Posted: Aug 23, 2017 4:05 am
Wortfish wrote:
In some respects, creationists do ask for more validation and supporting evidence for the claims of evolutionists than evolutionists themselves demand. It is always a good thing for there to be a strong opposition to hold the current way of thinking to account.
But in most respects, creationists do not ask for any validation and supporting evidence for their own claims (cf. global flood, single progenitor parents for humans).
The argument you have been making is that of a person who cannot see the forest for the trees. You seize upon one small (and often misunderstood) difficulty in a scientific theory and then claim that the whole edifice must be be flawed in the same manner. You have also done this from a demonstrated position of extremely limited knowledge of evolution and the scientific underpinnings of evolutionary theory. It is exactly akin to a random passer-by, upon seeing a small chip in the stone face of a building, becomes certain that the entire Empire State building must be on the verge of imminent collapse.
Evolution works well enough for us to have turned plantains into bananas, grass into wheat/rice/maize and wolves into over 150 types of dogs.