including our ancestors) to become human. In fact there is no struggle on the part of any species to become a different species. The only struggle is to survive and reproduce. Evolution is a consequence of that struggle. It is not a goal in itself.
Where are the millions of missing links between all stages, in fact?
A few thousand are waiting in museums for you to take a look at them. Lucaspa can show you 2000 snail shells you might like to examine.
If Darwin were right, the differences between adjacent steps/links, on their so-called evolutionary ladder/chain, would be as minute as the differences between adjoining frames of a movie film, because change is gradual
Right, as in the 2000 snail shells above. However, for some lineages we only have bits and pieces of the film. It's like having frames 5, 26, 98-101, 174, 290, etc. You can still see the general trend of change, but until more fossils are discovered, you can't run the whole film. Doesn't mean the film was not whole at one time. Just that parts of it are now lost.
What you can do is make some predictions of what is in the missing frames, and when a fossil is discovered, you can place it correctly in the sequence.
And btw, evolution is not a "ladder/chain". It is a branching out in many directions. Think of a series of Y's where each upper branch splits into another Y. It would be a good idea to do a search on the term "cladistic speciation" and to look at some cladograms.
Usually, yes. That's the main reason all those frames from the film of evolution are missing. To become a fossil in the first place a corpse needs to be preserved from decomposition.
The very existence of fossils took the cataclysmic pressure of the global flood of Genesis 6 to create: see "Noah's Ark & The Genesis Flood" - by Creation Science Research Assoc
OK. You began by saying science is a matter of observation. What are the observations that back up this assertion? In particular, what are the observations which say that
only a global flood could have created fossils.
And what observations confirm that a flood and nothing else explains the formation of one or more geological strata in which fossils are found? Which geological strata are the flood strata? How do you know (i.e. what observations tell you this?) And what observations confirm that a flood and nothing else explains the distribution of fossils in these strata?
1 fascinating fact that was maybe not in that book is that a French satellite, taking X-ray photos produced proof that something the exact shape & size of Noah's Ark is buried beneath ice is the Ararat range of mountains
Forget kids' cartoon images: it was 450 feet long, 75 ft wide & 45 ft high - (Genesis 6:15 -
www.BibleGateway.org)
When we actually have an ark and not "something" in an X-ray photo, we can entertain what the evidence implies. Note that finding an ark on Ararat would only confirm that an ark came to rest on Ararat. It would not confirm how it got there. It would not confirm a global flood.
Furthermore, the vital building blocks of evo-loopy-poop are beneficial mutations being continued, stage-by-stage
Every mutation known to man is in fact detrimental & soon corrected!!!!
Need to do some more observing. The notion that most mutations are harmful was one of those superficial observations from the early 20th century studies of mutation which has since been corrected by more in-depth observation. It has now been confirmed that the vast majority of mutations are neutral with only a few (I forget the exact figure, but less than 5%) being detrimental.
You are also neglecting the fact that some mutations are beneficial, and they are preserved.
Furthermore, the consequence of eliminating harmful mutations while preserving beneficial mutations is the key to adaptation.
Let's neglect the majority of neutral mutations for a bit, and examine what happens to a species in which natural selection consistently favours a beneficial mutation and eliminates a harmful mutation. Let us also assume the harmful mutations occur 5 times more frequently than the beneficial muations.
Each time natural selection eliminates a harmful mutation, the status quo is retained. Each time natural selection preserves a beneficial mutation, the novel adaptation is adopted.
Let's begin with species A
1st mutation = harmful--->retain A
2nd mutation = harmful--->retain A
3rd mutation= beneficial---> adopt B
4th mutation = harmful--->retain B
5th mutation=harmful--->retain B
6th mutation=harmful--->retain B
7th mutation=harmful--->retain B
8th mutation=harmful--->retain B
9th mutation=harmful--->retain B
10th mutation=beneficial--->adopt C
11th mutation = harmful--->retain C
12th mutation=harmful--->retain C
13th mutation=harmful--->retain C
14th mutation=beneficial--->adopt D
15th mutation = harmful--->retain D
etc. etc.
Note that even if we found that only 1 in a 1,000 mutations was beneficial, we would still get this pattern of change, through which beneficial mutations are added to beneficial mutations only, while the harmful ones are eliminated.
1 of the most established laws of science is that things left to themselves tend to decay - not to improve
This is a mis-statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics which actually says that
in a closed system there will never be a movement of energy such that the only thing that happens is that heat is transferred from a hot area to a cold area.
In short, unless you have an incoming source of energy, you can't heat up a cold spot in a closed system without cooling down a hot spot.
Nevertheless, in the process of heating up the cold spot (and simultaneously cooling down the hot spot) you can use the movement of energy to do work. Not forever, but for as long as the transfer of energy occurs.
In an open system, where you do have incoming energy, you can keep working to organize complex mini-systems for a long, long time.
The earth is such a complex mini-system and each living inhabitant of earth is another complex mini-mini-system. No problem with the 2LOT at all.
Evo-loopies expect uys to believe that matter was brought into being by a Big Bang
Reality check: no explosion has ever created anything
Big Bangs blow things up
They destroy everything
Need to do some more observing again. The nickname for a theory ) does not necessarily described the theory accurately. Especailly when the nickname was bestowed by someone who opposed it. Contrary to the superficial conclusion, the event known as the "big bang" was not an explosion.
So evo-loopy-poop is unscientific: it goes against all observation
See also
www.answersingenesis.org
Before you can come to that conclusion, you need to improve your own powers of observation.
Same to you.
