Reconciling Creationism with Evolution: both are correct...

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Just to clarify, dinosaurs and birds are a prime example of speciation. This is a post I made in another thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is just imagination. Humans saw dinosaurs on every continent throughout history. Evolution is debunked.

Dinosaurs lived with humans

There's nothing to refute in your sources because it is all speculation. The post I did above is all empirical historical evidence that is based in reality, not fantasy.

Speculation to you. Evidence to anyone who can read, write and understand how science works.

. . . Speculations become conclusions. High-sounding language evolves into “evidence.”

All of this is traitorous to the true scientific method. But by means of this brainwashing, blind faith in evolution evolves. With it evolves the arrogant authoritarianism required to sustain what they cannot prove. Sweeping proclamations are used as a club against unbelievers, perhaps even reassuring the evolution priesthood, those who are its promoters.

See previous comment for the context to that quotation. It seems little has changed in the past 50 years.

Zoology professor Goldschmidt said, in The Material Basis of Evolution: “The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories.” (Page 165) Among fossil experts today this is a generally accepted fact.

Interestingly, evolutionists are aware that the fossil record is more compatible with creation than with evolution, even as they vehemently reject creation. Years ago several acknowledged this: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” (L. T. More) “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it . . . can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D. Watson) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”​—Sir Arthur Keith.

J. H. Corner, Cambridge University botanist and evolutionist, stated: “I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” (Contemporary Botanical Thought, 1961, p. 97) In the Physics Bulletin, May 1980, Professor Lipson reluctantly said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Creation fits its facts.

Even mutations fail evolution. Evolutionists place hope in them as mechanisms of evolution. But they are found to be inadequate to produce new family kinds. Evolutionist Bengelsdorf said: “Mutations, involving base changes in genes, can account for differences between two men . . . But, for various reasons, they cannot account for overall evolution​—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”

Creationists have always acknowledged variation within the family kinds of Genesis chapter one​—the degree of variation attested to by the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean.” Verifying this experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly reproducing creatures, yet, “after 40 years of manipulating the evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies.”

There is a tremendous gulf between man and the animal evolutionists consider closest to him. Man’s gifts of language, logic, creative thinking, music and art, his awareness of time past, present and future, his need for accomplishment and meaning and purpose in his life, his capacities for the qualities of justice, kindness, compassion and love​—these set man far beyond any animal. This is not explainable on the basis of evolution, but is attributable to the creation of man ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ (Gen. 1:26, 27) Once again it is creation that fits the facts.

Life’s origin says, Creation. Fossils say, Creation. Mutations say, Creation. The gulf between man and the closest animal cries out, Creation! It is creation, not evolution, that fits the scientific facts.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Speculation to you. Evidence to anyone who can read, write and understand how science works.
You're wasting your time.

The difference between you and I, is that I have pioneered your religion. I was a strict and zealous adherent for almost a decade, and I remember ignoring all evidence that was contrary to evolution. Once I emerged from this dead-end hopeless state I began to see clearly. So I know your perspective. Your stubbornness prevents you from real knowledge.

You on the other hand cannot see the other perspective. Your religious material-reductionist dogma prevents you from seeing the deeper common denominator of reality.

Can you explain what you mean by "dead end hopeless state"?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

...To understand how it works, you need to read the real science, how theories are developed, tested and results interpreted.
...

How Dinosaurs Shrank and Became Birds


Modern birds appeared to emerge in a snap of evolutionary time. But new research illuminates the long series of evolutionary changes that made the transformation possible. www.quantamagazine.org...

At times, I felt that such explanations were not given in all seriousness. They must be joking, I thought. But they are serious! They are not joking! They accept science fiction as true science.

Quotation from my first comment in this thread again, as written by someone in the 70's. The storylines and their titles have become progressively ridiculous. And they're still not joking.

“THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING BIRD”?!

