How do pseudogenes test that a reptilian heart became an avian heart via a process of biological evolution? You seem to be assuming that a “test” is the same as “evidence”.
Incidentally, don’t you find it a bit odd that an organism retains a pseudogene (so called) for a morphological feature that may have disappeared from the ancestral line millions of years previous? I mean, why should the morphological feature disappear but not the DNA remnant? I suspect there is much we don’t know about “pseudogenes”.
Tikitaalik. So, a single find is statistically significant?
I accept that biological evolution is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the fossil record, but I also accept that there is much more to reality than the very limited parameters of science, so I accept that the best scientific explanation for the fossil record may be a very long way from being a “fact”.
Atheists claim biological evolution as a “fact” because (a) they have no other choice, and (b) it makes them feel “intellectually fulfilled”.
But because the creation of the first life-forms were supernatural events, then it’s a fair bet that the fossil record was also the result of supernatural events. God is the author of life, after all (or was He so disinterested in creating life on earth that He subcontracted that boring task out to a mindless biological process?).
- The Cambrian explosion is an example of “only altered them slightly from everything before” and demonstrates that “common descent is true”? I don’t think so - the Cambrian explosion not only contadicts Darwinism, it is powerful evidence of creation.
- Where are all those transitional fossils that evolution predicts? They should be plentiful, not rare.