Casey Luskin on how the fossil record challenges Darwin

another issue is time... remember when evolution was a slow gradual process - millions of years needed ? Today? 'Evolution' happens within few years ... just one example, from Science.org (mainstream Darwinian magazine)

Although natural selection is often viewed as a slow pruning process, a dramatic new field study suggests it can sometimes shape a population as fast as a chain saw can rip through a sapling. Scientists have found that guppies moved to a predator-free environment adapted to it in a mere 4 years--a rate of change some 10,000 to 10 million times faster than the average rates gleaned from the fossil record. Some experts argue that the 11-year study, described in today's issue of Science,* may even shed light on evolutionary patterns that occur over eons. https://www.science.org/content/article/guppy-evolution-fast-forwards

Like I said, Darwinists are always wrong, confused, previous findings are ALWAYS challenged ... this 'theory' is a big mess ... nothing makes sense ... this 'theory' can explain away anything ... what a mess ... A rational thinking person may ask, why is that ? The answer is quite simple, the theory is wrong as wrong it can be ... obviously, biology works different than Darwinists think and wish (and try to convince lay public) ... everything seems to be designed to adapt either slowly or quickly ... ADAPT, not EVOLVE ... and guppies stay fishes ... martin_r

It’s really quite simple. Evolution just means the appearance of new life forms over time. Almost no one challenges this. It should be distinguished from ideas that attempt to explain why/how these new new organisms appeared. Also micro evolution (Darwinism or the DNA model of change) which is essentially genetics is not the mechanism for how these new organisms appeared. It cannot explain macro evolution. How macro evolution entities appeared is a mystery that science has yet to explain. The secret to a successful explanation that is not confusing is to separate the DNA model from the discussion of Evolution. jerry

What I like to do about this is to simply agree with "evolution" but disagree with an aspect of evolution. Doing this means that someone can't substitute an argument for "evolution" generally in place of an argument for the thing I'm disagreeing with, as I've *already* agreed to evolution. Therefore, they have to supply a specific argument for my specific claim. Example: "I believe in evolution but I don't think that all things evolved from a *single* common ancestor." Now, any evidence that isn't about a *single* common ancestor is irrelevant. Even pointing to common ancestors of specific populations doesn't help the argument, because it doesn't point to a *single* common ancestor. Example: "I believe in evolution but I don't think that random mutations and natural selection are the cause for the intricate systems that we see in biology. I think a more information-rich mechanism is required." This requires that someone show specifically that (a) it occurs by mutation, AND (b) that the mutations were random in origin. By agreeing with evolution and being specific about your disagreements, you can force the other person to *actually* defend a real position, and not a fake "everything is evolution" position. This is what I teach the kids at our homeschool co-op. johnnyb