The mechanism that created the differences between horses and zebras and donkeys is the same mechanism that created the differences between horses and trees and sparrows and whales. The only difference is a matter of degree. To claim that "micro-evolution" can't lead to "macro-evolution" is like saying that no one can walk a mile because the largest step that a person can take is a few feet at most. great distances can be traveresed by the simple act of taking many little steps, and likewise, great changes in organisms can come about by lots of little changes over many generations.
I understand that this is what is assumed, but there is no evidence to support the assumption.
To claim the mechanism that gets us variety among equines, canines, finches, fruit flies, etc. can get us from bacteria to all the various lifeforms that have existed is pure philosophical assumption. To play off of your analogy, it's like saying since you can walk from California to Maine you can walk from Earth to Mars if you're just given enough time. It is never going to happen naturally.
First, are youn saying that science has no explanation, or that science will never have an explanation. There's a difference between the unexplained and the unexplainable.
It has no naturalistic explanation now, and my money is on it never will.
Secondly, I fear you are using your conclusion to support your premise.
Funny, this is precisely what Naturalism does.
That is because it is based on evidence.
Based on speculation and evidence interpreted through a naturalistic paradigm.
But, if you are right and evolution does not occur, tbhen the claims evolution makes must be wrong. Hence, the world that evolution predicts must be different to the world we see. A possible answer would be, "If evolution were true, we would see some mechanism by which trsaits are transfered from parent to child" or "There would be some explanation why only certain traits are passed on, and never other traits".
If by 'evolution' you mean universal common descent rooted in Naturalism, then yes, I claim it does not occur.
In reality, you aren't talking about 'predictions', you are talking about 'retrodictions' which seek to explain why the world is as we observe it.
These concepts weren't developed by people locked in a basement their whole life with no access to the world around them. This trying to put the clues together to determine the past and you start with the assumptions of Naturalism and they shade everything you see and hypothesize.
Given that the genetic material required for conceiving a baby would, in this case, be transfered via the mouth, then the reproductive organs would be located in the upper body. thus, we would see differences in babies in that they would not be born with their genitals between their legs.
It's called an analogy. I didn't say, "it's like saying if our genitals were in our mouth, what would you expect to be different?".
Given the many arguments in support of evolution, could you explain why you dismiss them? And what evidence do you have supporting Theism?
If by evolution you mean change within types of animals over successive generation resulting in limited variety, such as wolf to dog or the equine ancestor to horses, zebras, and donkeys, I don't dismiss those.
If, instead, you are referring to universal common descent, I reject them because they are pure naturalistic speculation not at all rooted in scientific observation.
Some of the evidence in support of theism are absolute morality, reason, evidence of design in nano-technology within cells, genetic code, avian lung, human hands, life, and prophecy, to name a few.
