Most of the claimed empirical evidence does not even meet the criteria of being empircal.
No one is claiming evolution is scientific either,which means all empirical data will always be discarded in favor of the assumptions. All "sciences" rely on testable predictions and the hallmark of a pseudoscience is a group of scientists clutching at staws and making excuses why the data always fits the competeing model.
It does'nt exactly pin down a flood bottleneck 4-5,000 years ago,but once you carry along pre-existing mutations and how the mutation rate would have been much faster with a very small population starting with only 8 people,then the numbers are nearly a perfect prediction that would be made by Creationists.
Yet you are claiming that Parson's empirical evidence supports your view.Ã‚Â How do you reconcile that claim with what I emphasized in your response?Ã‚Â Either you accept and analyze empirical evidence, or you do not.
Empirical: The word empirical denotes information gained by means of observation, experience, or experiment.
How much evidence can you name that meets:
1) Being observable.
2) Having experienced it.
3) Can be proven and retested through experiments?
I find that:
#1) Cannot be done in over 95% of the evidence because of the time factor involved. So the claims are made by interpreted evidence and animation. Nothing observable to the point evolution is claimed to have happened.
#2) We cannot experience what we cannot observe.
#3) What cannot be observed cannot be tested or retested. For if it takes a controlled condition, which does not exist in the "real world", then it does not happen because then you are dealing with math and odds that this condition ever really existed.
And as I have been told, math is an exact science. And if the math does not support it, then the likely hood of it ever coming to pass is Nil.
As one mathematician (masters in math) told me a couple of weeks ago... He is not welcome in evolution circles because he can run the numbers of odds and chance of things happening right before their eyes. Mathematicians have more or less been expelled from "all" evolution circles. This is why you don't see any website that promotes evolution displaying the math of the odds that it can happen, because the actual math does not support it.
If the actual evidence were empirical, then the math of it would show this. But it does not. And math is no longer allowed in evolution. Don't believe me? Start a thread on the odds of different things happening in evolution and watch how quickly it goes silent. Or someone will try to derail it by changing the subject.
Anyone can make a prediction about evidence that has to be interpreted. You just make the next interpretation match the prediction and poof, there it is.