Originally posted by RJHinds
I am not going to go into details, but briefly, the evolution of life from non-life to the evolution of vertebrates from invertebrates to the evolution of man from the ape has all been modified in some way over time. Because of the Law of Biogenesis, most evolutionists don't even consider the origin of life or species as part of the evolution theory anymore ...[text shortened]... ory. Richard Dawkins has admitted that man did not descend from any modern ape we know of today.
So, no specifics then? How dissapointing. It would be interesting to actually discuss a specific point of contention. There's a reason we don't talk about abiogenesis in the same breath as we talk about evolution, and you know this reason, I've explained it many times now: they're two different topics of discussion. It's like having a discussion on gravity and then someone says, gravity isn't real because you can't explain exactly how it works nor how it started. You see how foolish such a person would look?
As for the discovery of the "sudden" appearance of vertebrates, the theory itself remains the same. I honestly don't know what you're getting at. If you mean that because phylogenies sometimes needs to be corrected as new evidence comes in, that therefore evolutionary theory itself needs to be modified, you clearly don't get the distinction between a theory and the data that supports it.
And evolutionary theory never suggested that man descended from modern apes. Man
is a modern ape who share a distant ancestor with other modern apes, plants and (if we move far enough back in time) single-celled organisms. This fact has not changed in the 150+ years worth of evidence since Darwin's time.