Thanks, Willto, but I have to admit, after the first 2 videos, I considered the 3rd pointless. To Dr Wyhe’s own admission, at 3:45, “ there was not evidence for evolution for these pre-Darwinian scientists”. So everything depends on post-Darwinism. Okay.
“Could be evidence of” is much different than a continuous chain evidence that would make interspecies evolution a peer-reviewed irrefutable fact. What those videos provide is the best argument for non-creationism.
I’m a believer in survival of the fittest because it is recorded with continuous evidence. The Darwinian statement of “It must be” is replaced with the irrefutable term of “It is”. (ex: See these brightly colored insects? They were all preyed upon while their duller-colored version lived and procreated). Unfortunately, for the Theory of Evolution, it’s not a species change.
Survival of the fittest also does not address arrival of the fittest. Previous existence of any species has not been disproven.
And Indy is correct in eluding to the lack of scientific evidence proving all of Genesis correct…but that’s why its called “Faith.”. Faith belongs there….in the bible. Not in science. So when someone says they “Know” evolution has resulted in one species turning into another, they’re really saying they “Strongly believe” but are trying to point to fragments of evidence and saying that’s all they need. Then they get personal when it’s debated.
Sounds like religion to me.
Please explain how a Ring Species is not evidence for evolution.
