proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Justatruthseeker]

What are you going on about? I didn't say it was mythical, I agree it occurs. Your defence mechanisms are so entrenched you can't even change your tune when some one agrees with you.

No, you claim hybridization, and said over exaggeration of interbreeding, despite the interbreeding being exactly what was just pointed out to you.

Your words.
“Interesting about the finches, and a good example of hybridaization thanks, I think you're a bit prone to exaggeration regarding their interbreeding but that's neither here nor there.”

What hybridization? Oh yes, because you ignore the definition of subspecies, just like they do.

What? I just acknowledged it. I suggested that you are exaggerating the extent to which they are "all interbreeding". Are they "all interbreeding"?

I don’t know, you tell me what a messy family tree means if they are not all interbreeding?

Accept what the experts told you.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14181

“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation.”

Not just one or two, but throughout the entire group.

For pete's sake.

I KNOW WHAT SUBSPECIES MEANS.

Why are you just repeating your same mantra, are you incapable of conducting a reasoned conversation? For the last time....I agree certain "types" of finch can and do interbreed and that speciation through hybridization occurs.

Can we move on now? Any comments on the rest of my post?

Apparently you don’t know what it means, otherwise you wouldn’t be talking about hybridization, which never occurred because they are the same subspecies.

But it's illogical and incorrect to suppose that hybridization is solely responsible for speciation, you seem to be placing too much emphasis on it for some reason. There is just as much evidence for the much more common modes of evolution - particularly allopatric speciation.

I notice the page that you posted also has an article about the case Central European Black Caps. Do you also accept that as an example of the beginning of a speciation event?

There you go again, not ,understanding subspecies, or even apparently what is meant by hybridization.

Those black caps deffinately mated where their ranges overlap, yes, the very definition of subspecies, not two species hybridizing.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dude, you flat out ignored me when I presented an example of mutation changing skin color. The genetic differences between "races" are extremely minor, and you'd have to think mutation never happens to think that it can't create such minor differences.

Dudette, you flat out ignored me when I have repeatedly stated that mutations may change the color of ones skin or hair color.

You also seemed to ignore that no mutation has ever been observed to change an Asian into anything but an Asian. Only when the Asian mates with another subspecies, like the African, is a new subspecies created.....

But do you really think a Husky is defined because it has black or brown hair? Do you really think Asians or Africans are defined by their skin color?

I can find DNA at the scene of a crime, and know if it was African, Asian or any other without recourse to the color of their skin.

Evolutionary PR at its finest.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Dudette, you flat out ignored me when I have repeatedly stated that mutations may change the color of ones skin or hair color.

-_- then why not race? Those traits together make it almost halfway there.

You also seemed to ignore that no mutation has ever been observed to change an Asian into anything but an Asian.

It wouldn't be just 1 mutation, and "Asian" as a group has so much variety in facial structure and other traits that I am uncertain if I could even approach that group as a single "race".

Only when the Asian mates with another subspecies, like the African, is a new subspecies created.....

Define how much change has to happen for a "race transition" to occur. Because apparently hair and skin color don't do it, and changes in those things would be enough for me to think something as subjective as "race" has changed.

But do you really think a Husky is defined because it has black or brown hair? Do you really think Asians or Africans are defined by their skin color?

Dog breeds literally are defined in part by the color of their fur, have you even looked up how dog breeds are identified?

I can find DNA at the scene of a crime, and know if it was African, Asian or any other without recourse to the color of their skin.

-_- as if the skin color isn't in the DNA too, along with all the other traits associated with various "races". To not be able to tell the "race" of a person via DNA is to not be able to distinguish genes at all.

 

[rjs330]

It's not an actual explanation. An explanation goes into the details of how things came about (in other words what the underlying mechanisms were involved). A proper explanation would also better cover exactly what was created. Creationists keep going on about "kinds" but can't seem to agree on any remotely consistent definition. Furthermore there is little to no agreement or evidence on what those originally created kinds would have entailed genetically and how they subsequently diversified.

So no, you don't have an explanation. The details in Genesis amount to little more than "God made stuff".

