You have no understanding of science, no understanding of the philosophy of science,….. you don't understand the concepts of theory, predictability, falsifiability, repeatability, evidence or verifiability.
Then, please, sir, explain what is wrong with the following because no one else seems to be able to:
We have no observed evidence of benefit gaining mutations that can produce macroevolution....that is, large scale biological changes (eg. snakes-from lizards, birds-from dinosaurs, etc). Most mutations are injurious which can only lead to what seems to be a ridiculous proposition that an organism randomly acquired a beneficial mutation which then, in turn, happened to be inherited, which then, in turn, was complimented by another beneficial mutation which would then, in turn, be inherited and, again, be complimented by another beneficial mutation that somehow conferred an advantage to the organism. And, all along the way, the intermediate steps would have required that they produced an advantage that was selected for.
Douglas Axe demonstrated the immense improbability of evolutionary mechanisms being able to produce multi-mutation. He calculated that when a multi-mutation feature requires more than six mutations before giving any benefit, it is unlikely to arise even in the whole history of the Earth. http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4/BIO-C.2010.4
Until a pathway can be identified for producing large-scale biological changes, microevolutionary changes DO NOT equal macroevolution.
Unless you ASSUME that common descent is true, you are affirming the consequent by stating the argument as follows:
1. If evolution is true, then micorevolution occurred.
2. Microevolution occurred
3. Therefore, evolution is true.
Evolutionists ASSUME that similarities in biological structures are the result of common ancestry and ASSUME that evolution is the cause…. which results in the belief that similarities are evidence of evolution. This is a clear case of begging the question.
Good job. You picked one sentence out of a 1300 word post, one that you could argue with a little bit of "support" from your community, and you ignored the rest. Because that is the only way you know how to deal with a complicated subject. Drill in on one tiny aspect and hope that the rest goes away.
But, if you want to keep it so simple that even you can understand it, at least have the civility to tell me what it would take to demonstrate how wrong you are. Since you are merely parroting ID'ers again, and giving no thought to any of these things in general, you are making it real hard for me to make a point.
The fingers you keep in your ears and your constant chanting of "Nah, nah nah nah, nah" is negatively effecting this conversation. I sure wish there was a way to tell you that.
I'd like to hear why it is that your ID guy designed a series of now extinct critters. What was he doing? Practicing? Why the whale type creatures whose nostrils, over time, got changed from in froth of the face to the top of the skull. Why did he do it so slowly? Why did the ID master not just make whales with blowholes where they need to be in the first place, instead of doing piecemeal changes over millions of years. It is almost like he was experimenting, and probably tossing out failed efforts all the time, and choosing random successes to build upon and stuff.
Of course, since an intelligent designer would have no need for a mechanism of change, since an intelligent designer would be, by definition, smart enough to do it right the first time, the many variations in what appear to be closely related species, in an apparently chronological order, is somewhat of a mystery. But if you can convince me that you're right, BS, I'm pretty sure I can learn to ignore any and all inconvenient pieces of information just the way you can.
P.S. What evolution assumes is that the evidence is correct, unless we find something that indicates otherwise. If you can't find that otherwise, and want to limit your inquiry by, you know, merely pointing out how your jaw is dropping when you think about how wonderful an ID would be and stuff, that's fine by me. Just don't be so frickin' surprised that you don't know what you're talking about.