Sure, laws can have exceptions, but are you arguing against Mendelian genetics just to make Darwinism look more plausible?
We discussed cancer at length and no, cancer is not proof of evolution as it results in death of both the host and the cancerous cells, not “improved fitness”.
Sorry, this is a classic example of faulty argument.
I am not sure what you mean. Can you explain?
As long as you mention chimps and humans, here are a few questions for you:
- How would human evolution have happened? Who was the common ancestor of both modern apes and humans? If closer to the modern ape, how come “struggle for survival” didn’t exterminate one of the branches?
- Say you are that mythical ancestor that happen upon a bounty of food. How do you “decide” to grow just your brain instead of simply overpopulating the area or growing your full body to the size of an elephant?
- Were Denisovans and Neanderthals different species if they could have fertile offsprings when mating with humans?
How so? Don’t humans create more and more “evolved” implements all the time (say in transportation)? How are we failing at that?
I would not use this confusing term - “microevolution” - which automatically implies a “macroevolution”.
The question is: “are you using your hypothesis to predict or are you using something else”. The classic Darwinist example Xanthopan - Wikipedia does not require “evolution” to explain, but simple deduction instead.
You’re confusing Genetics with Evolution. Think Mendel vs. Darwin. One makes sense and you can verify any time, while the other doesn’t and you can’t. We’re only using Mendel’s work on a daily basis, not Darwin’s.