Heated debate on evolution with brother

[DarkerEnergy]

There you go, there's a few 'icons' of natural selection that are very recent in history, and very much examples of significant evolution. We can go further but my hunch is, you really don't know what you're talking about at all, and it's waste of time to proceed.

I go with the consensus opinion of biologists while at the same time recognizing the Neo-Darwin synthesis has been called into question by a group of small but seemingly well-qualified dissenters. I don't have a dog in that fight precisely because I do not feel I have sufficient background knowledge to take a side and it doesn't affect my theology even though I find the extended evolution model fascinating. My point was that many AF proponents of the Neo-Darwin Synthesis relying on obsolete 'icons' or self-serving internet searches every bit as much as the proponents of ID or creationism.  Your strident reply suggests as much.

They're not 'icons' bub. These are living examples of natural selection that you have not refuted, or even attempted to incorporate into an alternative scientific theory.

The evidence for evolutionary theory is everywhere - not just the fossil record. DNA sequencing adequately demonstrates the common ancestry of all organisms on Earth, but we also see evidence in the shared proteins that are common to all organisms, from bacteria to animals. The evidence from the protein cytochrome c also demonstrates the thesis of evolution with a varying of amino acids between organisms that is predicted by common ancestry. Don't forget the evidence from retroviruses and human chromosome 2; which was the nail in the coffin of biological typology, and demonstrated our ancestry with chimps beyond a reasonable doubt.

Notice that I haven't even touched the evidence from paleontology. All of the evidence I mentioned is of biochemical nature that biologists use to reconstruct phylogenetic trees, and is airtight for common ancestry. This is not to say we do not also have intermediate forms in the fossil record, because we absolutely do. The evidence for human evolution from ancient hominids is profound, and you'd have to be a fool not to see the evidence -- or just be an intelligent design crank with zero understanding of the theory. From experience I can tell you're the latter, so I won't waste too much more time on you.



Please, you have no idea what you're talking about. The biologists that doubt evolutionary theory are nothing short of cranks, and they're not taken seriously by the peers at all; not because they are religious, but because they have zero evidence to support their claims. If you're going to dispute evolution, you need to A)explain the evidence we see biochemically and in the geological record and B)formulate a new scientific paradigm that is predictive and falsifiable, and better explains the evidence.

Stop reading ID books and read some actual biology.