Perhaps the title of Political Chic's thread is why it was moved to the rubber room. But I think a discussion of the reasons why Darwinian evolution is favored are involved in depth with science.
So, I started a separate thread on Darwinism - specifically what observational evidence is there for Darwinian evolution?
Darwin noted evidence of micro-evolution in varieties of finches on the Galapagos Islands. A common example of observational evidence of evolution is the Peppered moth. But in both cases no new kind of animal evolved - rather, variation due to natural selection in different environments, or separation and inbreeding in geographically different locations are involved. The finches were still finches and no new species of moth evolved either.
Another example of observational evidence is the change in skull shape and dog snout of the Bull Terrier in 40 years due to epigenetic coding - specifically tandem repeat sequences formerly called Junk DNA by evolutionists.
I will start with the peppered moth - but feel free to post any observational evidence. The fossil record is another subject - perhaps there is another thread discussing the fossil record?
There is plenty of literature published about the Peppered moth - I hope you all don't mind my starting with our literature:
This is an authorized Web site of Jehovah’s Witnesses. It is a research tool for publications in various languages produced by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
wol.jw.org
"
The Peppered Moth
18, 19. What claim is made for the peppered moth, and why?
18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress.
The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book
Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.
19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.
20. How did an English medical journal explain that the peppered moth was not evolving?
20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal
On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”22
reference 22 -
On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.
