Because from my humble vantage point, it seems the Evolution model is telling you what the 10 000 piece puzzle looks like with about a 10th of the pieces assembled and available.
You are mixing the theory of evolution with the particular path that living things have taken through time. We have only a few pieces of the puzzle that show us how animals evolved; much, much less that a 10th. We have a very complete theory of how this happens; much, much more than 90%.
The exact steps that living things took as they evolved are details of
one of the pieces of
evidence supporting the theory. Having only some of these pieces is not a "gap" or "space" in the theory at all.
Our theory of gravity (general relativity) describes the nature of spacetime and why a rock will fall. Being unable to predict or not k knowing the particular path that a rock took to arrive at the bottom of a cliff has
nothing to say about the strength of the theory involved.
Likewise the theory of evolution describes why organisms do not remain (mostly) constant overtime and the way in which populations can be expected to change. Being unsure of a particular pathway that populations have taken to get from one point to another has
nothing to do with the strength of the theory.
Alright, if it doesn't constitute "space", perhaps you could explain to me what does?
It is simply a gap in our knowledge of the particulars of the evolution of some populations. Such gaps are not a weakness of the {btheory[/b] as long as all the available pieces fit the patterns predicted by the theory.
It is very important to your understanding that you get the concept of a theoretical model and the separation of that form specific instances of the application of the model. With a physics (that was it wasn't it?) background I am surprized that you are having such a problem with this.
qsTo say they have absolutely no valid points or any worthwhile observations whatsoever would be narrow at best. [/qs]
Each of those points should probably go in a separate opening post for a new thread. But when we ask for such things we get stuff like: "If we evolved from monkeys why are there still monkeys?" and such. If you could be very specific about what these points are we would all enjoy it.
In the evolution model, specifically, the genus Homo model, we don't have that data yet, but we can still see the flaws.
You are mixing up terms here. It is totally incorrect to use the word "model" for both the theory of evolution and the details of Homo evolution. There are gaps in the record of how Homo evolved there is no contradiction between what we do see in the Homo record and the theory of evolution.
If we did see H. Sapien 300 million years ago it would be a serious problem for the evolutionary model. There is enough fossil evidence to make this a very difficult fit with what is known and with the theory as well.
It's very vulnarable in some aspect. But sometimes, when you say this, or found certain creationists objections to be valid, it's at the risk of heretic scorns it would seem. In this EvC debate, for the most part, it's all either this or either that. Us or them, choose.
The discussion will not progress at all unless you make the precise objections very clear. The scorn arises because, over and over again, the creationist objections are based on a combination of lack of understanding of the theory and of lack of knowledge of the available evidence.
™ Version 4.2