Is Theistic Evolutionist an oxymoron?

Quite simply, evolution is the science that tries to explain the observed fact of what we know as, well, evolution.

Maybe an analogy would be in order. If you hold an object up in the air and let go, what happens? It falls to the floor. This is the observed fact of gravity. Now, why does it fall? Well, here is where we get into theory and it really is not worked out so well. Einstein tried to explain gravity as a curving of space-time itself. This theory has been very successful. But we still want to know why things fall. Currently, it is hypothesized that there is a force particle called the graviton that transmits the gravitational force. But it is yet to be discovered. (Interestingly, one of the big hints going for string theory is that it predicts a particle that has the characteristics expected of the graviton. No other theory makes such a prediction.) Gravity is also mysterious in that it is so weak. We need to explain why. But you can see how there are theories of gravity that try and explain the observed fact of gravity. </font>[/QUOTE]Your illustration proves my point. If we drop something we observe the fact that it falls. Theories have been developed to try to explain that fact and to develop a general law regarding whatever causes the object to fall, generally called the law of gravity.

Macro-Evolution has never been observed. Scientists have observed some phenomena and have succeeded in convincing many unlearned that Macro-Evolution is an observed fact. Honest scientists, though religiously clinging to Macro-Evolution because the only other alternative is a Sovereign God, will admit that it is not fact, it is supposition.

Now you present a lot of, shall I call it information, in your post but you never get around to identifying what general law evolution demonstrates.

 

Biologists define macroevolution as speciation. Speciation has been observed in modern times.

Furthermore, the fossil record contains many examples of transitions into new species, new genera, new families, new orders and new classes. Please note the quote from Gould about the abundant examples which we have of this. If you notice, I also provided you links to where a few of these have been discussed on this very board.

Furthermore, the other items which I listed or discussed, shared pseudogenes and shared retroviral inserts and vestiges and atavisms and and shared transposons and biogeography and ontogeny and all these other things tell the same story as the fossil record. There is no other explanation for this data than evolution. And just as you can see a ball drop when you let go, through these various lenses you can see evolution happening. There is no difference. Those who disagree must simply deny the wealth of evidence that God has provided to us about the details of how He created.

"Scientists have observed some phenomena and have succeeded in convincing many unlearned that Macro-Evolution is an observed fact."

You would consider the thousands of scientists who have worked in biology and paleotology and related fields as "unlearned?" These are the people who have taken the observations, who are intimately familiar with the mechanisms, who have examined the raw data. You say these people, those most knowledgable, are "unlearned." Amazing!

 

Why would it be any more or less difficult than teaching them that they are nothing more than offspring of a clod of dirt (Gen2)?

I'll repeat ita again: The whole issue of evolution aside, I'm not concerned about where I came from. I'm concerned about where I'm going. Going forward with Christ is of no value if I'm looking over my shoulder.

"No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Luke 9:62.

 

"No man, having put his hand to the plow, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." Luke 9:62.

I think there is more to it than just looking back John.

Matthew 4:4 But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.

That IMO is the highest order issue.

We here at the BB disagree about where the literalness ends and the allegory/symbolism of those words begin.

HankD

 

It's you who are wrong because I don't have to make that case specifically at all. The quote applies to every agnostic and atheist that ever lived, past, present and future as I pointed out. There isn't a biblical scholar in the world that doesn't think otherwise. Therefore it is directly applicable to evolutionists who came up with this theory, and that promote it who deny that the creation shows clear evidence of His existence contrary to clear Scripture. That is exactly what Romans 1 addreses. They clearly deny the existence the God of Scripture, the one and only true God. Some like to say that the theory still leaves an opening for a god, but of course not the God of Scripture. And that is exactly how their father the devil wants it.

Not it isn't. You folks are trying to shape God into your own image so that the intellectuals of this present age won't think you to be fools, when it is they that are the fools. You will some day be ashamed before Him. And it wasn't thesistic evolutionists that came up with and promoted this theory through the years. It was the athesists. You folks just jumped on board so as not to look foolish before them. God help you all.

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe. 1 Cor. 1:19-21

 

That is the lie of evolution because it is taught in schools as established fact, when it is indeed still a theory. They would like nothing better than to made it a Law of science, but even they can't be that dishonest.

I wonder if UTEOTW thinks that that isn't more dishonest than quote mines? And since evolution is still a theory, why do the evolutionist bullies not allow the introduction of other open theories like creationism? Because their father Satan will not allow it, that's why.

For instance UTEOTW writes:

Then why is it still considered a theory and not a Law of Science?

And BTW, and analogy is not in order when it contradicts clear Scripture.