Sure it's an explanation. You just don't like the explanation. You want more. That's ok. I understand that. There are many times I wish God was a bit more detailed. It would be nice. But the bottom line is he did say that he did it and how long it took him. He gave us enough information to know he did not do it by evolution from a common ancestor. We don't know specifically what constitutes a kind either. The Bible kind of tells us a little bit what kind is, but again lacks details. That's ok. We can look at the world around us and see that the broad definition of kinds still applies today.

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. - Genesis 1:20-21 Bible Gateway passage: Genesis 1:20-21 - King James Version

So he made immediately without evolution many kinds of sea creatures and many kinds of flying creatures. Who the reproduced after their kind. He didn't specify exactly how many or exactly what they were but their were but they were many. Abundantly speaks of many. Thats why their are many fossils of the same kind. How the creatures evolved after that in order to survive throughout the ages of the earth can be studies and seen as I mentioned before. We don't really NEED to know the details. We might WANT to know and that is ok too. God built us that way. But we are seeking after things that have no real answer and are not relevant to our living. At least where common ancestry is concerned. ID works just as well. Why? Because God used common design among his creatures which allows us to find things like vaccines

 

[BradB]

Why do you consider Eurohippus to be a horse?

I don't. Some of these so called "earliest" horse fossils have been found at or near the surface and sometimes right next to horse fossils. Not where you would expect them to be if they were in fact the early ancestors of the horse. How do evolutionists account for the variations that we see in the so called chain? For instance the number of ribs in the middle stages jumps around from 15 to 19 before finally arriving at todays know 18 pairs. The same thing happens with lumbar vertebrae. And why do they always show pictures of the growth happening in perfect succession when todays horse populations all vary greatly in size?

Tom Huxley was the main character in this proposed horse issue back in the 1800, but other well established evolutionists of the time, such as George Gaylord Simpson, backed away from it and with good reason. Paleontologist O.C. Marsh even pointed out that horses with both front and hind multiple toed hooves have been found living today. The so called horse fossil chain that is usually presented is of fossils gathered around the world, and yet not a single succession of such a chain exists found in one general location. They are claimed to be related based on the assumption that evolution is true and then used as evidence to support evolution. But isn't that what we commonly call circular reasoning?

 

[BradB]

You asked for a finely graded transition, that's exactly what it is.

Eohippus >>>> Horse

Of course that's just one example..... and as predicted, the handwaving begins.

Please see post 3905

 

[xianghua]

I don't. Some of these so called "earliest" horse fossils have been found at or near the surface and sometimes right next to horse fossils. Not where you would expect them to be if they were in fact the early ancestors of the horse. How do evolutionists account for the variations that we see in the so called chain? For instance the number of ribs in the middle stages jumps around from 15 to 19 before finally arriving at todays know 18 pairs. The same thing happens with lumbar vertebrae. And why do they always show pictures of the growth happening in perfect succession when todays horse populations all vary greatly in size?

Tom Huxley was the main character in this proposed horse issue back in the 1800, but other well established evolutionists of the time, such as George Gaylord Simpson, backed away from it and with good reason. Paleontologist O.C. Marsh even pointed out that horses with both front and hind multiple toed hooves have been found living today. The so called horse fossil chain that is usually presented is of fossils gathered around the world, and yet not a single succession of such a chain exists found in one general location. They are claimed to be related based on the assumption that evolution is true and then used as evidence to support evolution. But isn't that what we commonly call circular reasoning?

we can add this image as evidence for evolution too:

even if those cars were self replicating, it will not prove any evolution. why the conclusion should be different with living creatures?

(image from Ferrari - supercars Poster | Sold at Abposters.com)

 

[Jimmy D]

No, you claim hybridization, and said over exaggeration of interbreeding, despite the interbreeding being exactly what was just pointed out to you.

Your words.
“Interesting about the finches, and a good example of hybridaization thanks, I think you're a bit prone to exaggeration regarding their interbreeding but that's neither here nor there.”

What hybridization? Oh yes, because you ignore the definition of subspecies, just like they do.


I don’t know, you tell me what a messy family tree means if they are not all interbreeding?

Accept what the experts told you.

