This is not entirely random.
YouTube - New research showing that human endogenous retroviruses do not prove evolution
This is also heavily based on the idea of junk DNA. We are progressing away from this idea.
The fossil record is consistent with a creation. Asserting that the earth came before life forms is not evidence for chemical evolution either. Texts already explain the "preparation" and man threatened to be overun by "large beasts". With bacteria remaining bacteria, and other scientific evidence validating creationism, this is a baseless assertion. Further, when you use the fossil record,
be sure to
include everything.
E-coli mutation and evolution - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Pay close attention to this quote.
A huge breakthrough in understanding how proteins control DNA and life came with the work of Francois Jacob and Jacques Monod in the 1960s. It was known then that bacteria could digest different types of sugars, including the most common kind, called glucose, as well as another, much less common sugar, called lactose, which is found in milk. Intriguingly, when bacteria were grown in the presence of glucose, they couldnt use lactose. Only in the absence of glucose and the presence of lactose could they digest the milk sugar. When glucose was missing, the bacteria made proteins that could pull lactose into the cell and metabolize it, but when no lactose was around, the bacteria didnt make those proteins. This was a very clever trick that made great biological sense, since in normal conditions the bacterium would waste energy if it manufactured proteins that could metabolize only a rarely encountered sugar. The interesting question was, how did the bacteria know when to switch on the genes for making the proteins?
Adaptation involving enzymes, wing length, or reproductive faculties(what man calls speciation) are not problems for creationism. Further, you should be aware of the broad definition under which speciation is recorded.
YouTube - There are no observed instances of speciation
Including:
Like the title says
Some of the studies posted on talkorigins:
1. "Evidence that a species of fireweed formed by doubling of the chromosome count, from the original stock. (Note that polyploids are generally considered to be a separate "race" of the same species as the original stock)" --talkorigins
Well, it says on the page itself that the polypolids are considered a seperate race that is a subspecies of the original, thus not a new species.
Therefore no new species was formed. Only the authors of talkorigins know why this study is presented as evidence of speciation.
2. "Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.)" --talkorigins
Morophology is not a criteria of speciation in MAMMALS. Rather it is the ability to breed and produce two generations of fertile offsprings.
3. "Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects, Luciano Bullini and Giuseppe Nascetti"
The research says nothing about OBSERVED instances of speciation, instead using genetic evidence. the authors talk about events which are thought to be speciation due to hybridization occuring millions of years ago.
Note the difference between millions of years ago and observed.
4. "The Gibbons speciation mechanism, from the journal of "J Theor Biol. 1990 Aug 23;145(4):447-56."
Mathematics Department, Monash University Clayton, Victoria, Australia.
"A mechanism of sympatric speciation first proposed by Gibbons is analyzed and submitted to computer simulation."
Computer stimulations are not observed instances of speciation. Once again only the authors of talkorigins know why this is presented as an instance of observed speciation.
5. "Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology Twenty-one taxa of rock wallabies presently grouped in 11 species were studied at their type localities and elsewhere. All were chromosomally distinct except for Petrogale xanthopus and P. x. celeris, and all taxa appear to have evolved from an ancestor"
Once again this study says absolutely nothing about observed instances of speciation, rather it talks about speciation thought to have occured millions of years ago.
6. "# Werth, C. R., and Windham, M.D., 1991, A model for divergent, allopatric, speciation of polyploid pteridophytes resulting from silencing of duplicate- gene expression, AM-Natural, Volume 137(4):515-526."
to quote from the study:
we present a MODEL of allopatric speciation at the polypolid level....it is predicted that the combined effect of postzygotic hybrid sterility and genetic divergence MIGHT lead to speciation:
This research is talking about a theoritical model of speciation, and makes predictions. It does not even mention observed instances of one species giving rise to another.
etc, etc, etc.....
There's nothing wrong with the butterfly. It as the information encoded for its life cycle.
Link inactive. In addition, predictions based on random mutations is not entirely relevant to me. You havent dealt with
random mutation as yet
Again, nothing to do with Darwinism. In fact, his tree is upside down, if anything at all.
YouTube - The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 of 2
YouTube - The Cambrian Explosion Part 2 of 2
Stories about whale legs and human tails. Irrelevant.
This was
intelligently designed. In addition I don't know what abiogenesis has to do with anything when tests show that bacteria cannot turn into men.
Of course we've already established this as futile.
No, all your evidence is a leap over, seeing that tests show random mutation is sterile, and that there is a
limit to adaptation (a limit you will continue to ignore because of the supposed limitless abilities of random mutation. This based on the belief in the competence of random mutation). On these two premises alone, to ignore them and give me "butterflies" and "fossil record" , Darwinism is not concerned with science, just world view, which ha grown into an empire, and promoting itself through people like you..
If you're up to it, post your evidence for creationism, I need a good laugh.
You can begin with every single documentation of adaptation ever recorded. Every test ever performed on adaptation. And minus the speculation.
One example