And the evolutionists 'quote mine' argument is just a way to try to discredit everything that has ever been said against evolution across the board with one blanket accusation. Much like liberals do in their politically correct speech barometer. I for one won't fall for it. So, bombs away!

http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid1.htm

[ September 19, 2005, 06:07 PM: Message edited by: JackRUS ]

 

UTEOTW writes:

But God defines it as speculation that will be judged in end times.

Interesting how they can just change the formerly required observed empirical science into hocus-pocus to suit their half-baked theory.

Please give us an example of a creature that divided into two new species where the DNA & genetic code changed dramatically.

BTW, if this theory is correct, then there should be examples of highly formed animals changing. I mean, didn't accoring to your theory that is, man come from apes, and birds from dinosaurs, etc.?

And why have no higher forms of life of any sort ever been observed changing in this manner?

And if this change does take place, are the changes for improvement in the species, or are they merely bad mutations.

And does the DNA change?

 

another thing is that OUR classification of what constitutes a "species" is probably very different from what GOd calls a "kind."

There are quite a few instances of breeding between what we would call different species.....for example, horse and zebra, dolphin and whale (not a true whale, if I understand it correctly, but I can't remember the specific name of it). In these instances the offspring was NOT always sterile. The baby of the dolphin/whale grew up and had her own baby.
Sometimes the two different species are no longer able to breed together, but they are still the same "kind" of animal. Birds are still birds, they never "mutate" to give birth to a fish.

 

It is called a wholphin(sp?). I saw one in Hawaii back in 1991.

 

Why would it be any more or less difficult than teaching them that they are nothing more than offspring of a clod of dirt (Gen2)?
</font>[/QUOTE]Because
1. Evolution from a beast makes man seem just an accidental result of some kind of impersonal process (even though theistic evol. deny this, this is how it seems)
2. Man's substance may have come from the dust but God personally fashioned the first man and breathed the breath of life into his nostrils. This description differs from the accounts of the creation of the animals and other creatures which are more generalized and include many creatures created at the same time.

 

It's you who are wrong because I don't have to make that case specifically at all. The quote applies to every agnostic and atheist that ever lived, past, present and future as I pointed out. There isn't a biblical scholar in the world that doesn't think otherwise. Therefore it is directly applicable to evolutionists who came up with this theory, and that promote it who deny that the creation shows clear evidence of His existence contrary to clear Scripture. That is exactly what Romans 1 addreses. They clearly deny the existence the God of Scripture, the one and only true God. Some like to say that the theory still leaves an opening for a god, but of course not the God of Scripture. And that is exactly how their father the devil wants it.

Not it isn't. You folks are trying to shape God into your own image so that the intellectuals of this present age won't think you to be fools, when it is they that are the fools. You will some day be ashamed before Him. And it wasn't thesistic evolutionists that came up with and promoted this theory through the years. It was the athesists. You folks just jumped on board so as not to look foolish before them. God help you all.

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
that believe. 1 Cor. 1:19-21 </font>[/QUOTE]Your whole logic depends upon the scientists who advocate an old earth being atheists. They are not. There are many good Christians who work in the sciences, who have examined the data for themselves, who have collected the data themselves, who have access to the raw data and who have the knowledge to correctly judge the data. They accept evolution.

Here is a poll for you. You will find the 45% of the scientists meet the definition for "Creationist" that Phillip E. Johnson gives in The Right Questions; Truth and Meaning in Public Debate. "`Creationism' means belief in creation in a more general sense. Persons who believe that the earth is billions of years old and that simple forms of life evolved gradually to become more complex forms including humans, are `creationists' if they believe that a supernatural Creator not only initiated the process but in some meaningful sense controls it in furtherance of a purpose."

Basically the science world is about evenly split. Sort of destroys your assertion about them all being atheists and your attempt to take scripture out of context based on this mistake.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

 

"That is the lie of evolution because it is taught in schools as established fact, when it is indeed still a theory. They would like nothing better than to made it a Law of science, but even they can't be that dishonest."

What exactly are you talking about?

In the world of science, evolution most certainly is considered to be fact. The data to support this is overwhelming and without another explanation.

I believe your problem stems from a misunderstanding of what a "law" is in science. A law is "a general statement reflecting the expectation that certain patterns of events will always occur if and whenever certain conditions are met, other things being equal." Gravity gives a good example of such a law by tellings us that two objects will always attract one another in proporation to their mass and inverse proportion to their distance. Notice that this law does not bother to tell us anything about WHY this occurs.