I wouldn't be able to talk about that storyline while keeping a straight face if I were a fan of evolutionary storylines like that one.

a reply to: whereislogic

So making bad jokes is your idea of refuting the research? I notice you didn't address a single point from the actual article. You dodged it completely.

a reply to: cooperton

Aye none the less , its really cool that suddenly we have a part animal part plant creature !

My idea from the sea slug , was to alter human DNA so we could also photosynthesis , thus reducing world hunger!
the hungry would simply need to sunbathe to get energy!

I know it would probably end in disaster though

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Can you explain what you mean by "dead end hopeless state"?

It is a belief that doesn't yield anything worthwhile, nor is it even evidence in empirical science as shown by whereislogic's post at the top of the page. Even worse, those who adamantly believe evolutionary theory, are prevented from realizing true knowledge when they hear it, because it opposes their erroneous belief that they are descended from mutant ancestors.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

Aye none the less , its really cool that suddenly we have a part animal part plant creature !

My idea from the sea slug , was to alter human DNA so we could also photosynthesis , thus reducing world hunger!
the hungry would simply need to sunbathe to get energy!

I know it would probably end in disaster though

There's some research going on showing that melanin - the skin pigment involved with tans and dark skin - is capable of harnessing energy from the sun. Even vitamin D synthesis could be considered a form of harnessing energy from the sun via the addition of electrons to biomolecules from photon energy. Especially considering the entire kreb's cycle relies on the addition of electrons to citric acid, it is not out of the question that these electrons could be supplied by sunlight

a reply to: cooperton

Yeh that is really interesting I shall give it some more thought and read up more on it you dont happen to know the name of the study or the University that is undertaking the study ?


My main two reasons for the photosynthesis idea was to end world hunger and so we can also travel in space without much food requirements and turn us all green so we could end racism !

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

Yeh that is really interesting I shall give it some more thought and read up more on it you dont happen to know the name of the study or the University that is undertaking the study ?

www.researchgate.net...

Dr Arturo Herrera is the main spearhead on this research. Essentially, melanin absorbs 99.9% of energy from sunlight and transfers this into splitting water into H2 and O2. H2 and O2 are the main gases involved in ATP production in the electron transport chain. I imagine it Will take a while to be considered by mainstream, but there are people working on it.

a reply to: cooperton

Hey Cooperton

that's fantastic thanks for the link!
Some nice weekend reading

a reply to: cooperton

It is a belief that doesn't yield anything worthwhile, nor is it even evidence in empirical science as shown by whereislogic's post at the top of the page. Even worse, those who adamantly believe evolutionary theory, are prevented from realizing true knowledge when they hear it, because it opposes their erroneous belief that they are descended from mutant ancestors. 

Still confused... what do you mean it doesn't yield anything worthwhile? What is your idea of worthwhile? And what do you mean by "true knowledge"? How is that worthwhile? Please and thanks.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Still confused... what do you mean it doesn't yield anything worthwhile?

Let's say hypothetical evolution is true, and we are mutant progeny of some old slew of chemicals that surpassed miraculous hurdles to spawn life. So what? This insists on the nihilist mindset that nothing matters, because one day we will all return back to unconscious nothingness. Eternal unawareness. Even children are erroneous, because they too will reach the same nothingness eventually, and eventually the human race will die out forever. That is, if evolution is true. It strips humanity and individuals of meaning. You can't argue any sort of meaning if we were generated by unintelligent chaotic material interactions. This is why it is a philosophical dead-end. Not only does holding the belief of evolution prevent you from real knowledge, it also leaves you hopeless if you truly believe and understand its implications. Eternal nothingness awaits you. That is the promise of evolution. That is the philosophy you and the rest are so zealously peddling to innocent minds.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Still confused... what do you mean it doesn't yield anything worthwhile?

