Yes, it is a beautiful theory, Joe. I can see why people subscribe to it. While I believe in evolutionary changes within species (that we continue to evolve in adaptation to our environment), I don’t believe that one species evolves into another because this defies our observable and studied laws of genetics. To put it very simply (I’m being unscientific here), I’m a light-skinned person who burns and freckles easily. If I were to sunbathe every day until I gradually grew tan, I still wouldn’t pass along the gene for tan skin to my children. They would be fair, like me, unless they inherited a different more dominant gene from their dad. Offspring resemble their parents, environmental influences notwithstanding.
But I realize Darwinism isn’t based on the inheritance of acquired characteristics, so maybe my unscientific argument is spurious. Darwinists believe evolution is supervised by chance genetic mutation operating along with natural selection. Yet, many genetic mutations are harmful or neutral.
Along another line, Homology, the anatomical similarities between different species that is one of the strongest arguments for evolution, has been found to exist only at the macroscopic level, not the microscopic level. Australian molecular biologist Michael Denton in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, points out that embryological and genetic research have not shown the validity of evolutionary interpretation of homology.
Richard Milton writes in his book Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, “Even more extraordinary is the complete absence of evidence from biochemistry for the most basic Darwinian evolutionary scheme of fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal. When the protein divergence of land-dwelling vertebrates-amphibians, reptiles, mammals-are compared with those of fish, they are all again equally isolated. There is no graduation of divergence as one would expect in an evolutionary sequence.”
Charles Darwin himself, in his later days, gradually became aware of the lack of real evidence for his evolutionary theory and wrote, “As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?”
I could go on and on, but I’ll stop here since I’m sure you can make just as many scientifically based arguments for evolution. For either one of us, our ultimate decision on what to believe is a leap of faith. I’ve chosen my leap, and so far I’m not dissatisfied with it. But I respect, understand and welcome other opinions.