While physics is full of such examples, could you please tell us some things in biology that you feel happen with such predicability that they should be codified as biological laws? As it turns out, biology is quite a messy subject. You just are not going to have the same rigid repeatability that you have with physical systems. So you are unlikely to have many, if any, biological laws. It just is not going to happen. You do have many theories in biology, many of them quite successful. But biology does not lend itself to the sort or rigid rules that you would need to codify something as law.

"I wonder if UTEOTW thinks that that isn't more dishonest than quote mines?"

Obviously not. It is an accurate representation of proper science to say that we have a theory of evolutio that seeks to explain the observed fact of evolution. Quote mining attempts to present authors words without context in a way that changes the intended meaning of the authors. Did you read those links I sent to you detailing hundreds of examples of this? Here they are again. Please defend the practice if you think it is acceptable.

http://www.rtis.com/nat/user/elsberry/evobio/evc/sc_misq.html

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/quotes.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html

http://www.ntanet.net/quote.html

Please let me know how many of these you read in your next post. On some of the pages, the linked page is just an index requiring that you folow links to the examples.

"And since evolution is still a theory, why do the evolutionist bullies not allow the introduction of other open theories like creationism?"

The theory of evolution is good science in that it explains many aspects of the world we see around us and does it better than any other ideas out there. YE creationism has no ability to explain any of htese observations and therefore is not science.

 

"Interesting how they can just change the formerly required observed empirical science into hocus-pocus to suit their half-baked theory."

Nope.

Biology is full of observations that support evolution. The modern speciation events are one minor example. Every fossil that we dig up allows us to make observations about how it was built, what it did, how it died, what it looked like, how it grew, etc. Genetic testing of various sorts is certainly a set of observations that are constantly made. Comparing homologies and vestiges and obserations. We can observe how the species are nested. We can observe atavisms in many species in cluding humans and whales and snakes and horses. We can observe new genes and new metabolic pathways forming in extant species, showing us how the process works on a genetic level.

"Please give us an example of a creature that divided into two new species where the DNA & genetic code changed dramatically."

In modern times, difficult to do since a radical change would likely kill the organism. Radical, short timescale change is also not how evolution is theorized to work so you are asking for an example that goes against theory.

Besides, this is the sort of example I should be asking you for. The whole "kind" idea requires massive amounts of such change to get us from pairs of "kinds" to the modern species in a short, very short, period of time.

"BTW, if this theory is correct, then there should be examples of highly formed animals changing. I mean, didn't accoring to your theory that is, man come from apes, and birds from dinosaurs, etc.?"

And we do have examples of species changing.

Did you know that there are a group of humans in east Asia, high in the mountains in a remote region (I think it is Mongolia), where they have developed a new gene that allows for 10% better oxygen uptake?

Surely you have heard of the "nylon bug" that adapted to digest nylon.

I can get you long lists of changes that have been documented where the organism is improved through mutation and selection. Here is a thread on the subject. You will find several examples listed.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/21.html#000000

"And why have no higher forms of life of any sort ever been observed changing in this manner?"

Because all such changes, even new classes and orders, start with a specitation event. A reptile did not give birth to a mammal one morning. The transition took tens of millions of years. But it is well documented.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/36/261.html

Please take a look at that thread. It details the reptile / mammal transistion. You will see that it is fairly well known. I would imagine that if I were to pull any pair of consecutive animals on that list out, you would simly say that it was a variation within a kind they are so similar. But when you put all of the pieces together, you get a grand transition where a new class evolves one speciation event at a time.

"And if this change does take place, are the changes for improvement in the species, or are they merely bad mutations."

Well, for the population that adapts and survives, they were obvious not bad mutations.

"And does the DNA change?"

Yes. Follow the link above to the examples of observed genetic changes. Here is another link to a thread that traces how new genes are created, largely through duplication and mutation.

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/66/104.html#000000

 

If God created me using the evolutionary process, I'm no less created by Him, and no less His child.

If God created me from a lifless clod of dirt on the ground, I'm no less created by Him, and no less His child.

 

Please read the statement:

Now show me where I stated:

To simplify things I will solve your problem in reading:

Nowhere do I say that I consider

They are wrong and misguided but not unlearned.

As for your statement:

it is patently false. The explanation for everything is GOD. I am surprised that one who claims to be a Christian cannot understand that simple truth.

 

Why would it be any more or less difficult than teaching them that they are nothing more than offspring of a clod of dirt (Gen2)? </font>[/QUOTE]Perhaps this will help in 50% of the cases.

Man speaking to woman about God: I am just a lump of clay but you are prime rib.

