When scientists refer to the theory of evolution they are referring to the theory that complex life as we know it today evolved from less complex life - a single-cell organism, to be exact. So if a evolutionary scientist offers an example of evolution, one would reasonably expect an example of one organism giving rise to another organism that is more complex, more evolved.
Alas, this reasonable expectation is asking too much in Darwin World. Take antibiotic resistance, for instance, which is commonly cited by evolution science as a sterling example of "evolution". Antibiotic resistance involves nothing more natural selection, in the form of a cull of most the various strains of a certain species. So antibiotic resistance doesn't produce a more complex, more evolved organism than what was already there. The bugs that survive the antibiotic don't undergo any change to "become" resistant - they were already resistant.
Evolution requires more than just natural selection, so it is erroneous to cite antibiotic resistance as an example of evolution.
Evidently, the definition of evolution need some clarification. How about dividing it into micro- and macro-evolution? Micro' can be the tangible aspects of the theory that are observable, testable and factual; macro' can be the rest of the theory that no one can observe, test or establish as a fact.
Please consider this scenario: Some aliens want to invade earth and colonise it, but first they need to eradicate all the humans, so they spray a toxin around that's designed to kill humans. All the humans die except for people with red hair - it so happens that redheads have some lucky variation in their genetic make-up that allows them to withstand the toxin, and they survive. Over time, the redheads multiply in number to the point where the aliens feel the need to re-apply the toxin. But to the aliens dismay, the second application of the toxin has no effect - because the redheads are immune to the toxin. The aliens conclude that the humans have become "resistant" to the toxin, which is a bit of a misnomer because the redheads didn't "become" resistant to the toxin - they were always resistant to the toxin.
"This theory (evolution) has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless".
- (the late) Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research.
Darwinists insist - perhaps in some futile quest for meaning - that evolution is not the result of a series of random accidents, because is it all controlled by natural selection. If life is to be fashioned from a collection of atoms, it can happen in only two ways - by design or by random accidents. Design requires intelligence, but natural selection doesn't have intelligence so cannot design, therefore there is no element of design in the process of evolution.
This means evolution is purely the result of the only other option - random accidents - sheer, blind, mindless luck, in other words.
This is a very impressive list ... of bogus Darwinist claims. If you investigate each of these items you will find that they are either theoretical (with no practical application to living organisms) or are uses that would have been discovered if no one had ever heard of the theory of evolution. None of them depend in any way on the belief/theory/"fact" that all life evolved from single-cell organism.
In other words, this is just more mendacious bs from Darwinists and their irrelevant space-cadet biology (aka atheist theology).
CRR: "it is an example of microevolution ... quite similar to antibiotic resistance".
Exactly! I presented this very same example on another site specialising in biology and was told it was an "excellent example of natural selection".
But who knows how anyone can see "evolution" in it because 1) the genetic makeup of the surviving redheads is EXACTLY THE SAME as the genetic makeup of the redheads before they were exposed to the toxin, and 2) the gene pool of the original population has been seriously diminished as a result of the effect of the toxin - which is DEVOLUTION not evolution!
Show a Darwinist a chicken and he sees a feathered dinosaur; show a Darwinist an example of natural selection and he sees all life evolved from a single-cell organism. Biology for space cadets.
In other words, the only part of the Bounoure quote that I supplied that is in queston is the part about him working for the CNRS, which the letter doesn't actually state is untrue, as it merely says, "as far as we know".
Evolutionists, having hijacked the science of biology, like to think they own it and have re-defined it in their own image. But the truth is, ToE will only ever be an irrelevant little subset of real biology.
ToE is like a parasite riding on the back of an elephant (true biology) - the parasite needs the elephant, but the elephant doesn't need the parasite.
Caffeine: "mutation is needed to account for existing genetic diversity".
No problem; God can do mutations. He's an expert on stuff like that - he created the entire universe out of nothing and all life on earth in six days, remember? So a few mutations here and there to move things along would be a cinch.
In post #162 I noticed this statement: "an appreciation of the fundamental principles of evolutionary biology provides new insights into major diseases and enables an integrated understanding of human biology and medicine.". This is an fine example of the mendacious nonsense Darwinists peddle to order to pump up their useless theory to look relevant, important and true.
The truth of the matter is, every discovery that scientists have made that has proved useful in improving human health would have been made if no one had ever heard of Charles Darwin and his theory. For example, the principal of natural selection has been applied by humans for thousands of years; the discovery of vaccines could just have easily have been made by a creationist who completely rejects ToE.
ToE is nothing more than useless atheist theology.
You disagree with my claim that if life is to be fashioned out of atoms, it is done either by design or random accidents (chance). Instead of just grunting, "Bullshit" (as per usual), please offer an explaination of how life could be fashioned if not by either design or chance.
A highschool-level of biology, some common sense, a nose for bs, respect for scientific rigour and a dose of honesty is all one needs to realise that ToE is, at the very least, a very suspect theory. And then, when you add the atheism factor; the fanatical, intolerant dogmatism; Darwinists' penchant for using misleading terminology and making bogus claims as to the usefulness of ToE, it becomes pretty obvious what is going on.