@Esquilax
You are correct that poking holes in a theory does not prove another theory. I was addressing the false assertions that evolution is a proven fact. You think it is a fact because in your worldview, there is absolutely no conceivable alternative. I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.
There is no way in the world that 99% of the evidence points to common ancestry of all life. The only strong evidence is that biologist can breed organism and get them to adapt or evolve some sort of new function in the species or genus levels. To then extrapolate that to all living things across family, order, class, phylum and kingdom is a huge leap.
I actually read the links you posted on the fossil record. Listing a few dozen or even hundreds of transitional forms does not conclusive evidence make. The explanation can easily be that these were different animals. What would be conclusive evidence (99%) is what we don't see--organisms with small changes into a totally new one. Nor do we see organisms with strange appendages that would later become something. We don't see organism with organs that are not fully functional. The predictive powers of evolution in the fossil record fall well short of your 99%
In the area of genetics, we have some orphaned genes that show up out of nowhere. You have groups of genes showing up in branches of organisms where the theory predicts they should not be. The counter argument is "look at all the common genes" or "see the junk DNA from older organisms". Some common genes are expected for all living things. We are finding uses for junk DNA so that is certainly not in the 99% range of proof. When you draw out the genetic tree of life, you get convoluted connections that don't make sense. Genetics is certainly not the conclusive proof that evolutionist thought it would be.
In micro-biology, we are finding that things are more complicated than they seemed to be (actually a better phrase would be mind-boggling complicated). How did DNA evolve? How did a cell evolve? How do GRNs evolve? Do you honestly think we know within your 99%?
The origin of life challenges, the first domino in this chain of events, is a massive mystery. Does that fit into the 99% certainty or is that a separate issue? Because it is a necessary ingredient and proving that life could come from non-life would be an immense proof that all this could have happened.
Has there been enough time for all the necessary mutations to occur, accumulate, and evolve all the necessary organisms? What is the rate of beneficial mutations? Is there are flaw in thinking that minute random mutations accumulate toward a beneficial end--getting "selected by the organism even though there is no immediate functional value or is it more probably that mutations that are not of immediate beneficial use are corrected, selected out, or die off. To make this even more complicated, multiple mutations are needed in multiple genes to effect even the first step in the chain to make a beneficial change--requiring an exponential amount of time, during which the organism has to keep around genetic material of no immediate use. While I am not a scientist, this does not sound like 99% certainty.
Regarding the article, you want to give the impression that these people are uneducated hacks. The author of the article is irrelevant, but the content was useful to show the relationship between the original paper by Wilf and Ewens and the subsequent paper citing major flaws in it. The paper was mainly about the math that Wilf and Ewens used and therefore would require understanding mathematics as it applies to biology--which the authors were perfectly qualified to do:
Ann Gauger received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
William A. Dembski has a whole bunch of degrees including postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University and a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago.
The other two have degrees in engineering, computers and/or mathematics.
You are correct that poking holes in a theory does not prove another theory. I was addressing the false assertions that evolution is a proven fact. You think it is a fact because in your worldview, there is absolutely no conceivable alternative. I am pointing out that the "facts" do not disprove my worldview.
There is no way in the world that 99% of the evidence points to common ancestry of all life. The only strong evidence is that biologist can breed organism and get them to adapt or evolve some sort of new function in the species or genus levels. To then extrapolate that to all living things across family, order, class, phylum and kingdom is a huge leap.
I actually read the links you posted on the fossil record. Listing a few dozen or even hundreds of transitional forms does not conclusive evidence make. The explanation can easily be that these were different animals. What would be conclusive evidence (99%) is what we don't see--organisms with small changes into a totally new one. Nor do we see organisms with strange appendages that would later become something. We don't see organism with organs that are not fully functional. The predictive powers of evolution in the fossil record fall well short of your 99%
In the area of genetics, we have some orphaned genes that show up out of nowhere. You have groups of genes showing up in branches of organisms where the theory predicts they should not be. The counter argument is "look at all the common genes" or "see the junk DNA from older organisms". Some common genes are expected for all living things. We are finding uses for junk DNA so that is certainly not in the 99% range of proof. When you draw out the genetic tree of life, you get convoluted connections that don't make sense. Genetics is certainly not the conclusive proof that evolutionist thought it would be.
In micro-biology, we are finding that things are more complicated than they seemed to be (actually a better phrase would be mind-boggling complicated). How did DNA evolve? How did a cell evolve? How do GRNs evolve? Do you honestly think we know within your 99%?
The origin of life challenges, the first domino in this chain of events, is a massive mystery. Does that fit into the 99% certainty or is that a separate issue? Because it is a necessary ingredient and proving that life could come from non-life would be an immense proof that all this could have happened.
Has there been enough time for all the necessary mutations to occur, accumulate, and evolve all the necessary organisms? What is the rate of beneficial mutations? Is there are flaw in thinking that minute random mutations accumulate toward a beneficial end--getting "selected by the organism even though there is no immediate functional value or is it more probably that mutations that are not of immediate beneficial use are corrected, selected out, or die off. To make this even more complicated, multiple mutations are needed in multiple genes to effect even the first step in the chain to make a beneficial change--requiring an exponential amount of time, during which the organism has to keep around genetic material of no immediate use. While I am not a scientist, this does not sound like 99% certainty.
Regarding the article, you want to give the impression that these people are uneducated hacks. The author of the article is irrelevant, but the content was useful to show the relationship between the original paper by Wilf and Ewens and the subsequent paper citing major flaws in it. The paper was mainly about the math that Wilf and Ewens used and therefore would require understanding mathematics as it applies to biology--which the authors were perfectly qualified to do:
Ann Gauger received a BS in biology from MIT, and a PhD in developmental biology from the University of Washington, where she studied cell adhesion molecules involved in Drosophila embryogenesis. As a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard she cloned and characterized the Drosophila kinesin light chain. Her research has been published in Nature, Development, and the Journal of Biological Chemistry.
William A. Dembski has a whole bunch of degrees including postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University and a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago.
The other two have degrees in engineering, computers and/or mathematics.