 

UTEOTW

Some force called gravity has been demonstrated repeatedly. Macro-evolution has never been demonstrated. Even the so-called missing links cannot be demonstrated.

 

"They are wrong and misguided but not unlearned."

I am not quite sure I understand why you doubt the opinions of those who have personally collected and examined the evidence in favor of the opinion of those who have not? You do realize that about half of these scientists which you casually dismiss as atheists are in facts Christians, don't you?

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Does your dentist also handle your major auto repairs?

Ute said : "There is no other explanation for this data than evolution."

OR responded : "it is patently false. The explanation for everything is GOD. I am surprised that one who claims to be a Christian cannot understand that simple truth."

Back to doubting the faith of those who disagree. A classic YE ad hominem.

In any case, your explanation is lacking. If you are correct, God went through great lengths to make the universe appear to be best explained by the inflationary cold dark matter lambda theory, the geology of the earth to appear billions of years old, and to affect every aspect of every lifeform to appear to have been produced through an evolutionary process.

MY beliefs tell me that God is not the author of confusion. He would not do such a thing. Your answer is thus arbitrary and capricious. It explains nothing and implies that you believe in some sort of trickster god.

 

Biologist define macroevolution as speciation. This has been observed. Do you define the term differently than professional biologists? On what grounds.

In addition, let me remind you of what Gould said of this subject.

"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists-- whether through design or stupidity, I do not know--as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."

If there are links missing, they are most likely to be at the lowest levels of taxonomy. There are abundant examples of transitional organisms from the higher taxa. I have given examples of these to you in the past. You cannot show that they are not the links I claim, but you have no shame in repeating your discredited and unsupported assertions. Let's provide another example here for you. The record of the dawn of the mammals from the reptiles. A grand macroevolutionary transition by any definition. A whole series of links that are not missing. A series so finely divided that if I were to isolate only a step or two, you would surely claim that it was nothing more than variation with [an undefined] "kind."

The differences between mammals and reptiles are considerable. A chief difference is that reptiles have at least four jaw bones and one middle ear bone while mammals have one jaw bone and three middle ear bones. To make matters worse, two bones in the fetal reptile that turn into jaw bones turn into ear bones in developing mammals. Other key differences. Reptile have undifferentiated teeth while mammals have incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Reptile teeth are continuously replaced, mammals teeth are replaced at most once. Reptile teeth only have a single root while mammal molars have two roots. Reptiles lack a diaphragm. Reptiles have their legs sprawled out to the sides while mammals have their legs underneath. The pelvis of a mammal is fused. They have different numbers of bones in their toes. Reptiles are cold blooded while mammals are warm blooded.

A list of transitional animals with limited comments (still long and still a cut and hatchet job but editted to reduce length):

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So we have a finely divided set of fossils going from purely reptile to purely mammal with intermediate features seen gradually changing throughout the sequence.

 

UTEOYW writes:

Just because one claims to be of the Christian religion, that doesn't make them Christian. And again in your poll you have as I pointed out 'creationists' that believe in a god, but not the only true God of Scripture.

And your last comment shows your lack of simple discernment to take the meaning from my posts.

I wrote: "Therefore it is directly applicable to evolutionists(1) who came up with this theory, and that promote it (2)who deny that the creation shows clear evidence of His existence contrary to clear Scripture."

Kindly show me how even an unregenerate creationist fits into that criteria? You can't, so my assertion stands.

As for the laws of science, we have this:

First one starts out with a hypothesis.
(I'll make it easy for you with a dictionary reference for each)

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861619718

Second, if the hypothesis stands and more evidence is available, the hypothesis moves to a scientific theory.

And lastly, if the theory is proven to be fact without ever contradicting any already known Law of Science, and can move on to be a Law of Science.

See # 12:

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861625239

And that is why the theory of evolution is still classified as a theory and not a Law. Yet it is still taught as fact without allowing any other theory to be introduced. Why is that might I ask?

You answer with crock of ...

"The theory of evolution is good science in that it explains many aspects of the world we see around us and does it better than any other ideas out there. YE creationism has no ability to explain any of htese observations and therefore is not science."

"No ability" you say? I might suggest that you read "Darwins Black Box", or perhaps any of the many books by A.E. Wilder-Smith. And there are hundreds of other credible scientific rebuttals to that half-baked theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution contradicts already established Laws of science such as the Law of Probability, and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

And all of your examples of evolution are examples of micro-evolution. What I am looking for, like all evolutionists as well, is an example of macro-evolution. You know, a dog becomes a cat. An ape becomes a man, etc. Not a man develops more red corpuscles so that he can carry more oxygen in his system, or a bug that develops a taste for a man made substance.