Biological Evolution – An Islamic Perspective

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Tornado and SixTen
As I've explained many times before in this topic. Evolution is not an accepted theory, evolution is not even a theory it's a word. A word which by itself is meaningless. Terminology is everything. since so many things evolve, evolution could refer to practically anything. The problem is, out of the whole lot of theories and hypothesis, some are true and some are false, but people tend to judge the totality of theories based on the strongest one, and assume that since some sub-theories are accepted and proven, that thus the whole 9 yard is genuine. I say, judge every theory by it's own merit. Then suddenly many parts of "evolution" won't even be considered scientific anymore.

 

[Tornado]

Hi Tornado and SixTen
As I've explained many times before in this topic. Evolution is not an accepted theory, evolution is not even a theory it's a word. A word which by itself is meaningless. Terminology is everything. since so many things evolve, evolution could refer to practically anything. The problem is, out of the whole lot of theories and hypothesis, some are true and some are false, but people tend to judge the totality of theories based on the strongest one, and assume that since some sub-theories are accepted and proven, that thus the whole 9 yard is genuine. I say, judge every theory by it's own merit. Then suddenly many parts of "evolution" won't even be considered scientific anymore.

Biological evolution isn't a theory? It's not the strongest theory that describes how life came to be, it's pretty much the only one. Point is, the idea that evolution of life happened, that's to say that all life is connected on a tree, I would regard as a fact. Forget terminology, do you think it happened? I don't see why you wouldn't since I don't think it's contradictory to what Islam teaches.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

The term biological evolution is ambiguous, that's why it's not to be considered as a theory.
To answer your question:
Do I believe in abiogenesis? No
Do I believe in microevolution? Yes
Do I believe in macroevolution? Neutral, not convinced but not against either..
Do I believe in common descent? No

 

[Tornado]

The term biological evolution is ambiguous, that's why it's not to be considered as a theory.
To answer your question:
Do I believe in abiogenesis? No
Do I believe in microevolution? Yes
Do I believe in macroevolution? Neutral, not convinced but not against either..
Do I believe in common descent? No

Forget abiogenesis, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro? Kind of disappointed by that answer . I consider that all living things on Earth are related to one another.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Forget abiogenesis, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Yes it does, as I told you "evolution" is just a word. It refers to any "evolvement". It also belongs to "biological evolution". since its' a biological evolvement. Perhaps what you meant is: it does not belong to the theory of "evolution of the different species". Beginning to see the importance of accurate terminology already?

Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro?
No macro evolution suggests more then the sum of its parts. See there are different types of (alleged) mutations. You can't for example explain an increase or decrease of chromosomes by the same procces that you used to explain the evolution of short tailed cats and long tailed cats to middle tail cats. It's a different type of mutation. therefor macro evolution is more then then just a sum of micro steps.

Kind of disappointed by that answer . I consider that all living things on Earth are related to one another.

Considering doesn't make it a theory, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make it true. That being said, you're entitled to your considerations ^_^

 

[Tornado]

Yes it does, as I told you "evolution" is just a word. It refers to any "evolvement". It also belongs to "biological evolution". since its' a biological evolvement. Perhaps what you meant is: it does not belong to the theory of "evolution of the different species". Beginning to see the importance of accurate terminology already?

You really care about terminology and such don't you . I don't see how abiogenesis has and involvement with evolution at all. One is about how life began, one is about how life progresses.

Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro?
No macro evolution suggests more then the sum of its parts. See there are different types of (alleged) mutations. You can't for example explain an increase or decrease of chromosomes by the same procces that you used to explain the evolution of short tailed cats and long tailed cats to middle tail cats. It's a different type of mutation. therefor macro evolution is more then then just a sum of micro steps.

Micro -->few mutations, macro --> many mutations together until species can't intermingle? I don't know the little details to some parts of evolution, but I can tell you that the answers are there.


Considering doesn't make it a theory, and it certainly doesn't necessarily make it true. That being said, you're entitled to your considerations

Evolution is definitely the best we've got. Why are we so close to our monkey cousins, why we are imperfect, etc, why are we made of the kind of stuff that all other organisms are made of. Have you studied evolution?

Regards

 

[root]

I don't get this terminology about the theory of evolution, it's been accurately given to you and yet you still claim it's just a word.

Your told, again and again that Panspermia or abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution. Again, it seems to fall on deaf ears since you still mention them as being part of evolution.

