But, I would be happy to instruct you on the weaknesses of the Darwinian thesis if you like.
Yes! Please do.
Certainly.
1. . “ Microevolution, the adaptation of species to their environment, is an observed scientific fact, which we of course do not deny. But macroevolution, the gradual process of development of new species, is a mere conclusion, there’s no observational evidence for that.” Peter Korevaar is head of the physics and cosmology working group of Germany’s Studiengemeinschaft Wort
und Wissen, one of the largest creationist groups in Europe. He holds a PhD in astrophysics and now works at IBM in Mannheim.
http://www.scienceinschool.org/repository/docs/issue9_nature_graebsch2006.pdf
2. Philip Johnson, Professor of Law, Berkeley,
Evolution as Dogma: The Establishment of Naturalism. Johnson, Phillip From his thesis:
a. Nobody doubts that evolution occurs, in the narrow sense that certain changes happen naturally.
The most famous piece of evidence for Darwinism is a study of an English peppered-moth population consisting of both dark- and light-colored moths. When industrial smoke darkened the trees, the percentage of dark moths increased, due to their relative advantage in hiding from predators. When the air pollution was reduced, the trees became lighter and more light moths survived. Both colors were present throughout, and so
no new characteristics emerged, but the percentage of dark moths in the population went up and down as changing conditions affected their relative ability to survive and produce offspring.
b. Some experts do not
believe that major changes and the appearance of new forms (i.e., macroevolution) can be explained as the products of an accumulation of tiny mutations through natural selection of individual organisms (microevolution). If classical Darwinism isn't the explanation for macroevolution, however, there is only
, there is only speculation as to what sort of alternative mechanisms might have been responsible.
c. If all living species descended from common ancestors by an accumulation of tiny steps, then there once must have existed a veritable universe of
transitional intermediate formsÂ…New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.
d. To illustrate the fossil problem, here is what a particularly vigorous advocate of Darwinism, Oxford Zoology Professor (and popular author) Richard Dawkins, says in The Blind Watchmaker about the "Cambrian explosion," i.e., the apparently sudden appearance of the major animal forms at the beginning of the Cambrian era:
The Cambrian strata of rocks, vintage about 600 million years, are the oldest ones in which we find most of
the major invertebrate groups. And we find many of them in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history. Needless to say, this appearance of sudden planting has delighted creationists. Evolutionists of all stripes believe, however, that this really does represent a
very large gap in the fossil record, a gap that is simply due to the fact that, for some reason, very few fossils have lasted from periods before about 600 million years ago.
[Darwin] ruefully conceded: "Nature may almost be said to have guarded against the frequent discovery of her transitional or linking forms."
(emphasis mine throughout)
The point? Much of the theory is unproven.
