Evolution is surely a doctorine of the faith of evolutionism, but has it ever really been tested scientifically? What would it take to really do so?
How about genetics? We use genetic testing to settle questions in criminal investigations. Shouldn’t genetics support common ancestory and such, if it exists?
That would be nice, but there’s a problem. Many supposedly closely related species have their genetic material bundled quite differently. That is, the number of chromosomes do not match. The fox appears to be very similar to dogs and the wolf which both have 78 chromosomes. But, the fox only has 35-39. So, it would appear that these two animals could not possibly be related at all.
In fact there is a diversity of chromosomal numbers within the group we call mammals.
MAMMALIA: Platypus, 70 / Opossum, 17-22 / Hedgehogs, 48 / Shrews, 23 / Hares, 36-46 / Deer Mice, 48, 52 / Voles, 42, 46, 50 /Â Mice, 40, 44 / Rats, 46, 62 /Â Cats, 35, 38 / Cattle, 16, 20, 60 / Goats, 60 / Sheep, 33, 48, 54, 60 / Pigs, 18, 38, 40 / Horses, 60, 66 / Rhesus Monkeys, 42, 48.
If genetic similarity is truly the “smoking gun” test of ancestory as it is often claimed, then evolution has a serious problem here. This alone SHOULD completely refute the theory, but for some reason “evolution science” persists.
To really PROVE even one single instance of evolution, or a completely new creature emerging solely by the “natural design” efforts of evolution it would take a bit of footwork to be sure.
First, you will need to isolate a confirmed example of a completely new creature developing in the first place. This should be the easy part since all of the known million or so species on earth are supposed to by evolving as we speak. SoÂ thereÂ ought to beÂ perhaps hundreds of new species emerging every day.Â And a new genera popping up every month or so! Well, at least one a year wouldn’t you say… (I wouldn’t suggest crocodiles as a test case)
The next part is a little trickier and that is to determine how the new characteristics that sets the new creature apart came about. Normal genetic variation doesn’t count since evolution claims to infuse new genetic “cards”, not just simply shuffling the genetic cards that already exist.
You would need to have at your disposal examples of every POSSIBLE genetic variants from the original deck of genetic cards for comparison not only genetically, but physically. Otherwise, how could you reasonably say that your “new” creature wasn’t simply a different combination of the species’ existing genetic material.
Finally, a long term study of the “new creature’s” viability in the wild would need to be conducted. Unless the new creature can compete for food and reproduce successfully AT LEAST at the same level as it’s ancestral type, such a creature cannot be considered PROOF of evolution.
Do i have all the answers for the wonderful diversity of living things? No way! But, evolution theory presents an enormous uphill battle if anyone really wants to support the claim that it is in any way “proven”. At least from the standpoint of documenting it in action.
Using adaptations from existing genetic possibility doesn’t qualify so you have to rule them out. Natural design (evolution) depends solely on genetic mutation to supply all the new traits that make such a new creature unique.