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14181

“We find extensive evidence for interspecific gene flow throughout the radiation.”

Not just one or two, but throughout the entire group.



Apparently you don’t know what it means, otherwise you wouldn’t be talking about hybridization, which never occurred because they are the same subspecies.




There you go again, not ,understanding subspecies, or even apparently what is meant by hybridization.

Those black caps deffinately mated where their ranges overlap, yes, the very definition of subspecies, not two species hybridizing.

LOL, you berate me for calling it Hybridization, tell me listen to the experts and then post a paper by said experts who refer to it as Hybridization. You couldn’t make it up!

Oh, and I believe I referred to the black caps as an example of the start of the speciation process that DOESN’T involve Hybridization of two subspecies, you know, to refute your nonsense about dogs or whatever. And while we’re on the subject, it was from an article that YOU cited.

 

[BradB]

Dust of the ground on a newly created earth would have been primarily silicates.

What process did God use to transform silicates into lipids, amino acids, etc., and how do you know?

That's a very good question. Hmmm... I also wonder what process He used to create an entire universe just with His spoken word? But alas we must take miracles at face value and only test what is feasibly testable. If I said I saw a flying saucer while I was in the cockpit of a fighter jet, you couldn't validate my story by testing my claim. But what you could do is check and see if I have any flight capabilities at all (which I don't but if I did) you could then check to see if there was a record of me being in the cockpit of a fighter jet on the date and time in question. If all those "feasibly" verifiable facts match up then it would lend much more credence to the untestable claims of seeing a UFO. I have no idea how God did what He did. But I can check the feasibly verifiable claims of the Bible and see if they match up with the observable facts. And so far they do.

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't. Some of these so called "earliest" horse fossils have been found at or near the surface and sometimes right next to horse fossils. Not where you would expect them to be if they were in fact the early ancestors of the horse. How do evolutionists account for the variations that we see in the so called chain? For instance the number of ribs in the middle stages jumps around from 15 to 19 before finally arriving at todays know 18 pairs. The same thing happens with lumbar vertebrae. And why do they always show pictures of the growth happening in perfect succession when todays horse populations all vary greatly in size?

Tom Huxley was the main character in this proposed horse issue back in the 1800, but other well established evolutionists of the time, such as George Gaylord Simpson, backed away from it and with good reason. Paleontologist O.C. Marsh even pointed out that horses with both front and hind multiple toed hooves have been found living today. The so called horse fossil chain that is usually presented is of fossils gathered around the world, and yet not a single succession of such a chain exists found in one general location. They are claimed to be related based on the assumption that evolution is true and then used as evidence to support evolution. But isn't that what we commonly call circular reasoning?

I doubt they were discussing it before Darwin’s theory was published.

Did you bother to read the article I posted? It seems that a lot of your posts focus on biology of the distant past rather than addressing current evidence, why is that?

 

[BradB]

Ok. And what would those 2 types be? And why should others be constrained to your idiosyncratic views?

Please note post 3570 of this thread.

Weirdest thing - I get the same when I ask creationists for evidence that the flood happened,

Think of the acronym GLOBAL next time the subject of a global flood comes up.

Ground surface prints which have been fossilized, are common in all of the strata layers. Features like ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions. Under usual conditions these features are quickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth.


Large Coconino Sandstone which Uniformitarian geologists date to be around 270 myrs old. It was believed to be an ancient desert. The Coconino covers more than 100,000 square miles. Fossilized amphibians tracks have been found in the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water. Almost all geologists would have drawn this same conclusion if it weren't for the implications it poses. The amounts and movements of water can easily be calculated by the amount of sand deposited. Calculations of the amount of water volume needed to create the Coconino with its undulates (sand dunes) would require water at 100 foot depth, moving at a speed of three to five feet per second. Water moving at that speed and depth has never been observed, not even at open sea. Which means it would take an unprecedented storm of great magnitude to create the Coconino sandstone layers.