Let's say hypothetical evolution is true, and we are mutant progeny of some old slew of chemicals that surpassed miraculous hurdles to spawn life. So what? This insists on the nihilist mindset that nothing matters, because one day we will all return back to unconscious nothingness. Eternal unawareness. Even children are erroneous, because they too will reach the same nothingness eventually, and eventually the human race will die out forever. That is, if evolution is true. It strips humanity and individuals of meaning. You can't argue any sort of meaning if we were generated by unintelligent chaotic material interactions. This is why it is a philosophical dead-end. Not only does holding the belief of evolution prevent you from real knowledge, it also leaves you hopeless if you truly believe and understand its implications. Eternal nothingness awaits you. That is the promise of evolution. That is the philosophy you and the rest are so zealously peddling to innocent minds.

I did some digging, and I didn't find what you just wrote here anywhere else. If I had to guess, I would say this is what you personally are taking away from the theory of evolution. Your own individual interpretation. It's not in any of the biology books or sites I looked at. You mentioned a "philosophical dead end". Evolution is a science, not a philosophy. Do you know the difference? Maybe you could tell me which textbook says "evolution means life is pointless and nothing you do matters" I can't seem to find it.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Phantom423

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Just to clarify, dinosaurs and birds are a prime example of speciation. This is a post I made in another thread:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

This is just imagination. Humans saw dinosaurs on every continent throughout history. Evolution is debunked.

Dinosaurs lived with humans

There's nothing to refute in your sources because it is all speculation. The post I did above is all empirical historical evidence that is based in reality, not fantasy.

Speculation to you. Evidence to anyone who can read, write and understand how science works.

. . . Speculations become conclusions. High-sounding language evolves into “evidence.”

All of this is traitorous to the true scientific method. But by means of this brainwashing, blind faith in evolution evolves. With it evolves the arrogant authoritarianism required to sustain what they cannot prove. Sweeping proclamations are used as a club against unbelievers, perhaps even reassuring the evolution priesthood, those who are its promoters.

See previous comment for the context to that quotation. It seems little has changed in the past 50 years.

Zoology professor Goldschmidt said, in The Material Basis of Evolution: “The facts fail to give any information regarding the origin of actual species, not to mention the higher categories.” (Page 165) Among fossil experts today this is a generally accepted fact.

Interestingly, evolutionists are aware that the fossil record is more compatible with creation than with evolution, even as they vehemently reject creation. Years ago several acknowledged this: “The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion. . . . The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but is irrational.” (L. T. More) “Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it . . . can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” (D. Watson) “Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”​—Sir Arthur Keith.

J. H. Corner, Cambridge University botanist and evolutionist, stated: “I still think, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation.” (Contemporary Botanical Thought, 1961, p. 97) In the Physics Bulletin, May 1980, Professor Lipson reluctantly said: “We must go further than this and admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation.”

The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution. Creation fits its facts.

Even mutations fail evolution. Evolutionists place hope in them as mechanisms of evolution. But they are found to be inadequate to produce new family kinds. Evolutionist Bengelsdorf said: “Mutations, involving base changes in genes, can account for differences between two men . . . But, for various reasons, they cannot account for overall evolution​—why there are fish, reptiles, birds, and mammals.”

Creationists have always acknowledged variation within the family kinds of Genesis chapter one​—the degree of variation attested to by the magazine Science for November 21, 1980: “Species do indeed have a capacity to undergo minor modifications in their physical and other characteristics, but this is limited and with a longer perspective it is reflected in an oscillation about a mean.” Verifying this experimentally, geneticists have induced floods of mutations in rapidly reproducing creatures, yet, “after 40 years of manipulating the evolution of fruit flies, which spawn generations in days, many bizarre changes have been seen, but fruit flies always remain fruit flies.”

There is a tremendous gulf between man and the animal evolutionists consider closest to him. Man’s gifts of language, logic, creative thinking, music and art, his awareness of time past, present and future, his need for accomplishment and meaning and purpose in his life, his capacities for the qualities of justice, kindness, compassion and love​—these set man far beyond any animal. This is not explainable on the basis of evolution, but is attributable to the creation of man ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ (Gen. 1:26, 27) Once again it is creation that fits the facts.

