The remainder of your post is a rant about how Darwin's ideas are wrong. You support this point by claiming they're false. Sorry to point out: that's not support. If you would like to examine specific aspects that were proven incorrect, I would enjoy hearing them. Until then, you may want to scale back on the "it's not true because it's false" angle.
OMG, this is just silly. At no point in my post did I "rant". I don't have to prove the fossil record does not have "in betweens" showing one species turning into another -because it is a fact and not a contested claim whatsoever. I don't have to show how the fossil record shows less diversification of life with time because it is an uncontested fact. Just because your own shortcomings lead you believe it amounts to a "rant" doesn't make it true and it never makes it incumbent upon me to find a remedy for your shortcomings.
That some species look different through time doesn't turn them into different species. Horses were originally pretty small animals and their head shape was significantly different and there were other noticeable differences in the physical appearance between a horse from 50,000,000 years ago and today. But their species back then was horse and it is still horse today in spite of the fact they LOOK totally different from what a horse looked like then. The mutated changes and different inheritable variables that ended up being passed on to their offspring until they ended up looking like they look today (let's skip the manipulated breeding for argument's sake) didn't change any part of the DNA that identifies the species. That isn't something I made up. It is why in spite of looking so different from what a horse looks like today, it is still called a horse. If you don't understand genetics, its going to take more than a single post. The traits that are inherited from parent to offspring and their offspring etc. cannot change their species and it doesn't matter how wildly different looking those inherited traits and mutations may make the individual look. ONLY a mutation in the specific part of the DNA strand that identifies the species can change the species -and SORRY for reality intruding here, but mutations on that part of the DNA strand are nearly 100% lethal to the individual. Which means it will never be passed on to its offspring. I say "nearly" because it leaves open the extremely remote possibility that maybe a really, really, really rare one isn't but it has never been found. Its like saying I am 99.9999999% positive the sun will rise tomorrow -it still leaves open the extremely remote possibility the sun will explode during the night. What you clearly do NOT understand is the part of the DNA strand that identifies the species is NOT the part of the strand that is readily subject to mutations whatsoever -it is that part of the strand that determines what the individual of that species will look like, but not on the part that determines what species it is! Which is why it is an indisputable biological FACT that two parents of one species can only produce offspring of their own species and will never produce anything BUT another of their own species -that means that part of the DNA that identifies the species gets passed down UNCHANGED because to change that part means changing the species.
It doesn't matter how many mutations occur, how many different variables in what an individual of a species can look like -unless the mutation occurs on that part of the DNA that identifies the species it can NEVER change the species. But when it does happen on that part, it kills the individual. I'm pretty sure Darwin wishes he had known this but it wasn't discovered until long after he was dead. So his theory was offered while ignorant about future scientific and biological discoveries. But Darwin's ignorance doesn't mean I have to remain as ignorant about them now as he was then. That means if your mother was born a legless wonder and your father was a hairless, toothless gummer and you inherited all of that from both parents, you'd be someone whose best shot at making a living would be in a sideshow -but sadly, the part of your DNA that identified your species would still be the same as mine. It wouldn't matter if everyone else on the planet were killed so that only your descendants of bald, legless, toothless gummers existed from then on. No matter how many generations were to pass, the part of their DNA strand that identified their SPECIES would still be the same as mine and everyone else. If only your freak offspring and their descendants existed on the planet it would mean the OUTWARD physical traits of what a typical human being now looked liked and what body parts they came with had changed. But what was never changed is the part of their DNA that identified their SPECIES. (Now if you want to call your freak descendants non-human, that's fine by me and I hope you do -but DNA testing would still prove that to be false.)
What don't you get? I specifically named KNOWN flaws and I didn't ask if you agreed if they were flaws because these are KNOWN flaws with the theory! They aren't flaws I just made up. These are the flaws discovered and verified by scientists, the knowledge these are proven flaws are being taught in our colleges and universities in the advanced sciences! HERESY, right? LOL
Your statement about theories not being modified or changed is pure bullshit, sorry and only shows your ignorance again. Sorry, but scientific theories get modified, changed, refined and thrown out ALL THE TIME. That is actually the very NATURE of science in the first place! Gee, even the theory of global warming has been modified more than 15 times now by a slew of different scientists in less than a decade! Maybe you didn't also know that different scientists are working with different aspects of all these different theories -including those that theorized global warming is not the fault of man, those that theorized it is cyclical in nature, that it is not due to carbon dioxide emissions at all, theories it is not occurring at all -and that global warming is occurring but would be beneficial and on and on. That is what scientists do because that is how man actually gains greater scientific knowledge -by constantly questioning, investigating, challenging and modifying or even abandoning theories entirely based on what they actually FIND. It is that part of science you clearly don't get -the FINDINGS dictate whether a theory needs to be modified, refined -or abandoned. While you and other Darwinists are actually insisting scientists must somehow force their findings to fit a theory instead and those findings that fail to do so -must be rejected. It is THEORIES that get modified, refined, changed or just thrown out when that happens -not the findings that fail to conform with a theory that gets thrown out! When the findings fail to conform with the theory, it is the theory that is modified to try and account for and explain those findings and if no amount of modification can do that, it gets dumped entirely. After all, theories are proposed to try and explain what actually EXISTS -not what we are going to pretend exists.
Seriously, do you REALLY think once a theory gets proposed, that's it? It becomes untouchable, sacred and holy? How many modifications do you think were made to the theory that is possible to turn some other metal into gold before it was finally abandoned? How many times was the theory that sticking a leech on someone would cure some disease or another it put on at the proper time and left on for the proper length of time was tried and changed before it was finally tossed in the trash? Einstein modified and refined his theory of relativity several times before leaving it in the final form we know now. Newton modified and refined his theory of gravity, that theory has since been modified for other variables that can affect gravity that Newton never knew about, Stephen Hawking never stopped modifying and refining his theory of black holes -and they all did when their original theory didn't quite pan out which told them they hadn't quite yet gotten it right. There is absolutely nothing SACRED AND HOLY in science or about any aspect of science - because science is not a religion.
The flaws I pointed out are real, they are known by scientists because they are the ones who found those flaws in the first place. Not some preacher somewhere, ok?
I'm not the one with a vested in interest in what the science shows. Doesn't matter to me one little bit. Zippo. Nada. If Darwin's theory of evolution were absolutely, 100% true and "scientific fact" -so what?. I don't care whatsoever. True, not true -I don't care how it actually turns out. It only matters that we tell ourselves the truth -history has shown when we don't, it only delays gaining greater scientific knowledge that much longer.
People like you always assume that anyone who says the theory of evolution is flawed can only be doing so because of their religious beliefs -which is bullshit. It is people like you who demand we worship at the altar of evolution with unquestioning devotion, INSIST it may not be challenged and INSIST it is written in stone. People like YOU are the ones treating science like it is a RELIGION. Why?
Why on earth would you really give a rat's ass whether this particular theory turns out to be accurate or not? Until you can answer that, a rational discussion with people who insist on treating it like a religion -is just not possible.