Yes, Evolution has "holes" anomalies or areas that seem contradictory. I agree this is true.

Theory Of the Big Bang:

Big problems, The "Lithium" problem has got so bad many researches are now saying the whole thing needs shaked up. They want to retell the whole story introducing exotic new particles. We have gravitational anomalies, ancient stars in distant galaxies that contradict the big bang theory, the dying glow of the big bang also shows "holes" in the theory.

So, the theory of the big bang is just like the theory of evolution. Uncomplete and a work in progress that will change over time and new scientific discoveries are made. YET NOBODY runs around screaming

It's only a theory
It's not fact
It has holes
It is not complete

Why do we not get webpages after webpages of anti-big bang theorists even close to the scales that evolution attracts, books, big money companies dedicated and failing to disprove the big bang theory.

Why do you think that is Steve.........

Let's bring creationism into the science classroom.

"OK kids. The universe is here because god created it, we are here because god created us. Now, let's move onto some alternative explanations that fit the scientific criteria......"

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I don't get this terminology about the theory of evolution, it's been accurately given to you and yet you still claim it's just a word.

Your told, again and again that Panspermia or abiogenesis is NOT part of the theory of evolution. Again, it seems to fall on deaf ears since you still mention them as being part of evolution.

Just because you claim so, doesn't make it true. See the problem is, you seem to confuse the word "evolution" with the theory: "evolution of the different species". Those are two different things.

Let's bring creationism into the science classroom.

I never claimed for creationism to be thought in science class as it's not a scientific theory. I've told you this many times before so stop fighting strawmen arguments. Instead I would argue that certain PARTS of evolution should not be thought in science class either, since they are not scientific either!

 

[Tornado]

Just because you claim so, doesn't make it true. See the problem is, you seem to confuse the word "evolution" with the theory: "evolution of the different species". Those are two different things.

I never knew Darwin's Origins of Species had anything to do with the origin of life. We are talking about how living things evolve, so it goes on the assumption that life was already there (Theory of evolution was not the reason that life started. Where do you see the connection exactly?) We aren't confusing evolution with evolution of different species, in case you didn't know, this thread is about biological evolution...(not "chemical evolution" that would be involved in abiogenesis).

I never claimed for creationism to be thought in science class as it's not a scientific theory. I've told you this many times before so stop fighting strawmen arguments. Instead I would argue that certain PARTS of evolution should not be thought in science class either, since they are not scientific either![

What parts of evolution should not be taught? I'm all for teaching holes and saying they are holes/problems (hiding makes no sense) so that one day those gaps in our knowledge can be patched up. Good to see that you aren't a creationist .

-
Peace be with you

 

[Abdul Fattah]

I never knew Darwin's Origins of Species had anything to do with the origin of life.

I never said it did. Did you see me claim such a thing? No, what I said was:
"Evolution" ≠ "evolution of the different species"
"Biological evolution" ≠ "evolution of the different species"
"origin of species" ≠ "evolution"
Here's how it breaks down:

1. Biological evolution.This general term can be split up into two separate theories:

1.1. Evolution of life out of lifeless matter a.k.a. abiogenesis: This is the theory on how life evolved out of lifeless matter on earth.
1.2. Evolution of the different species a.k.a. origin of the different species: This is a group name for several other theories such as the theory of genetic mutation, survival of the fittest, genetic drift, and so on. These theories can be mainly categorized into three segments:

1.2.1. The theory of micro evolution progresses: How genetic drift trough variation and mutation creates new breeds of a certain specie that then grow larger in numbers trough survival of the fittest.
1.2.2. The theory of macro evolution progresses: How mutations on a genetic level can cause new species.
1.2.3. The theory of common descent: How trough micro and macro evolution all existing creatures evolved out of the same ancestral being. This is not a scientific theory but a historical one. In other words it doesn't tell us something about the nature of physics, or the physics of nature, instead it speculates on how the currently existing organisms have evolved in the past.​

We are talking about how living things evolve, so it goes on the assumption that life was already there (Theory of evolution was not the reason that life started. Where do you see the connection exactly?) We aren't confusing evolution with evolution of different species, in case you didn't know, this thread is about biological evolution...(not "chemical evolution" that would be involved in abiogenesis).

