OK if “The theory of evolution has been mathematically and experimentally debunked”
Then you would not mind reviewing and responding to this:
Variations.
1. Variations exist with in all populations.
2. Some of that variation is heritable
3. Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4. Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over”
During meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pair on a chromosome.
5. Copying errors (mutations) can also arise; because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
6. These recombination’s and errors produce a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence radiating outward from the initial state of the population.
Selection
7. Some of the heritable variations have an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
8. Characteristics which tend to increase the number of an organisms offspring that are able to reproduce in turn; tend to become more common over generations and diffuse through a population; those that tend to decrease such prospects tend to become rarer.
9. Unrepresentative samplings which alters the relative frequency of the various alleles can occur in populations for reasons other than survival / reproduction advantages, a process known as” genetic drift”.
10. Migration of individuals from one population to another can lead to changes in the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.
Speciation
11. Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favor” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
12. A new species develops (often initiated by temporary environmental factors such as a period of geographic isolation) when sub-population acquires characteristics, which promote or guarantee reproductive isolation from the alternative population, limiting the diffusion of variations thereafter.
Sufficiency
13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
That’s what Evolution IS! If you have a problem with Evolution you have a problem with one or more of these fourteen points. Which one is it? Provide any evidence of any of the points that are incorrect.
While the origins of life are a question of interest to evolutionary biologist and frequently studied in conjunction with researchers from other fields such as geochemistry and organic chemistry, the core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”
Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variations may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture…but without evidence, they aren’t science.
Other peoples opinions presented in the form of quotes are not evidence against the theory of evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions, which turn out to be false. So lets stick to the facts.
1-5: Basic genetics, nothing to do with evolution,
6: These recombination’s and errors produce unsuccessful offspring at best, if they produce anything.
Where is your evidence for “recombination’s (sic)and errors produc[ing] a tendency for successfully increasing genetic divergence?” This is nothing but an unsupportable conclusion.
Remember, we’re talking about speciation. And you’re demanding evidence of me. Where’s your evidence of any species “evolving into” another species? There is no evidence whatsoever. Just because all life forms begin from a similar template does not prove they evolved from a common ancestor. If anything it proves they were created by an intelligent designer. By the way, ever wonder were the information contained in those DNA molecules came from? Only information can produce information. It can’t “evolve” from nothing.
13. The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of initially similar life forms over time.
More conclusions without evidence - approaching tautology: bio-diversity happened because of bio-diversity.
14. Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain both the diversity within and similarities between the forms of life observed on earth, including both living forms directly observed in the present, and extinct form indirectly observed from the fossil record.
Again another unsupported conclusion. How did your points 1-13 BECOME sufficient to explain anything, much less the diversity within and similarities between the form of life observed on earth-at any time? How do your points 1-13 explain the Cambrian Explosion when virtually all of the phyla came into existence over a period of 70 million years. You’re demanding evidence from me. Where’s your evidence? What you have here is a page out of a high school biology textbook, which is so out of date it is embarrassing. It reminds me of the textbook graphic of the different levels of embryonic and fetal development. It turned out to be a complete hoax just like Piltdown Man. Both are in high school textbooks to this day.
The core of evolutionary theory itself does not rest on a foundation that requires any knowledge about the origins of life on earth. It is primarily concerned with the change and diversification of life after the origins of the earliest living things – although there is not yet a consensus as to how to distinguish “living” from “non-living”
This is YOUR opinion; also a rhetorical device used by evolution apologists to deflect the inevitable question: Life evolved HOW and from WHAT? You establish YOUR standards for this discussion by excluding opinions, yet you end with YOUR opinion attempting to pin me down as to what’s relevant to this discussion. The question of origins is THE question in an analysis of the validity of evolution. Knowledge about, “the orignins of life on earth” is THE core of evolutionary theory. If you posit a theory of evolution of diversity of species by natural selection through “variation” of genetic information, you must be able to extrapolate backwards to the origin of life to have a viable, testable theory. In fact that’s the whole idea: Z came from Y, which came from X, and so forth. Sooner or later you’re going to be faced with the question of, “Where’s the soup?”
I hate to break this off, but I have to retire in order to get up in time tomorrow to spend a couple of hours with the Creator.