Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

Monsieur Lynx says:

quote:

---

First off, I want to take a little bit of time to elaborate on that analogy I tried to explain--musical pieces (which at first may sound totally irrelevant!). I pick up several pieces of music, and I observe a very high degree of similarity. For example, one sheet of music very closely resembles another. On the basis of these similarities I infer that they are a modification of one piece of music!! I analyze very meticulously how these various pieces differ from one another, and construct a tree based on that. Those that share more similarities branched off more recently (say, a while ago, there was the Moonlight Sonata. As typographical errors become introduced to the music, it becomes modified SO much from the original, that you must say it is a completely different piece!).
How, tell me does this differ from the approach taken by biologists?

---

This analogy is obviously meant to show how ridiculous the notion of common descent seems to you. Unfortunately, this analogy is just what would make sense if musical compositions reproduced themselves like living organisms do. Since biologists are studying living things, they can compare morphology and genomes to establish patterns of ancestry. We understand the variation-selection process and know where to look for links among classes of organisms. There's no need for a 'composer' if this mindless copying process does the composing.regards,
Esteban "Ludwig van" Hambre

Monsieur Lynx also says:

quote:

---

Finally, last but not least, evolution contradicts some of the most basic laws of nature that we've observed time and time again. Fish produce fish--they don't produce legged creatures. Scaly cold-blooded reptiles produce other scaly cold-blooded reptiles, not warm-blooded creatures with hair or feathers.

---

Okay, and crabs produce crabs, right? Here's where the creationists get into their classic double-bind. There are nearly five thousand known species of crabs, all ten-legged crustaceans that walk sideways. Were all of these species 'created' specially? I mean, hermit crabs produce other hermit crabs and rock crabs produce rock crabs, but there's no problem visualizing that all crabs share a common ancestor, wouldn't you agree? Small changes have accumulated among these species to make them as different in size and habitat as the tiny white-tipped mud crab (which never grows over 20 mm) and the monstrous Japanese spider crab with its twelve-foot leg span.However, the diversity isn't limited to size. Marine crabs breathe through gills located in cavities underneath the carapace, while land crabs have modified cavities that act like lungs and allow them to breathe air. Either these closely-related species descended from a common ancestor and one branch evolved the ability to breathe outside water, or else marine crabs and land crabs were 'created' separately. Considering how demonstrably similar these species are in their morphology and their genes, which is the more plausible explanation?regards,
Esteban "Crabs Again" Hambre