Life’s origin says, Creation. Fossils say, Creation. Mutations say, Creation. The gulf between man and the closest animal cries out, Creation! It is creation, not evolution, that fits the scientific facts.

But none of that tells us with measurable certainty who or what did the creating or what we should do about it. There's an undeniable bias and unrealistic expectations at work here, in a philosophical sense we are looking at voluntary subjugation by an undefined force of cosmic magnitude. If you take that literally, it's just not good news. How can anyone promise our safety and dignity? How can they prove it?

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Evolution is a science, not a philosophy. Do you know the difference?

Philosophy means love of knowledge - so you're correct in saying it wants nothing to do with evolution.

Maybe you could tell me which textbook says "evolution means life is pointless and nothing you do matters" I can't seem to find it.

Evolution leads towards nihilism, sometimes completely, and other times just a little leaven that eventually spoils the whole batch. Because evolution insists this all happen by accident, without intelligence, then there is no hope for humanity. We are just an accident, that will eventually go back into non-existence

This is why I spend my time explaining why it's invalid

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But none of that tells us with measurable certainty who or what did the creating or what we should do about it

This is why God manifested in childform (human form) and taught us the universal loving philosophy for the earth and beyond. The Christ philosophy generates a loving altruism in which universal peace would ensue immediately if all tried it for a day... that's how you know it is genuine and true, because of the fruit it yields.

originally posted by: cooperton
Evolution leads towards nihilism, sometimes completely, and other times just a little leaven that eventually spoils the whole batch. Because evolution insists this all happen by accident, without intelligence, then there is no hope for humanity. We are just an accident, that will eventually go back into non-existence

Evolution is a scientific theory that postulates nothing about the origin of life or the value of life. The blatant dishonesty needs to stop. You can't call something an accident just because it involves random mutations. Accident implies intention. Just because an explanation sounds comforting to you doesn't make it true. What if there is no purpose to life?? Sometimes the truth can be inconvenient. Fighting against evolution for the this reason alone proves you aren't in it for the truth, but for hope of your personal beliefs being right because they are comforting to you.

originally posted by: Barcs
Fighting against evolution for the this reason alone proves you aren't in it for the truth, but for hope of your personal beliefs being right because they are comforting to you.

You have no idea what my path has been. I was a zealous adherent to evolution for almost a decade. After searching enough, there is not any compelling data to insist that it is true, or even possible. After relieving myself of this philosophical burden, I was able to realize universal truths, not being squandered by the imagination of material reductionists.

a reply to: cooperton

I gave you a star because it is my religion to give a star to a post before responding.

Evolution leads towards nihilism,

It seems that organisms changed, mutated, evolved over millions of years to what we have now, or used to have until humans observed, categorized and recorded. Then humans observed and recorded extinctions of species quite often as a result of human predation and encroachment upon habitat. Annihilation of life was the latent result of intelligent design; human design.

all happen by accident, without intelligence, then there is no hope for humanity. We are just an accident, that will eventually go back into non-existence

Wiktionary-accident:
1 "An unexpected event with negative consequences occurring without the intention of the one suffering the consequences."
5 "Any property, fact, or relation that is the result of chance or is nonessential."

Humanity is nonessential to life on Earth. The fossil record indicates that. When humanity renders itself extinct, that will be an accident too. We aren't pumping CO2 into our atmosphere in order to render ourselves extinct, that is just the unintended consequence of our way of life. But we are intelligent.

This is why God manifested in childform (human form) and taught us the universal loving philosophy for the earth and beyond.

The religions that came into being 100s of years before Industrial Revolution teach that.

The Christ philosophy generates a loving altruism in which universal peace would ensue immediately if all tried it for a day...

