Argument #2: Evolution Of Species

[orogenicman]

Argument #2: Evolution of Species

The evolutionist Kerkut defined the “general theory of evolution” as “the theory that living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.” He goes on to say, “The evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis.” G. A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford, UK: Pergamon, 1960), p.157.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerald_A._Kerkut

Kerkut's (54 year old) book The Implications of Evolution pointed out some existing unsolved problems and points of concern for evolutionary studies. He referred to seven evolutionary assumptions which he felt lacked sufficient evidentiary support. Creationists have taken these points as evidence against evolution and interpreted them to support their own claims.[1] In his book, Kerkut distinguished between the Special Theory of Evolution (often referred to as microevolution) and what he termed the General Theory of Evolution (often referred to as macroevolution, but also including abiogenesis).[2]

This is the best you can do? Really? Oh my.

My argument is not that change doesn’t take place within species over time.

And your peer reviewed scientific evidence for your argument is?

My argument is that no matter how long the time frame, there is no substantial scientific evidence that a microbe has evolved into a human being. Additionally, there is no substantial scientific evidence that non-living chemicals can produce a living cell regardless of time and/or chance.

Straw man argument, since that is not what the science says, and not how evolution works. Evolution works in populations, not with individuals. Whether or not life originated via abiogenesis or some other means is irrelevant to the fact that life evolves. Moreover, there are huge volumes of evidence that support the conclusion that all life on Earth is interrelated and that modern life ultimately originated from the earliest forms of life on the planet. What you are doing here is willfully ignoring that massive amount of data and simply quote mining from a 54 year old textbook that nobody uses any more (and that many have never even heard of) in order to further a religious agenda. I was taught in my youth by my religious parents that such behavior is a violation of the 9th commandment against bearing false witness. Was there a religion-confab that was convened that I don't know about where it was decided that 'lying for Jesus' was now acceptable behavior in the Christian community? Because I am certain that my very religious, though scientifically literate family never got that memo.

Bump