Disproving the Bible

[Jenny A]

That's not how it works. Evolution isn't the only possible explanation, and we didn't have to rule everything else out to declare it "the explanation". We only have to show that evolution fits the available evidence better than other explanations, and that it makes predictions that could turn out either way, which it does, and those predictions panned out in favor of evolution. The same would be true for a claim of god or magic as regards the subject at hand.

Providing a single cause "other than" could very easily be limited to the example at hand, specifically. So lets say we find a single species that is demonstrably not of the same genetic lineage as all the rest, absolutely no correlation. That doesn't mean that the rest didn't evolve, but it would show that evolution wasn't the only way to get from a to b. I think that the latter ought to be the bar that the creatards aim for before they ever set their sights on god. Proving evolution wrong, at this point, looks to be a fruitless endeavor. Finding a single example of a creature that got to where it was by processes other than that invoked in evolutionary explanations would be a hell of a breakthrough. Nobel prize type shit. Then, then, they'd have some heft from which to throw a curve.

That's the point about "it's god." There is no mountain of evidence that suggests god or even evidence that could suggest god. What evidence would suggest god besides a lack of other evidence? Therefore, you can't disprove god in any single case except by showing something else did it.

---

You can take the numbers up or down and it won't matter. Where did the other 18-14k come from? This is probably news to some, but common ancestry ceased to be a theory with the discovery and application of genetics.

Actually, it seems that genetics might have opened up more questions than it answers (like harmful vs beneficial mutation rates, not enough time, orphaned genes, how GRNs came about, and others I am still reading about).

Um, nothing about evolution suggests any rate between harmful and beneficial mutations, only that mutations beneficial for the production of progeny will be retained and those that make reproduction less likely will be lost. It really is a logical certainty. That which succeeds at reproducing, will succeed at reproducing.

Orphaned genes suggest less rather than more time is needed for evolution.