Observed smooth surface of Hermit shale blade edged layer directly under the Coconino Sandstone indicates that the Coconino was not laid down under a dry desert condition. The shale had to have uplifted at least high enough to create a desert. But if that had occurred then normal erosion processes wouldn't have left the top of the layer so virtually flat as is observed today. The top of the shale exhibits no signs of erosion. How's that possible if it remained exposed to the surface for sand to begin to accumulate 10 myrs later?

Blade edged flat contact layers, such as the Hermit, between each of the strata layers completely diminishes the idea of long passages of time between deposits, (regardless of what index fossils are found in them). Contact layers between rock layer units show the same knife edged characteristics and are seen just about everywhere. There's really only two reasonable scenarios that explain these characteristics. Either continuous and rapid deposition took place with almost instant current shifts, or deposition after spaces of sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally eroding sediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the flood scenario described in Genesis chapter seven.

Abundance of polystrate fossils in all coal deposits are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by all the polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers) These fossils are so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide. The obvious question of course is, how did the upper portions of these trees remain exposed for several million years while waiting for the other layers to gradually be deposited in around them to preserve them? The fact of the matter is that the accumulation of the different layers must have actually been at least faster than it takes for wood to decay. They have even found animal fossils that penetrate more than one layer of coal.

Logical conclusions drawn by the very formation and existence of fossils points to a flood scenario. Normally when an animal dies its eaten, or decomposed. In water they usually float or sink and the same processes take place. Conditions have to be just right in order for a fossil to form. The only condition that is conducive to creating a fossil is rapid sediment coverage of the body, deep enough to prevent it from being damaged by other living organisms. For example at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved. Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment. How's it possible for the upper portions to survive several season cycles before being covered?

 

[Jimmy D]

I don't. Some of these so called "earliest" horse fossils have been found at or near the surface and sometimes right next to horse fossils. Not where you would expect them to be if they were in fact the early ancestors of the horse. How do evolutionists account for the variations that we see in the so called chain? For instance the number of ribs in the middle stages jumps around from 15 to 19 before finally arriving at todays know 18 pairs. The same thing happens with lumbar vertebrae. And why do they always show pictures of the growth happening in perfect succession when todays horse populations all vary greatly in size?

Tom Huxley was the main character in this proposed horse issue back in the 1800, but other well established evolutionists of the time, such as George Gaylord Simpson, backed away from it and with good reason. Paleontologist O.C. Marsh even pointed out that horses with both front and hind multiple toed hooves have been found living today. The so called horse fossil chain that is usually presented is of fossils gathered around the world, and yet not a single succession of such a chain exists found in one general location. They are claimed to be related based on the assumption that evolution is true and then used as evidence to support evolution. But isn't that what we commonly call circular reasoning?

Let’s focus on our current understanding of the topic shall we?

I thought that your objection was that Eohippus was a horse?

Now your complaining that they’re not “in the same place”?

Again I have to ask, did you read the article I posted? Because it doesn’t sound like it.

Now, to cut to the chase, I don’t really care if you accept them or not, judging by your spurious objections, you really, really don’t want to, but can I just ask what your explanation is for this series of fossils, starting with Eohippus, looking more and more like the modern horse as we progress through the fossil record chronologically?

 

[Jimmy D]

Please note post 3570 of this thread.



Think of the acronym GLOBAL next time the subject of a global flood comes up.

Ground surface prints which have been fossilized, are common in all of the strata layers. Features like ripple patterns, animal tracks and rain drop impressions. Under usual conditions these features are quickly destroyed by normal erosion and life. In order for these types of impressions to be preserved, the next sediment layer must be laid down very fast, and the next layer, and the next, and so forth.


Large Coconino Sandstone which Uniformitarian geologists date to be around 270 myrs old. It was believed to be an ancient desert. The Coconino covers more than 100,000 square miles. Fossilized amphibians tracks have been found in the sandstone. This is evidence that it was laid down by water. Almost all geologists would have drawn this same conclusion if it weren't for the implications it poses. The amounts and movements of water can easily be calculated by the amount of sand deposited. Calculations of the amount of water volume needed to create the Coconino with its undulates (sand dunes) would require water at 100 foot depth, moving at a speed of three to five feet per second. Water moving at that speed and depth has never been observed, not even at open sea. Which means it would take an unprecedented storm of great magnitude to create the Coconino sandstone layers.