You're mistaken; you assume that "Biological evolution" = "evolution of the different species". That's wrong. I'll repeat my previous argument.
Evolution: A word, can refer to anything that evolves.
Biological Evolution: A term that can refer to any evolvement in the field of biology.
Evolution of the different species: The theory on how after life existed they evolved into a larger variety of organisms.
Chemical evolution: Refers to any evolvement within the field of chemistry.

So by definition abiogenesis belongs both to chemical evolution, but also to biological evolution. However it does not belong to the evolution of different species.

What parts of evolution should not be taught?

The ones that aren't scientific. I'll explain in detail in the next paragraph.

I'm all for teaching holes and saying they are holes/problems (hiding makes no sense) so that one day those gaps in our knowledge can be patched up.

It's not a matter of holes in one theory. It's a matter of different theories all being judged on the merit of one. Micro evolution is a different theory from macro evolution, common descent is a different theory micro or macro. However all three of them are ambiguously referred to simply as "evolution". And if proofs are found for one theory, like the theory of microevolution, they automatically assume that a different theory, common descent is also true. That is simply an unscientific attitude. I say judge each theory by it's own merits.

Micro evolution: Theory; well established, testable, falsifiable and provable.
Macro evolution: Theory; still some lose ends but testable, falsifiable and provable.
Common descent: Speculation; completely half baked, not testable, not falsifiable and not provable.​

You understand the need for correct terminology now?

Good to see that you aren't a creationist .

I am a creationists, however I understand that creationism is not a scientific theory and therefor I argue that even though I believe creationism, it does not belong in science class. However by that same logic; common descent and abiogenesis shouldn't be thought as "scientific theories" either, they have zero scientific value.

 

[Tornado]

I don't understand the holes. Micro/Macro evolution isn't a problem. Common descent is hard to ignore when you have fossils/transitional species everywhere connecting all life on earth. Instead of saying something is wrong, what's wrong about them?

Nothing wrong about abiogenesis. It's just like the big bang. Our universe is expanding, thus there may have been a start. The tree that signifies evolution clearly has a point from which it starts because as you go back in time, the branches come back to a single point. If not abiogenesis, you are indicating magic so what do you teach exactly? They've done experiments trying to duplicate evolution? Have they created life? No, then again, they didn't have planet size area to test their hypothesis and the vasts amounts of time (compared to the experiments, zilch time).

 

[root]

Steve, your perception of what is and what is not Evolution get's clouded everytime you post on it,

Here........

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Such confusion is due in large part to the inability of scientists to communicate effectively to the general public and also to confusion among scientists themselves about how to define such an important term. When discussing evolution it is important to distinguish between the existence of evolution and various theories about the mechanism of evolution. And when referring to the existence of evolution it is important to have a clear definition in mind. What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:


"In the broadest sense, evolution is merely change, and so is all-pervasive; galaxies, languages, and political systems all evolve. Biological evolution ... is change in the properties of populations of organisms that transcend the lifetime of a single individual. The ontogeny of an individual is not considered evolution; individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are inheritable via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportion of different alleles within a population (such as those determining blood types) to the successive alterations that led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees, giraffes, and dandelions."

- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986

It is important to note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals and that the changes must be passed on to the next generation. In practice this means that, Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations. This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:


"In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974


One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated. Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:


"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."

This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Caucasians over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in the peppered moth population examples of evolution? This is not a scientific definition.
Standard dictionaries are even worse.


"evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.." - Chambers
"evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny" - Webster's


These definitions are simply wrong. Unfortunately it is common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims that they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of evolution because that would be denying something which is easy to demonstrate. It would be like saying that they don't believe in gravity!

Recently I read a statement from a creationist who claimed that scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. This person believed that evolution was being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. This person's definition of evolution was very different from the common scientific definition and as a consequence he was unable to understand what evolutionary biology really meant. This is the same person who claimed that one could not "believe" in evolution and still be religious! But once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this excludes religion!

Scientists such as myself must share the blame for the lack of public understanding of science. We need to work harder to convey the correct information. Sometimes we don't succeed very well but that does not mean that we are dishonest. On the other hand, the general public, and creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help.

Not sign of "Macro" "Panspermia" or any of the other misrepresentation your trying to peddle here

 

[Chuck]

Common descent is hard to ignore when you have fossils/transitional species everywhere connecting all life on earth.

That is exactly the thinking that made scientists hammer Carl Woese.

