1. Experimentation is not essential to scientific method.
2. Some Sciences including astronomy are more amenable to observation and prediction.
3. However Darwin himself did numerous experiments and reported on them in The Origen of the Species". For example in chapter 12 he did numerous experiments on the survival rate of seeds in sea water to counter critics who claimed that ocean islands could not be populated by plants and animals crossing from continents.
4. In chapter 14, he reports on his experiments in breeding barnacles and shows that contrary to previous assertions by Cuvier, barnacles are crustaceans.
5. In chapter 10, he predicts that more intermediate fossils will be found - since borne out in spades.
6. Since the invention of antibiotics in the 1940s, a huge experiment has beren carried out by the medical community. The presence of Golden Staph demonstrates natural selecrtion at work.
7. More closely controlled in the laboratory Lenski has been able to demonstrate that bacteria can develope new metabolic pathways.
8. On the prediction side the discovery of Titaalik as an intermediate between lobe finned fish and tetrapods was predicted to be in late Devonian rocks and specifically searched for on Ellesmere Island. The search was dramatically successful.
9. Darwin spent 20 years observing and experimenting before he felt confidant enough to publish. His evidence and his experiments are very readably reported in his books. Read them and learn.
10. No, from this we can see that changes in plants and animals could arise naturally, in a similar manner to changes brought about by deliberate selection by humans. Darwin did not claim that his theory explained the origin of life from non living molecules - it is "The Origin of Species" - not "The Origin of Life".
11. I am not sure what point you are making here. In Origin of Species Darwin discusses "Miscellaneous Objections to my Theory" at great length, and is very frank about observations and discoveries which would invalidate his theory. None of the potential fatal observations have ever been found. What observation would invalidate your theory of divine creation of the species?
12. my response to 1. The observations and experiments are there.
13. The evidence for cellular structures in eukaryotes being derived from incorporated symbiotic prokaryote cells is actually quite strong and has been discussed in thousands of peer reviewed scientific papers, like http://www.ncbi.nlm....?tool=pmcentrez .
14. Why not? Don't you read your Bible? One of the most surprising facts to come out of the fossil record is the estimate that more than 99% of species are extinct. When did they go extinct? Why doesn't the Bible cover this amazing fact? Were there dinosaurs in the Garden of Eden?
15. The point here is that we have two theories - common descent and individual creation. The fact of the morphological similarities and the intermediate fossils supports the common descent theory over the individual creation theory. Yes its circumstantial evidence rather than the direct proof that you are pushing for, but there are many people in jail on a lesser standard of proof.
16. You are quite simply wrong in your assertions on this point. Sir Ronald Fishers Theory of Population Statistics has replaced Mendel's Laws. Fisher was able to mathematically prove that if a gene is harmful when present in both allelles, but otherwise recessive, then it will eventually be eliminated from the gene pool. Examples of apparent exceptions, like the gene for sickle cell anaemia are found to have some favourable property - resistance to malaria in the case of the sickle cell anaemia gene. Different numbers of chromosomes between parents and offspring is quite common in plants. Rarer in animals - but it still occurs. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyploid
1. Do you actually know what the scientific method is? Since it seems from your claims here that you do not have an inkling.
Now as I have been saying over and over what are the experiments Darwin used to support his hypothesis of evolution?
2. We are discussing Biology here, this is a red herring.
3. And? Does this support molecules to man evolution?
The only thing we can conclude is that species mixing between the mainland and islands may occur.
4. Again does this support molecules to man evolution?
5. Arbitrarily claiming something as an ancestor and an intermediate fossil is non-nonsensical. Consider for a moment that ALL of the fossils claimed to be intermediaries are whole distinct organisms. What is required as verification of these as intermediaries is a progression of fossils showing most (if not all) the minute changes to get from one to the other. Until this is found then all you and any others are doing is arbitrarily claiming something without actual verification.
6. Selection of bacterial resistances that were already present within bacterial communities, meaning like fur colour / hair colour the frequency can change yet no NEW information is derived meaning that all what has been demonstrated is fluctuations in allele type, not the progressional change that leads a bacteria to become something other than a bacteria.
8. Obviously you don't get out much... Tiktaalik has been debunked for 3 and a half years. Foot prints in Poland were dated older than Tiktaalik furthermore the prints themselves demonstrated amphibian / reptile qualities... What does this mean?
Well for one it means you should do more research, (outside pro-evo sites perhaps). It also means that the entire timeline progression for fish to amphibian is out of date with the evidence.
Of course you can say... "Well maybe it lived before then" (which is what one of my lecturers said), yet is such scientific? Does it follow the current evidence? Or is it merely a faith statement.
9. I could spend 50 years believing that I can fly like superman does this mean that its right? Time is irrelevant to the viability of something.
10. The word ORIGIN implies origins, please don't equivocate this lest I need to refer to the dictonary. Darwin could may well have written The Diversity / Diversification of Life... However that was not my point, my point was that what you wrote was useless.
11. I just stated that the complexity of cellular systems prokaryote or otherwise cannot be accounted for by Darwinism. You've failed to demonstrate how it is accounted for, so arbitrarily stating that no evidence to the contrary has been found is just being stubborn.
12. You're response to 1 doesn't solve this problem. As I have stated, please show an experiment that can empirically demonstrate the cause for similarity in fossils. If you cannot then you must admit that evolution has more in common with History then it does with the science of Biology.
13. Ha ha, nice try. I wasn't talking about Eukaryotes from Prokarotes I was talking about cellular systems in general, thus including prokaryotes themselves. Would you propose that the cellular systems in prokaryotes derived from prokaryotes?
This goes hand-in-hand with point 11 since you've failed to demonstrate by what Darwinian mechanism the complexity of cellular systems could have come about.
14. Did I ever say I do read the Bible? This is yet another red herring.
15. At least you admit that its circumstantial. Now I ask you where does such things fit within the scientific method?...... Perhaps evolution isn't science...
16. Really... I am wrong in my assertion, yet you provide evidence in reality that I am correct
Additionally I can call on every single genetic disease and ask why do they persist. Perhaps in the fantastical world of maths things can be derived, yet in reality only one thing actually matters and the the is evidence you derive from reality itself. I have reality on my side here.