Replies

"I think creation is a "single rare event" which gives rise to a new species."

Somebody or something would have to be pretty busy holding a new creation "event" for each and every species on the planet, but a nice try.

I think it is relevant to consider that Homo Sapiens and related / associated groups developed along different lines when isolated from others like them. Also, when not challenged or intermixed, there probably is greater tendency to remain the same. (By the way, those long leaps took a loo-oong time themselves.)

The money quote seems to be: "We think people will come around because it will start to unravel some mysteries about speciation,"

Seems like that's what science should be all about.

UNder conventional evolutionary theory, there is a falsifiability test, although it is complicated. When the scientists finish mapping the genomes of what they believe to be related species, they “simply” have to show how to start with some common ancestor, and then through a series if individual mutations, map gene sequences from the ancestor to both final related species.

With the stipulation that at EACH step on the way, the resulting organism must be viable and reproducable, and it would help if it was an improvement over the norm so it had a reasonable chance of reproducing.

It is my guess that they will never find the path from one species to another, but that is because I don’t believe you can go from one to another through a series of simple step mutations ALL of which are viable, reproducable, and selectable.

However, if this new theory is correct, they won’t have to find the series of mutation steps, because there won’t be one, just this rare huge change.

Amazing. This theory essentially throws out many of the concepts on which Darwinism is based (random mutations and natural selection combined with the opportunity that VERY long time periods provide) and just says that evolution can happen in a relative blink of the eye. That radical a shift in concept requires that evolutionists answer a few obvious questions about their prior dogmatic adherence to gradual change over huge time spans. What does that say? "Oops, we were wrong about all that stuff we so vehemently defended before, but we're right this time, just trust us. However, you creationists still can't possibly be right, even though we were so wrong."

Sounds like "punctuated equilibrium" all over again. None of this matters, though, because the biggest problem evolutionists have is not explaining how the raw materials of life arose (though that is difficult enough), but rather explaining how the INFORMATION that rides upon that substrate arose spontaneously. They cannot and never will be able to adequately explain how the extremely complex genetic code arose by chance. Codes don't arise by chance. They require an INTELLIGENCE to assign meaning to what would otherwise just be meaningless arrangements of chemicals.