 

[Chuck]

Forget abiogenesis, that has nothing to do with evolution.

Micro evolution and but not macro? Micro+Micro...=/=Macro? Kind of disappointed by that answer . I consider that all living things on Earth are related to one another.

Ever heard of the term theory of cosmic evolution? Abiogenesis comes under that theory.

Here is the question. What is the difference between origin of species and origins of life?

Here I found something interesting relevant to the current topic of common ancestor.

Directed Mutation​

Dear reader, things have a way of working out serially. For several months, we have had in our possession a paper from Nature, by J. Cairns, of Harvard, plus some passionate correspondence stimulated by the paper. Now that the circle-forming sheep have provided a good introduction, we will jump into the fray, too.

Basically Cairns (in Nature) and B. H. Hall (in Genetics) say that organisms can respond to environmental stresses by reorganizing their genes in a purposeful way. Such "directed mutation" shifts the course of evolution in a nonrandom way.

Such a conclusion was like waving a red flag in front of the evolutionists. R. May, at the University of Oxford, complained, "The work is so flawed, I am reluctant to comment." On the other side, a University of Maryland geneticust, S. Benson, comments, "Many people have had such observations, but they have problems getting them published."

Our template in this discussion is an article by A.S. Moffat in American Scientist. She says, "The stakes in this dispute are high, indeed. If directed mutations are real, the explanations of evolutionary biology that depend on random events must be thrown out. This would have broad implications. For example, directed mutation would shatter the belief that organisms are related to some ancestor if they share traits. Instead, they may simply share exposure to the same environmental cues. Also, different organisms may have different mutation rates based on their ability to respond to the environment. And the discipline of molecular taxonomy, where an organism's position on the evolutionary tree is fixed by comparing its genome to those of others, would need extreme revision."

What sort of experiment did Cairns do to cause such a ruckus? In particular, he studied E. Coli bacteria. Normally, these bacteria cannot metabolize the sugar lactose. Cairns exposed the E. Coli to a sudden dose of lactose, demonstrating that if the bacteria must have lactose to survive, they quickly cast off the two genes that inhibit their metabolizing of lactose. Of course, the experiments were more complicated than this, but the fundamental finding was that the bacteria mutated so that they could use lactose much, much faster than chance mutation would permit, stastically speaking.

The battle lines are forming. A sup-porter of directed mutation, J. Shapiro, of the University of Chicago, is quoted as follows in Moffat's article:

"The genome is smart. It can respond to selective conditions. The signifi cance of the Cairns paper is not in the presentation of new data but in the framing of the questions and in changing the psychology of the situation. He has taken the question 'Are mutations directed?' which was taboo, and made it an issue that people will now do experiments on."​

(Moffat, Anne Simon; "A Challenge to Evolutionary Biology," American Scientist, 77:224, 1989.)

http://www.science-frontiers.com/sf064/sf064b07.htm

 

[Tornado]

Ever heard of the term theory of cosmic evolution? Abiogenesis comes under that theory.

Here is the question. What is the difference between origin of species and origins of life?

Here I found something interesting relevant to the current topic of common ancestor.

I'm not an expert at evolution so I can't provide an answer to that (god of gaps, reputable source would be good, my lack of knowledge). Origin of life deals with how life arose, origin of species refers to how species come to be from other species. Please explain what you mean, referring to how one thinks and then got hammered is of no help. Please don't introduce new topics, this thread isn't about cosmic evolution, it's clearly biological evolution. Fighting terminology/semantics is lame. You either believe creationism (magic, god), or evolution (not magic, god or no god).

 

[Chuck]

Please explain what you mean, referring to how one thinks and then got hammered is of no help.

Explained it there: http://www.islamicboard.com/compara...lution-islamic-perspective-12.html#post966817

Majority of sciencist opposed Carl Woese over conflict with common descent or not?

Please don't introduce new topics, this thread isn't about cosmic evolution, it's clearly biological evolution. Fighting terminology/semantics is lame.

Terminology is important, not lame. But good to see that you agree evolution can mean many things, which would include abiogensis.

You either believe creationism (magic, god), or evolution (not magic, god or no god).

Sure, makes lot of sense. But explain what your comment has to do with my post?

 

[root]

Terminology is important, not lame. But good to see that you agree evolution can mean many things, which would include abiogensis. Sure, makes lot of sense. But explain what your comment has to do with my post?

