Firstly I would point out that not "all" biologists universally agree with the theory of evolution as you mean it. Meaning the notion of universal common decent. There are many biologists who actually accept special creation.
You are confusing evolution theory with the hypothesis of abiogenesis.
Evolution deals with the origins of
diversity.
Abiogenesis deals with the origins of
life itself.
A god, extra-dimensional aliens or a natural process being the origins of life, changes nothing for evolution theory. Evolution isn't about the origins of life.
They are typically not given the main stream media attention like the UCD folks are, but they exist.
Yeah. Flat earthers exist as well. Curiously, they also aren't given any attention on the "main stream media".
Secondly What you are attempting to do is base the validity of a theory on the sheer number of its supporters. But is popular opinion really a good way to decide truth?
Scientific consensus, is quite a different beast then "popular opinion".
To equate the two is either dishonest or just ignorant.
A. popular opinion means squat,
I agree.
and B. we accept the earth is a sphere because physical observation shows it is
Just like physical observation, shows evolution.
and not only that the Lord told us it was before this ever was an observed fact.
Doesn't really matter what one believes "the lord" told anyone. In the end, it's reality that gets the last word anyway.
The "Lord" can say whatever he wants. If reality disagrees - it's not reality that is wrong.
As for the theory of UCD aka evolution, I would ask you two questions please. Since both evolution and creation predicts similarities between the various life forms (having a common creator is just as feasible as a common ancestor) then what evidence is there for evolution that does not employ a similarity argument?
As far as evolution goes, it's not "just" about "similarity".
It's about the
pattern of similarity.
The evolutionary process predicts
one very specific pattern.
And it is exactly that pattern that we find in nature.
It's also exactly that
last pattern we would expect from many independend "creation events".
And that pattern is
the nested hierarchy.
A creator who independently creates humans, bonobo's, chimps, ... would NOT give them all the exact same
broken gene. He would NOT stuff a bunch of identical ERV's in their genomes in exactly the same location, which in the real world only happens when a
common ancestor gets infected by the initial infection and then passes it on to off spring in the form of an ERV. Because that's what ERV's are: genetic remnants of viruses that infected one of the ancestors. So if 2 individuals share an identical ERV, it means they share an ancestor in which that infection took place.
The nested pattern is found everywhere and at all levels.
It is found in comparative anatomy, it is found in entire DNA strings, it is found in mere sections of DNA, it is found when tracing single genes,... it even matches the geographic distribution of species.
So, to conclude...
If evolution is true, then the nested hierarchy is the only possible outcome.
If creation is true, then the nested hierarchy is the last pattern we would expect. The creator would have to go OUT OF HIS WAY to create everything in such a way that it falls into such a pattern. It would be a very deceptive move on his part.
Combine that with the fact that there isn't
one iota of evidence that this creator:
a. even exists
and
b. did anything at all, ever
...what would be the obvious conclusion here?
In fact there are only two types of evidences that would not employ similarity as the basis. 1. A finely graduated chain of fossils leading from one major form to another would prove it happened in the fossil record. Unfortunately no such finely graduated chain has ever been found.
And it never will. Fossilization is a VERY rare process. What you are asking for here, is akin to me asking you for a picture of your face of EVERY second of your entire life, just to "prove" to me that you are aging.
It's not reasonable to demand such a thing.
In fact that is why the late great Stephan Gould created the Punctuated Equilibrium theory.
Close, but no cigare.
It was created to explain that evolution happens too fast to be recorded in the fossil record.
Nope, that wasn't the reason at all.
The reason was that the fossil record exhibits periods of relatively small to no changes and other periods of accelerated changes/evolution.
PE explains these differences in "speed" of evolution. In a nutshell: it puts more importance on the role of the overall environment in terms of selection pressures as well as what is also called "the local optimum".
Basically, if the environment stays stable, then there is a "balance" in the eco-system. Evolution will "slow down" as population approach their "local optimum". This is a "form" in which they are the "best adapted" version of themselves for the niche they find themselves in.
During that time, there will be very little evolution.
In other periods, things change up. And as eco-systems are very much intertwined, a few small changes can quickly run out of control and seriously stir things up. Species disappear, species migrate, climate changes, jungle turns desert or desert turns jungle, rivers form, lakes dry up, etc....
Such things
heavily mess with selection pressures. When selection pressures change, so do local optimums. Now, populations no longer are the "best adapted" version of themselves for the niche they inhabit. In fact, their niche might be heavily changing. Populations then adapt rather quickly, due to new selection pressures being in play. Populations that for some reason or another can't adapt quickly enough, disappear
(which is what an estimated 99.9% of all species that ever lived, have done: gone extinct)
In other words “there is no evidence in the fossil record apart from similarity arguments.”
As I just explained: false.
The fossil record exhibits the exact same nested hierarchy pattern as everywhere else we look. They match in anatomy, in strata they are found in, in the geographic location where they are found, etc.
2. An example of at least one observed random mutation adding new and beneficial information to the genome of a multi-celled organism would at least demonstrate it could have happened. Unfortunately again there is no such observation of anything of the kind.
False again.
Bacteria becoming immune to anti-biotics: pretty beneficial for the bacteria
Insects becoming immune to pesticides: pretty beneficial for the insects
Tibetans having unique gene sequences, not found anywhere else, allowing them to live at high altitudes without getting sick: pretty beneficial for those living on high altitudes.
And then there's they many, many evolution experiments, with control populations and everything, where we have seen speciation happen right under our noses.
So my friend regardless of what popular opinion says, there is no evidence apart from similarity for the theory
Being ignorant of the evidence and what the theory actually says, is not an argument against it though.
And the similarity is just as easily expected to be there had all life been formed by a creator.
As explained: nope!
Not a single "creator" would ever created a bunch of "products" with a nested hierachy. Ever.
So what sets special creation ahead of evolution apart from similarity?
Nothing at all. It is not even merely "behind".
One is a religious faith-based belief and the other is a scientific model of reality.
Well had all life been formed by design we would expect to find design in life in the form of specificity. Meaning anything created with observed intent or purpose.
Really?
So what was the purpose of giving Homo Sapiens a mouth that is actually to small to house all its teeth, which is why most people have to have their wisdom teeth pulled out to avoid agony?
What was the purpose of giving Homo Sapiens a spine that isn't fit for bipedalism, giving 70% of all humans chronic lower backpains at some point in their life?
What was the purpose of having Homo Sapiens breath and eat through the same tube, putting it under heavy risk of choking to death while eating?
What was the purpose of giving all primates the exact same broken genes?
All these things are explained easily, with evidence, in context of evolution.
Not only do we observe specificity in all living things the very DNA molecule in all living things contains a specified code that warps our most sophisticated computer software programs by comparison.
No. DNA, from an engineering perspective, is a redundant, inefficient mess.
Chickens, for example, cary with them a whole bunch of inactive and broken DNA to build teeth.
From an evolutionary perspective, that is normal - as their ancestors were dino's with teeth.
From a creation perspective.... it is just dumb and stupid to inject such energy consuming nonsense in their for no apparant reason.
