Hi root, I'm sorry but your points don't cut the mustard they're full of Bias
1/ All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
That fact is equally consistence with creationism, if it aint broken, don't fix it. Why would God have gone trough completely different mechanisms when obviously these are quite effective?
2/ Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
That's a straw man, the nest only proves micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. A person who believes in micro-evolution but not macro-evolution would just as well have predicted the emergence of such nests. So that emergence doesn't necessarily prove common descent, in fact the many missing links tend to suggest that common descent is false.
3/ Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Well, that's only for the nests, the micro-evolution, not the macro-evolution.
4/ Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
Yet at the same time there are incredible gaps in the fossil record, again showing us that micro-evolution is probable, but macro is improbable.
5/ The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Yet at the same time there are cases of unexplainable fossils who were found in layers they don't belong in, or different fossils of different alleged steps of evolution almost all originating from the same time-period.
6/ Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
But the intermediate stages still make it troublesome to explain the evolutionary step in between them in a mechanistic theory as it is still likely that such a change would involve mutation in several genes at once who are located on different spots.
7/ Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
In a way, atavism could just as well be held as an argument of inconsistency with the evolutionary three. The theory that it was dormant in the in between species is just a way out of the inconsistency until it is proven.
8/ Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Again, micro-evolution, not macro evolution.
9/ Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
If it ain't broken, don't fix it. For the thousand time, you cannot argue that similarity is a proof for condescend.
10/ When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
Why should God have made different mechanisms when these obviously are great? If it ain't broken, don't fix it.
11/ The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimal is extremely difficult to establish. I'm not saying our bodies are perfect in the Utopian sense, but I do think they are perfect in the sense that they more benefits then all alternatives. To suggest otherwise one would have to come up with a hypotetical "better" alternative. And of course it's incredible hard determining whether or not it would be "better" since we have no way of testing the hypothetical alternative.
12/ Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Just because we haven't found the use of it doesn't mean it's useless. A lot of genes that were considered garbage DNA could still have certain use.
As for ERV (endogenous retro-viruses) proving our common descent, have you read my latest post in the Evolution-ERV-sticky-topic? Recent studies have shown that Aids (a retrovirus) most likely carries enzymes with 'm that dictates the insertion point it takes when infecting a cell's DNA. So The theory that different species have similar insertion points due to similar methods of infection rather then condescend again rises in credebility.
13/ Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time. Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002). The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts
These only show us that micro-evolution is possible. As I said before, I don't have any problems with that.
Could the creationists now post YOUR "EVIDENCE"
Thanks...........
I don't see why I should post evidence. I never claimed that the theory of creationism was based on facts and was scientific. Instead wilberhum said that about evolution, even though he knows only micro-evolution is proven and common descent isn't at all proven and isn't at all scientific. I think my replies to your arguments have shown that sufficiently.
