Creationists: Why is Evolution Bad Science?

quote:

---

The problem comes in when we start to assume that given enough time (millions of years) and enough of these mutations (many of which are neither beneficial nor deletitious) a population could be changed enough to have some kind of reproductive barrier to the parent population. In fact, we have never observe of such an instance when a population is isolated long enough from the parent population that a new species is resulted from the isolated population.

---

This is false.We have, in fact, directly observed speciation in real time, both in the lab and in the field.In plants, for example, we have observed speciation to happen in a matter of decades, and in even less time.This message has been edited by schrafinator, 04-19-2006 08:13 AM

quote:

---

Yes, we have observed many species that are very physically and genetically close to surrounding populations, such as the different populations of birds observed by Darwin while traveling on the Beagle. And because of such observations, many have conjectured that these populations of birds must have resulted from a common ancestor because of their similarities. The question that comes natural for the creationist is how do we know these birds weren't already there?

​

I guess what I'm trying to say in too many words is that the reason the theory is not scientific is because too much of it is conjectured rather than formulated from direct evidence.

---

Do you believe genetics combined with morphology to be mere conjecture?Do you accept that genetics is the basis for all heredity?