The religion teachers can't agree as to what the Christ philosophy is.

if all tried it for a day...

“Rabbi Judah said in the name of Rav: If all Israel had observed the very first Sabbath, no nation or tongue would have ever ruled over her…Rabbi Yohanan said, following Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai: Were Israel to observe two Sabbaths punctiliously, they would be redeemed immediately [ BT Shabbat 118b ].”

Two days; Two Sabbaths; for Israel only.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But none of that tells us with measurable certainty who or what did the creating or what we should do about it.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Life’s origin says, Creation. Fossils say, Creation. Mutations say, Creation. The gulf between man and the closest animal cries out, Creation! It is creation, not evolution, that fits the scientific facts.

All of that is referring to the Bible's account of Creation, as the preceding statements and quotations in that comment are based on a comparison of the established facts regarding those subjects with specific Bible claims, for example concerning God creating organisms to reproduce after their kinds (see the topics of fossils, mutations and variation) and man being created ‘in the image and likeness of God.’ (Gen. 1:26, 27) All of that are revealing clues as to who or what did the creating. In the words of Nobel Prize-winning biochemist Christian de Duve after stating that he did not subscribe to the multiverse hypothesis : “In my opinion, life and mind are such extraordinary manifestations of matter that they remain meaningful, however many universes unable to give rise to them exist or are possible. Diluting our universe with trillions of others in no way diminishes the significance of its unique properties, which I see as revealing clues to the ‘Ultimate Reality’ that lies behind them.”

Btw, do you know of any other ancient religious book, text or teaching that makes the same 2 earlier mentioned examples of Bible claims concerning the topic of the creation of lifeforms (no vague referrals or far-fetched interpretations of ancient texts please)? The latter of those 2 examples also gives us additional information regarding the attributes of what you inappropiately prefer to refer to as “an undefined force of cosmic magnitude”. As discussed earlier regarding man’s gifts of language, logic, creative thinking, music and art, his awareness of time past, present and future, his need for accomplishment and meaning and purpose in his life, his capacities for the qualities of justice, kindness, compassion and love​. All “revealing clues” regarding who or what did the creating or your supposed “undefined force”.

What we should do about it is a related but other subject that is quite pointless to discuss if one is already stuck on denying or avoiding acknowledging the facts regarding the first subject or step. Regarding the subject of a Creator, one could differentiate it as such (simplified using some of your terminology, not necessarily considering all possible questions and related subjects):

1. Is there at least 1 Creator of life or not? Was life created or not?
if 'yes':
2. Who or what created life? In what manner was life created? (what would you expect as specific characteristics of life, such as organisms reproducing after their kinds, mutations and variations within such kinds 'oscillating about a mean'; did you read some of my commentary about the Law of Recurrent Variation by any chance? It's been a few months)
3. What should we do about it?

My comment was primarily focussed on the first subject with a little bit about the 2nd because of the comparison with evolutionary ideas. There's little point in pointing out my comment didn't say anything about the 3rd subject, especially not when one does not want to acknowledge that the Bible's account of Creation fits the facts observed or otherwise established by research regarding the topics listed at the start of this comment and end of the comment you were responding to. I skipped discussing any details regarding the topic of the origin of life to avoid another useless debate about whether that topic is allowed to be mentioned within a certain amount of words near the word “evolution”, as some people seem to have a bit of an allergic triggered reaction when that happens (as someone recently demonstrated in this thread feeling the need to point out that the theory of evolution does not address the origin of life, a mantra repeated twice already in this thread unless that was another thread where I saw the term 'theory of evolution' being used for that purpose rather than simply the word 'evolution' as was just done on this page).

