Ah...you now changed it to "thus far"

in earlier posts you are portraying it as fact, and now it is "thus far"

Okay, the Sphinx is typically dated to 2,500 BC. Where is the creator of the Sphinx? The building records, the papyrus......the mention of it in the tombs and temples as to its date of building. There are none. We have "estimates" we have "theories" and approximations. This is something that was built by man, and with the physical evidence of the sphinx itself....we STILL cannot understand it's mysteries to why or how, or when it was constructed.

Egyptologists still cannot agree on this, a man made structure from antiquity. But these theories of evolution are taken as point -blank fact today.

Even in the 1950's it was being purported as FACT that the "thick clouds on Venus" means it is a "wet, tropical, aquatic, planet" in textbooks. We know better now. Were any "scientists" from the 1950's who purported these previous theories as facts removed from their positions as for "lack" of evidence, or for being wrong? Any apologies made to the schools and universities that taught this?????

What scares me about "evolution" is the day when "eugenics" will be fully vogue again. People like my brother would be deemed as a drain on society. Useless, and a "biological mistake"

Evolution IS an actual fact, but there is still possible room for an intelligent designer, or genetic manipulation by aliens or other intelligent creatures, etc. Maybe the intelligent designer himself created living organisms with the ability to evolve so his creatures could survive environmental changes?

Micro-evolution can be seen in the laboratory with bacteria that will evolve in the presence of anti-biotics so that they become resistant to this new environmental threat which threatened it's survival. Macro-evolution can be seen in the fossil record, with all the numerous fossils of transitional species. DNA also provides us with evidence of evolution as well. Evolution is probably one of the best attested theories in all of science.



Evolutionary theory is viewed as a fact by the majority of scientists because most agree that the evidence is good enough to call it a fact. I also agree with them. If living creatures did not have the ability to evolve, then there would be very little life left on planet Earth. In fact, life without evolution doesn't really make any sense because that would be dependent on the premise that the environment never changes, therefore creatures don't need to evolve or adapt. But of course that isn't the case, the environment does change and has changed drastically many times over millions of years, meaning that creatures most definitely would need to evolve or face extinction. Mass extinctions have happened in the past because the environment has changed so rapidly, not offering organisms enough time to evolve to the changes.



Some scientific theories eventually do get overthrown, like the case you just mentioned. I don't think that will be the case with evolution though. Besides the fact that scientists could "see clouds on Venus" through telescopes, what other evidence did they have? Probably not much. In contrast, biologists, paleontologists, and geneticists have plenty of evidence to back up evolution along with sound reasoning.



There's no such thing as a biological mistake per say. There are mutations that are beneficial to survival & reproduction and mutations that aren't. Our genes are constantly undergoing mutation.
Most supporters of eugenics take a preventative approach to improving human genetics. They want to be able to alter genetics so they can remove the unwanted harmful genes from the human gene pool in order to prevent genetic disorders or abnormalities that are harmful. Genes that cause sickle cell anemia, certain cancers, or syndromes would be removed. The ideal is for future generations to be free of genetic diseases. The other side to eugenics, is focused on improvement. Some eugenicists want to improve future generations by manipulating genes to make humans more intelligent, stronger, more attractive, healthier, etc. This will cause controversy because some of those traits are subjective, like attraction.

The sum of all my knowledge on genetic mutation comes solely from the X-men, so forgive me if I'm wrong, but it seems that mutation is a completely random thing that suddenly occurs for no reason. If this is the case, is it possible that these mutations are some form of divine intervention? Even if it isn't, it seems a little arrogant of evolutionists to preach this stuff as fact while having a get-out-of-jail-free-card for anything that doesn't fit.

Evolutionists preach it as fact because it is a FACT. Genetic mutations do exist and natural selection favors the creatures with beneficial mutations and weeds out the creatures with harmful mutations. This is pretty much indisputable because it's already been verified over and over.

Now to your suggestion that mutations could be a divine intervention...I suppose it's possible. It's also just as possible that a highly intelligent species of E.T. could have come to Earth long ago and interfered with human genetics. We just don't have any actual evidence that this has happened, but it's possible.

What do you mean by having a "get-out-of-jail-free-card for anything that doesn't fit."?
Can you elaborate on that?

Many creationists will argue about the complexity of the eye and I'm sure you know their argument. The eye evolved over billions of years changing slightly every now and then, but it started out with light sensitive skin. If I were to ask you how that evolved, the answer would probably be mutation. It's just as bad as saying 'God did it'. It doesn't answer the question unless you know how mutation occurs, so you can use it for anything that you don't know the answer to.