Bass on Nostr: I appreciate your diplomatic response, and I will be just as graceful in mine. I ...
I appreciate your diplomatic response, and I will be just as graceful in mine. I respect you too much for ad hominem attacks, and will avoid strawmans.
What sort of observable data is available that would lead one to believe that over millions of years that a single celled organism could become a completely different species?
Besides some amazing changes in functionality for adaption (micro evolution, which IS observable), there is no observed change in kinds (macro evolution). A monkey will always produce monkeys. A cat will never produce a pigeon.
The lack of evidence in transitional fossils seems to be anti evidence for evolution, at least until any are found.
The Cambrian explosion is also anti evidence to evolution as the fossil record shows that within an impossibly short amount of time, every major species seem to come into existence all at the same time rather than millions or billions of years apart as predicted by classical evolutionists.
Darwin as every other scientist in his day, believed the cell was no more complicated than a goofball, admitting that if it were discovered that the cell was more complex, that his theory would dissolve. Neo evolutionists seem to bypass the irreducible complexity of the cell as certain parts are dependent on each other to function, can't function without the other, and to argue that the systems would have been more complex to begin with only hurts the evolutionist position.
Finally, this all stems from the idea that it is possible to get life from nonlife. A scientist attempted in the 1950's to create the premordial earth environment which was later called the Miller project. He was successfully able to create with certain gases a premordial soup of simple amino acids. Overtime, the theory was debunked as the aminos were only half (left hand if you will) of the required to create any for of basic life. Without proteins and other components, it was null. They also adjusted the chemicals later to be more accurate and the new concoction failed to produce anything at all. Just rock soup.
On the other hand, I believe logic would point to design. The universe had a begining, this it was caused by something outside of the boundaries of time, space, and matter, the design of the universe such as the mathematical constants are fine tuned to support life, the existence of instinctual objective moral principles with humans begs the question. It's a bit cheesy and cringe to say it, but it really does take more faith to be an evolutionist.
What sort of observable data is available that would lead one to believe that over millions of years that a single celled organism could become a completely different species?
Besides some amazing changes in functionality for adaption (micro evolution, which IS observable), there is no observed change in kinds (macro evolution). A monkey will always produce monkeys. A cat will never produce a pigeon.
The lack of evidence in transitional fossils seems to be anti evidence for evolution, at least until any are found.
The Cambrian explosion is also anti evidence to evolution as the fossil record shows that within an impossibly short amount of time, every major species seem to come into existence all at the same time rather than millions or billions of years apart as predicted by classical evolutionists.
Darwin as every other scientist in his day, believed the cell was no more complicated than a goofball, admitting that if it were discovered that the cell was more complex, that his theory would dissolve. Neo evolutionists seem to bypass the irreducible complexity of the cell as certain parts are dependent on each other to function, can't function without the other, and to argue that the systems would have been more complex to begin with only hurts the evolutionist position.
Finally, this all stems from the idea that it is possible to get life from nonlife. A scientist attempted in the 1950's to create the premordial earth environment which was later called the Miller project. He was successfully able to create with certain gases a premordial soup of simple amino acids. Overtime, the theory was debunked as the aminos were only half (left hand if you will) of the required to create any for of basic life. Without proteins and other components, it was null. They also adjusted the chemicals later to be more accurate and the new concoction failed to produce anything at all. Just rock soup.
On the other hand, I believe logic would point to design. The universe had a begining, this it was caused by something outside of the boundaries of time, space, and matter, the design of the universe such as the mathematical constants are fine tuned to support life, the existence of instinctual objective moral principles with humans begs the question. It's a bit cheesy and cringe to say it, but it really does take more faith to be an evolutionist.