Regardless of that, present-day evolutionary theory generally eliminates any mention of a Creator. Instead, the theory of the spontaneous generation of life, once repudiated, has been revived in a somewhat altered form. Belief in a form of spontaneous generation can be traced back for centuries. In the fifth century B.C.E. the Greek philosophers Anaxagoras and Empedocles taught it, and a century later Aristotle thought that worms and snails were products of putrefaction. In the 17th century C.E., even respected men of science, including Francis Bacon and William Harvey, accepted the theory. Advancing knowledge changed all of that. In that same 17th century, Redi showed that maggots appeared in meat only after flies laid eggs on it. Bacteria were discovered and hailed as examples of spontaneous generation of life, but a century later Spallanzani punctured that balloon. In the century after that Pasteur settled it that “life comes only from life.” This is now axiomatic. Even Darwin accepted this, saying in the closing sentence of The Origin of Species that life originated by “having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one.”​—Page 450, Mentor edition. Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.* Regardless of all attempts to indoctrinate people with the impression that that is not the case by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language and redefining the so-called “theory of evolution” or the word “evolution” to exclude any mention of the origin of life or to separate them as separate subjects.

But it is Creation that fits the fact that “life comes only from life.” Of Jehovah God, it is written: “With you is the source of life.”​—Ps. 36:9.

*: A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. He speculates that in the beginning, Earth had an atmosphere composed of carbon dioxide, methane, ammonia and water. Through energy supplied by sunlight, and perhaps by lightning and exploding volcanoes, these simple compounds were broken apart and then they re-formed into amino acids. A variety of these gradually accumulated in the sea and combined into proteinlike compounds. Ultimately, he says, the ocean became an “organic soup,” but still lifeless.

Then, according to Dawkins’ description, “a particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident”​—a molecule that had the ability to reproduce itself. Though admitting that such an accident was exceedingly improbable, he maintains that it must nevertheless have happened. Similar molecules clustered together, and then, again by an exceedingly improbable accident, they wrapped a protective barrier of other protein molecules around themselves as a membrane. Thus, it is claimed, the first living cell generated itself.⁠

Most other books on evolution also conveniently skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Nevertheless, the connection made to the concept of evolution and evolutionary ideas is obvious:

originally posted by: whereislogic

...Nevertheless, out of necessity, evolutionary theory assumes that long ago microscopic life must somehow have arisen spontaneously from nonliving matter.*
...
*: A current evolutionary position on life’s starting point is summarized in his book, The Selfish Gene, by Richard Dawkins. ...
Most other books on evolution also conveniently skim over the staggering problem of explaining the emergence of life from nonliving matter. Nevertheless, the connection made to the concept of evolution and evolutionary ideas is obvious:

“concept of evolution and evolutionary ideas”, i.e. the earlier referred to “evolutionary theory”. Just an alternate way of saying it. Out of space and edit time.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Evolution is a science, not a philosophy. Do you know the difference?

Philosophy means love of knowledge - so you're correct in saying it wants nothing to do with evolution.

Maybe you could tell me which textbook says "evolution means life is pointless and nothing you do matters" I can't seem to find it.

Evolution leads towards nihilism, sometimes completely, and other times just a little leaven that eventually spoils the whole batch. Because evolution insists this all happen by accident, without intelligence, then there is no hope for humanity. We are just an accident, that will eventually go back into non-existence

This is why I spend my time explaining why it's invalid

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But none of that tells us with measurable certainty who or what did the creating or what we should do about it

This is why God manifested in childform (human form) and taught us the universal loving philosophy for the earth and beyond. The Christ philosophy generates a loving altruism in which universal peace would ensue immediately if all tried it for a day... that's how you know it is genuine and true, because of the fruit it yields.

With all due respect cooperton, this seems to be less about the accuracy of evolution research and more about the integrity of your self image in relation to the universe at large. I don't blame you, existence is scary enough without the idea that you only have one shot at participating in it. But you have failed to refute even one fact in the theory of evolution and you just admitted that your objection to the theory is lack of universal brotherhood and existential fulfilment. Which is more your takeaway than what the theory actually says but you want love and magic, not facts. That's not what evolution is about, so your reluctance is not surprising.