Observed smooth surface of Hermit shale blade edged layer directly under the Coconino Sandstone indicates that the Coconino was not laid down under a dry desert condition. The shale had to have uplifted at least high enough to create a desert. But if that had occurred then normal erosion processes wouldn't have left the top of the layer so virtually flat as is observed today. The top of the shale exhibits no signs of erosion. How's that possible if it remained exposed to the surface for sand to begin to accumulate 10 myrs later?

Blade edged flat contact layers, such as the Hermit, between each of the strata layers completely diminishes the idea of long passages of time between deposits, (regardless of what index fossils are found in them). Contact layers between rock layer units show the same knife edged characteristics and are seen just about everywhere. There's really only two reasonable scenarios that explain these characteristics. Either continuous and rapid deposition took place with almost instant current shifts, or deposition after spaces of sheet erosion from rapidly flowing water at an equal depth over a huge area that had equally eroding sediment taking place in all areas. Either case would need the flood scenario described in Genesis chapter seven.

Abundance of polystrate fossils in all coal deposits are often separated by layers of lime stone. Each layer is usually said to be several million years old. But this conclusion falls apart by all the polystrate fossils (like vertically fossilized trees) which pierce through the various layers. (Sometimes several layers) These fossils are so common that they are often a real hazard to coal miners who can suddenly be crushed when one dislodges and falls on him in the mines. These fossils are found in coal world wide. The obvious question of course is, how did the upper portions of these trees remain exposed for several million years while waiting for the other layers to gradually be deposited in around them to preserve them? The fact of the matter is that the accumulation of the different layers must have actually been at least faster than it takes for wood to decay. They have even found animal fossils that penetrate more than one layer of coal.

Logical conclusions drawn by the very formation and existence of fossils points to a flood scenario. Normally when an animal dies its eaten, or decomposed. In water they usually float or sink and the same processes take place. Conditions have to be just right in order for a fossil to form. The only condition that is conducive to creating a fossil is rapid sediment coverage of the body, deep enough to prevent it from being damaged by other living organisms. For example at the Green River Formation, many fossilized catfish have been found with skin and soft parts preserved. Many are even oriented to traverse through several laminations of shale deposits. The kind of deposits that Uniformitarians normally interpret as being representative of several season cycles of sediment. How's it possible for the upper portions to survive several season cycles before being covered?

Are you of the opinion professional geologists have been doing their jobs wrong for the last 200 years?

Where did you get your information from if you don’t mind me asking, it sounds rather outlandish?

 

[Ophiolite]

Just a note because this is bugging me, but it's actually "allele", not "allie".

This is completely off-topic, but your note triggered a memory you may find amusing.

Some years ago oil companies began delegating some of the detailed planning and operations for their upstream activities to combinations of specialist companies that had previously worked purely as contractors. Typically these combinations would consist of the drilling contractor, who provided the rig, a directional drilling company, providing know how and tools, and occasionally others. These alliances began in the UK and had a major impact on the way the company I worked for had to conduct our business. So, I had alerted our Norwegian manager to the potential difficulties they posed, if alliances were established over there.

He initially doubted they would be a problem, but one day I received a fax from him. (I told you it was some time ago!) Although his English was excellent, he did suffer dyslexia and spelling problems. For him aliens was pronounced the same as alliance. So this broadly is what he wrote.

You were right. The aliens are coming to Norway. I think there is one here already and more can be expected. We will need to figure out a way of dealing with these aliens. They could be a big problem for us. I am going to speak to other companies tomorrow and see if they have ever had problems with aliens. Shell is already talking about getting into bed with the aliens. This could all be very difficult.

I laughed all the way to the following oil price crash.

 

[Skreeper]

we can add this image as evidence for evolution too:

even if those cars were self replicating, it will not prove any evolution. why the conclusion should be different with living creatures?

(image from Ferrari - supercars Poster | Sold at Abposters.com)

Someone needs to spank you each time you bring up ridiculous and faulty analogies between organisms and machines.

