quote:
If creation is true, you would expect that bacteria would be found in the fossils, as recognisable. This is evidence therefore, as defined in a mdus ponen, evidence being classed as a "viable" component.
This is not necessarily true. Many creationists assume that animals diversified to the family level (beyond genus !) in a period of time that most evolutionists would consider amazingly short.
quote:
Now given the hyper-ability of bacteria, to mutate, given that higher organisms such as humans don't have this phenomenal ability, we would expect EVEN MORE evolution. Yet what do we find? Powerful evidence that they adapt but do not change over time.
Firstly, hyper-mutation only occurs under strong environmental stress. Secondly, the quote is limited to one branch - the cyanobacteria (and even then only those that form stromatolites) all we can say is that the material preserved by fossilisation - which seems to be the shells - closely resembles modern species (but is still different).
quote:
Now all you can do is ad-hoc -explain-away, the actual evidence, with nonsense such as normalised selection which is the equivalent of saying; "NOTHING is a better explanation, therefore this favours evolution".
We have another alternative. We can point out that cherry-picking some examples does not give the whole picture. (And stabilising selection is not "NOTHING").
I should add - and this is an important point - saying that all (known) ancient species are similar to modern species is not the same as saying all modern species are the same as ancient species. That some lineages have not greatly changed in the features that we cannot detect does not mean that no evolution has occurred.
quote:
It's the same with millions of years. "Nothing" is supposed to be impressive. What would be impressive is if we actually saw some evolution in the fossils. "Nothing" certainly doesn't favour you guys.
You mean like the many transitional fossils that have been found - and continue to be found ?
quote:
(Red balls only in a bag theory) -- pick one ball out, if it's red, that is evidence of red-ball theory. A weak consequent. Weak, because of the fallacy of affirmation, whereas a strong falsification is only one green ball). -- Intellectually, you have no option but to agree that if creation was true, such "evidence" would follow, and this particular evidence IS POWERFUL!
So drawing a red ball is weak evidence for the "red ball only theory". But drawing a mix of red and green balls, ignoring all the green balls and (falsely) claiming that your theory only predicted red balls would be "POWERFUL" evidence. I don't think so.
Edited by PaulK, : Added an important point
™ Version 4.2