OK, Then we need to look at the evolution of TV, Medicine, Mobile phones and anything that you can identify with a natural progression.

OR

You can accept Biological evolution as defined earlier AND which Abiogenesis and/or Panspermia are not part of, unless we include the evolution of the universe.

Your not fooling anybody playing silly terminology...................

Let me make this so clear, else we are simply wasting time. The theory of Evolution DOES NOT INCLUDE PANSPERMIA OR ABIOGENESIS ANYMORE THAN IT INCLUDES THE BIG BANG THEORY.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Tornado

I don't understand the holes.

Like I said it's not a matter of holes in one theory, but a matter of some theories being scientific, and others not.

Common descent is hard to ignore when you have fossils/transitional species everywhere connecting all life on earth. Instead of saying something is wrong, what's wrong about them?

1. There's many problems with fossil records.
2. Fossil record is indirect proof, and only works after interpretation.
3. Common descent is unproven
4. Common descent is not based on empirical testing
5. Common descent is not falsifiable
6. Common descent does not describe physical processes but describes history
=> conclusion, common descent is not a physics theory

Nothing wrong about abiogenesis. It's just like the big bang.

Abiogenesis is nothing like big bang. And there are many things wrong with it.
1. Abiogenesis is not provable
2. Abiogenesis is not based on emperical testing
3. Abiogenesis is not falsifiable

If not abiogenesis, you are indicating magic so what do you teach exactly?

I already told you I'm a creationists. Look at it this way, I agree with every scientific claim made from evolutionist's corner, however I disagree with their view of history! History and science, although some times overlapping are two different fields. I believe different lifeforms were created, I grant that once a variety of species were created, they evolved into an even larger variety of species. That is equally scientific as the mainstream evolutionists, in the sense that I rely on the same amount of science, and the same amount of assumptions as mainstream evolutionists. There is not a single scientific argument to be made that one is more plausible then the other.

They've done experiments trying to duplicate evolution? Have they created life? No, then again, they didn't have planet size area to test their hypothesis and the vasts amounts of time (compared to the experiments, zilch time).

That's argument is not well thought trough. Abiogenesis, according to the theory doesn't require a whole planet, just a little mudpool. Quite the opposite from your claims is true. If anything the controlled environment should be much more productive as opposed to the real thing. The "infinite time infinite space" argument is a facade. Truth is, there is no scientific explanation to how certain steps could have occurred. Simply saying "well you get to shake it up infinitely" is not an alternative for formulating how it could have happened. Science isn't random but causal. Even if we had infinite time (which this universe hasn't got) over infinite space (which our universe doesn't have either) that still wouldn't explain how something could happen that we cannot explain in causal processes. Because the rules of causality that limits possibility limits it over that whole infinity.


Root,
Even "evolutionists" disagree on definitions since the terms are used so loosely and ambiguously. I'm simply taking it pragmatic, the way it makes sense. To me it doesn't make sense that you insist that one term is simply a synonym for another, when clearly their words suggest differently. If you want to get back to my many arguments you haven't answered, be my guest. For your convenience you don't even have to look all of em up since I've repeated some of 'm in this post. But I really don't see the point in starting semantic debates.

 

[Azy]

*More* interesting topics

1. There's many problems with fossil records.
2. Fossil record is indirect proof, and only works after interpretation.
3. Common descent is unproven
4. Common descent is not based on empirical testing
5. Common descent is not falsifiable
6. Common descent does not describe physical processes but describes history
=> conclusion, common descent is not a physics theory

1. Such as?
2. Not entirely sure what you mean, maybe you could clarify.
3-6. False. All are covered here -> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

I already told you I'm a creationists. Look at it this way, I agree with every scientific claim made from evolutionist's corner, however I disagree with their view of history! History and science, although some times overlapping are two different fields. I believe different lifeforms were created, I grant that once a variety of species were created, they evolved into an even larger variety of species. That is equally scientific as the mainstream evolutionists, in the sense that I rely on the same amount of science, and the same amount of assumptions as mainstream evolutionists. There is not a single scientific argument to be made that one is more plausible then the other.

That's weird because a few lines above you were arguing that many ideas held by mainstream evolutionists are unscientific.
What predictions does your scientific account of creationism make, how can we test it?

That's argument is not well thought trough. Abiogenesis, according to the theory doesn't require a whole planet, just a little mudpool. Quite the opposite from your claims is true. If anything the controlled environment should be much more productive as opposed to the real thing.