By now I lost count how many times people tried to explain to you why your comparison is fallacious yet you keep bringing it up for some reason. At some point we even had an actual evolutionary biologist try to explain this stuff to you but you seem impervious to being corrected by people who know more than you.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No, you need to believe that an "Intelligent designer" created this dog like creature, destroyed it before anyone saw it, and then created a very similar creature but which could live in the sea 4 million years later, only to destroy and replace it with a similar creature etc, etc, etc for tens of millions of years until we see the whales of today. Everyone's got to have a hobby I suppose, eternity is a long time.

Or you just fail to realize that dog-like creature had nothing to do with whales at all, but went extinct just like all the others. It’s pretty convienent that the only parts of the skull which are missing is where a blow hole would be in your theory, and where nostrils would be if it was a totally separate creature all on its own. So sadly, or convienently, the two parts which would confirm or deny your claims are both missing. Of course we have almost all of the entire creature but those two areas that would prove your theory true or incorrect. Of course being the long history of faking transitional creatures evolutionary supporters are prone to, I’d go with the convienent part.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- then why not race? Those traits together make it almost halfway there.

No they don’t. Africans are not Africans because their skin is black, but because they reside on the geological continent of Africa. Asians are not Asians because they have lighter skin, but because they reside of the geological continent of Asia.

It wouldn't be just 1 mutation, and "Asian" as a group has so much variety in facial structure and other traits that I am uncertain if I could even approach that group as a single "race".

Doesn’t matter what you can do, DNA tests have no problem differentiating between Asian and African, except where their ranges overlap and they interbreed producing fertile offspring. The definition of subspecies. That you might have a problem defierentiating between subspecies in the species is a separate issue, not to be confused with anatomical differences when their DNA is distinctive.

Define how much change has to happen for a "race transition" to occur. Because apparently hair and skin color don't do it, and changes in those things would be enough for me to think something as subjective as "race" has changed.

It’s already been defined. Evolutionists just keep ignoring it is all.

Definition of SUBSPECIES

“a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs.”

Dog breeds literally are defined in part by the color of their fur, have you even looked up how dog breeds are identified?

A Mastiff is a Mastiff despite the fact they can have brown, black or brown and black fur.

-_- as if the skin color isn't in the DNA too, along with all the other traits associated with various "races". To not be able to tell the "race" of a person via DNA is to not be able to distinguish genes at all.

And yet they are arguing about this right now. Claiming that the human genome project has conclusively shown that race can not be used to distinguish human ancestory. So in reality has nothing to do with the genes except to change a skin color, which again has nothing to do with why Africans are African. If you mutated the gene for skin color and created a purple African, DNA tests would still distinguish him as African.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Dust of the ground on a newly created earth would have been primarily silicates.

What process did God use to transform silicates into lipids, amino acids, etc., and how do you know?

Don’t know, what random processes changed those silicates into lipids, amino acids, etc., and how do you know?

But I’d start with energetic processes, being the atom is dominated by them, and being God is pure Energy/Mind.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

It's not an actual explanation. An explanation goes into the details of how things came about (in other words what the underlying mechanisms were involved).

Then we will await your detailed explanation of how life came about from non-life.

A proper explanation would also better cover exactly what was created. Creationists keep going on about "kinds" but can't seem to agree on any remotely consistent definition. Furthermore there is little to no agreement or evidence on what those originally created kinds would have entailed genetically and how they subsequently diversified.

Then we will await your explanation of what exactly came about. I notice you didn’t include evolutionists and their species problem when it came to defining Kinds.....

Probably because you all ignore definitions when it’s convienent to do so.

So no, you don't have an explanation. The details in Genesis amount to little more than "God made stuff".

The details in evolution amount to little more than mutations change stuff, and no clear idea how life came about in the first place except by random chance. So detailed that explanation.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ah so you don't have any evidence. I didn't think so. It's based upon faith just like mine is. Because ID is obvious. But the intelligence behind it is not verifiable

I notice they didn’t offer any verifiable and testable evidence a single celled creature can become anything other than a single celled creature, but then demand of us what they themselves are unable to provide. Then have the nerve to talk of faith.....