But you are missing the point. When you question a scientific theory you need to bring scientific evidence, not religious belief, as creation "science" does.
These "weaknesses" that were discussed, but not included, consist of hundreds of creationists' claims that have long since been refuted by scientific evidence. Why should they continue to be hashed out?
In grad school there was a seminar course titled something like "Problems in Evolution." I took it three times, as the subject matter changed to match current scientific findings and debates. Not a one of the standard creationist talking points was ever discussed, as they are simply "what if" stories with no scientific evidence to support them. They've long since been settled by science, and science has moved on. Creationists haven't kept up.
A good example--upthread is a comment disparaging evolutionary science for the lack of a "missing link." That's a phoney issue, and reflects a belief in creation "science" rather than a knowledge of science. See the chart below--which is the "missing link?"
That's just it, however. To actually believe all of this evolutionist nonsense, one basically has to suspend disbelief and approach the matter from the perspective of simple, blind faith.
For instance, there is no reason - none in the world - to think that the cladogram which you posted has any relevance to anything at all. It's just some palaeontologist arranging a variety of human and primate skulls, in various states of quality, into a structure that he or she thought looked like it fit together, assuming the unproven evolutionist paradigm. The actual dates given, as well as the actual arrangement of supposed evolutionary ancestors and descendants, have no actual, independent relevance. The whole structure is based on circular reasoning.
[[Why should they continue to be hashed out?]]
Why? To expose how phony those ‘descritings’ really are, and how much htey rely on religious propoganda to ‘discredit’ instead of actual science, and to keep exposing the absurdity of claims such as the chart you posted- that’s why- Because the actual science betrays your beleif- that’s why- because hte actual scientific facts and evidences show common design, and discontinuity, and biological impossibilites, manthematical, chemical, and natural impossibilites, not common descent as has been preached for 150 years- that’s why- Because Kids DESERVE the truth- not religious propoganda of Darwinism that preaches faith in nature despite the growing scientific evidence agaisnt it- that’s why.
You could put together a much mopre convincing one using the skulls of the canis.
Pretty charts with skulls all arranged with connceting lines and time scales proves nothing other that the 3rd grade ability to create mobiles out of coat hangers and magazine pictures.
That is the VERY reason children need to critically evaluate your absurd ToE!!!
See if you can find the missing link in this series. I can figure what order they go in, could you help. I can't provide ages for the rocks each skull was discovered in, though.
NOTE: Skull pictures size is not idicative a relative sizes of actual skulls.
But you are missing the point. When you question a scientific theory you need to bring scientific evidence, not religious belief, as creation “science” does.
You’ve been debunked on this point a million times, so why do you continue lying like this?
Is there something science-hating or even religious in these observations?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As a chemist, the most fascinating issue for me revolves around the origin of life. Before life began, there was no biology, only chemistry and chemistry is the same for all time. What works (or not) today, worked (or not) back in the beginning. So, our ideas about what happened on Earth prior to the emergence of life are eminently testable in the lab. And what we have seen thus far when the reactions are left unguided as they would be in the natural world is not much. Indeed, the decomposition reactions and competing reactions out distance the synthetic reactions by far. It is only when an intelligent agent (such as a scientist or graduate student) intervenes and tweaks the reactions conditions just right do we see any progress at all, and even then it is still quite limited and very far from where we need to get. Thus, it is the very chemistry that speaks of a need for something more than just time and chance. And whether that be simply a highly specified set of initial conditions (fine-tuning) or some form of continual guidance until life ultimately emerges is still unknown. But what we do know is the random chemical reactions are both woefully insufficient and are often working against the pathways needed to succeed. For these reasons I have serious doubts about whether the current Darwinian paradigm will ever make additional progress in this area.
Ph.D. Oceanography, University of California, San Diego (Scripps Institute)
Associate Editor, Marine Chemistry