Don't you think it's a little optimistic to expect something that took millions of years in possibly different conditions to those that exist now, somewhere on earth, could be simulated and somehow accelerated to produce a positive result within a human's lifetime? It would need to be 'much more productive' on an enormous scale.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Hi Azy,

1. There's many problems with fossil records.

1. Such as?

Cambrian explosion, missing links, margins of error on exact dating, unrepresentative due to small percentage of all death animals that get fossilized and small percentage of all fossilized animals that we have dug up so far.

2. Fossil record is indirect proof, and only works after interpretation.

2. Not entirely sure what you mean, maybe you could clarify.

Well the only thing that a fossil proves directly, is at which era did what creature already live. It doesn't prove that one evolved from the other. If they were created in different stages, it makes just as much sense that they start appearing in different eras. So as I said, the "evidence" is indirect and subjected to interpretation.

3. Common descent is unproven
4. Common descent is not based on empirical testing
5. Common descent is not falsifiable
6. Common descent does not describe physical processes but describes history

3-6. False. All are covered here -> http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

First of all, there's a rule against arguing by links. It takes a short google or even bookmark-search for you to post this link, but it would take me several hours to answer to every argument of that site. However, I'll guess seeing how you always debate in a very respectable way I'll meet you halfway and reply to this briefly. I'm already familiar with talkorigins, and I recognize that it has its virtues in spreading a better understanding of some parts of evolution, but in some other parts it spreads false information and mixed messages. This page you linked to, is an excellent example. Consider the titles and the sub-titles. First it says 29+ evidences for macro evolution, and then one of the subtitles says evidence for common descent. But common descent and macro evolution are two different things! Evidence for macro evolution is not evidence for common descent. And they do not produce any evidence in favor of common descent. Just because you can prove that some creatures evolved from others, doesn't mean you've proven that all creatures evolved from the same. In fact I am very frustrated by the method in which they imply to bring one forth as proof for the other, as if they knowingly attempted to conceal the flaw of that hypothesis. If they truly believe that science should be about what you can prove, and not about what you like as they quoted Feynman on (who by the way is a quantumphysisist, and his quote is completely taken out of context), then they should be as open about the flaws in one subtheories, as they are about the strong points in another.

That's weird because a few lines above you were arguing that many ideas held by mainstream evolutionists are unscientific. What predictions does your scientific account of creationism make, how can we test it?

Your question implies that you didn't understand what I'm saying. I never claimed there is anything scientific about my views on creation. I'm merely saying that there isn't anything scientific about the alternative. Because those specific parts of evolution that oppose creationism happen to be the very same parts that aren't covered by science. The very same parts that are lacking in evidence and testability and falsifiability and so on. So what I am saying is, this is a part not touched by science, and all bets are off.

Don't you think it's a little optimistic to expect something that took millions of years ...

Well first off it didn't take millions of years. It should have taken only about a week according to Stanley L. Miller and Harold C. Urey. That's to say, that is how long they think the process took. Time is not a limiting factor. I often make the analogy with a sprinter. Lets say mankind cannot run 100m in 3.2 sec. We are simply unable to do so. Now if a track would be 200m or 300m even 1000m; that would still not enable anyone to run a distance of 100m on that longer track in 3.2 sec. In other words the length of the track -as long as it is longer then 100 meter- hardly affects the possibility of the performance. Likewise; the many years that earth existed does not influence the likeliness of such a process to be possible. If a process that should take 5 minutes cannot occur in a week, it cannot occur in a million years either. In other words, the amount of time available, as long as it is enough, has no bearing on the chemical possibility of it happening. Just putting ingredients together and stirring it up doesn’t suffice. That’s as ludicrous as saying that if you shake a box of Lego blocks long enough, eventually the building blocks in the box will spontaneously construct the house that is displayed on the front of the box. Just adding the factor of time doesn't allow you to magically bypass the restraints of chemistry.

... in possibly different conditions to those that exist now, somewhere on earth, could be simulated and somehow accelerated to produce a positive result within a human's lifetime? It would need to be 'much more productive' on an enormous scale.

Again I disagree. In a laboratory, we can manipulate and set the environments exactly to our liking. We're working with an easy controlled and closed environment. We can put exactly the required ingredients at the right place, put the optimal temperature for reactions, use catalysts, and so on.