very compelling scientific evidence that supports
the idea of the Holy Bible being factual and not just
a book of beliefs ...

http://www.creationevidence.org

http://www.creationevidence.org/scientific_evid/evidencefor/evidencefor.html

http://www.christianforums.com/t58805&mode=threaded

nuff said.

All of this, Creation/Evolution thing revolves around one issue, "Was man created or did he evolve? (Not from an Ape, but do Man and the Apes share a common ancestor?)"

Many years ago I was talking to a Catholic Priest. We used to meet often to talk about religion and to sample his excellent Kentucky Bourbon! One day the conversation drifted into the Evolution area. I took the position that we, and the Apes shared a common ancestor. He took the Creation side. It was a spirited debate (no pun intended on the Bourbon!) At the end I asked him if he could ever believe in Evolution. I will never forget his answer that he delivered in a slow, measured tone - his eyes averted to the ground.

"If Evolution is true that means Creation is not.
If there was no Creation there was no Garden.
If there was no Garden there was no Fall of Man.
If there was no fall, there is no need for a Savior.
If there is no need of a Savior - there is no need of Christ
and the Christian faith falls flat on its face!
I cannot believe it. If I did, all would be lost for me."

As the evidence masses up in support of Evolution, the Christian must try harder and harder to refute it - at all costs as it "cuts the legs out from under the faith," or at least for the need of a redeemer. "

Christian can never accept the Evolution of man, no matter what the evidence. It is one of the great "blind spots" for the Christian. I accept that.

I have been reading a book that provides way more info on the subject.

Some of what the article says appears to refute the evidence for creationism.

Among all the other gaping holes in the 'faith' of evolution:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.asp

It has been proven that evolution results in loss of genetic information, not gain that leads to new living creatures, i.e. variants of the same types of animals resulting from the same pool of genes, even new species - that always lose some of there genetic makeup - but never new animals.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i2/speciation.asp

The book I am reading says that the mathematical probability of just the 20 vital proteins needed to support life in a cell randomly being created is 10 to the 20 power. And even if it were to happen they would need to be encased in a cell membrane which is far more complex, it is so impossible for this to have occurred randomly as the membrane would have to be created surrounding the 20 proteins at the same time they came to life.

I will review the book and post some of the extraordinary evidence that seem to be in line with creationism that completely prove evolution is more faith than fact.

---

"A living cell contains over 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations. Chance assemblage is 1 in 104,478,296"

http://www.creationevidence.org/God_exist/creator/goc07_700.html

Mastropaolo, Joseph, “Evolution Is Biologically Impossible,” Impact # 317 (El Cajon, CA: Institute For Creation Research, 1999) p.4

---

The fish in the bathtub
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i1/bathtub.asp

Origin of Life Questions and Answers
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/origin.asp

have a ball reading some of those articles

---

obviously they cannot prove creationism, but most definitely disprove
the beliefs of evolution.

Could Monkeys Type the 23rd Psalm?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/1182.asp

:footmouth

You may be interested in reading this

http://www.newsreview.com/issues/reno/2005-01-13/cover.asp

Evolution Revolution
Scientists and educators fear conservative political muscle could force religious ideology into public school classrooms

By Deidre Pike

Community college class. Adults, returning students, meeting together at night for the needed biology course. Plants cells are studied under a microscope. A frog is dissected. Students learn about the unity and diversity of life in Unit One of the textbook, about cell reproduction and observable patterns of inheritance in Unit Three.

Students get to know the soft-spoken teacher, an adjunct faculty member with a passion for the subject. Religion comes up, as does a student's challenge to scientific thought on the origins of the universe.

That's probably why the young instructor skips Unit Six on evolution altogether. "Too controversial," he says. The class never cracks open its $80 biology books to page 538 to study population genetics. Students don't read about natural selection, speciation and the fossil record but jump ahead to the study of viruses and fungi.

After all, most of these adults aren't heading for degrees in the sciences. They merely want to be teachers.

"It's very unfortunate that this takes place," says Eugenie Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, when she hears the above true account of a college biology course. Skipping a discussion of evolution in a biology class is like skipping the Periodic Table of Elements in a chemistry class, she says.

"[Evolution] is what makes biology make sense, what ties together the facts that we know," Scott says. "If you don't have that substratum of common descent, you're just memorizing words."

Scott, whose office is in Oakland, Calif., will be coming to Reno on Jan. 20 to talk about "The Evolution of Creationism." You've probably heard a thing or two about scientific creationism--the idea that science can demonstrate God made plants and animals in thousands of separate acts of special creation in six days, as the Judeo-Christian Bible maintains.

When Scott, a physical anthropologist turned advocate for science education, comes to the University of Nevada, Reno, she'll talk about how the strategies of creationists have changed in order to gain acceptance from the scientific community and to get anti-evolutionary materials into public schools. Gone is talk of God and the Bible. Challenges to evolution now come in smart, well-wrapped packages carefully put together by the proponents of "intelligent design."

Intelligent design advocates say they're open to the idea that an intelligent orderly force, itself of inexplicable origin, crafted the universe. They call their ideas "a theory for making sense of intelligent causes."

Scott calls intelligent design "new wine in old bottles"--an evolved form of creationism.

After the U.S. Supreme Court in 1987 struck down an equal-time provision for teaching creationism in public schools, anti-evolutionists scrambled to find ways to get material into classrooms, says Scott. Now, proposals for science curriculum revisions are packaged as "critical thinking" or "teaching the controversy."

Intelligent design proponents argue for the teaching of "the strengths and weaknesses of evolution." This sounds logical and not explicitly religious, Scott says.

"Ask the average person on the street, 'Should we be teaching strengths and weaknesses of evolution?' They're going to say sure. Ask them, 'Should we teach the strengths and weaknesses of heliocentrism?' And they'll say sure."

But ask a scientist about the "strengths and weaknesses of heliocentrism"--the theory that the Earth revolves around the Sun--and you'll get a blank stare.

"There aren't any alternatives to the Earth going around the Sun," Scott says. "Ask a biologist about the strengths and weaknesses of evolution, and you'll get that same blank look."

With intelligent design, gone are the controversies that made scientific creationism untenable.

"They avoid fact claims, like the Grand Canyon being cut by Noah's flood or the earth being 10,000 years old," Scott says. "Intelligent-design proponents make virtually no fact claims whatsoever, and that gives them a more bullet-proof position."

"This is what I was made for," says mathematician William Dembski of his role as a leading voice in the intelligent-design community. "I'm charged. ... I enjoy the rough and tumble of debate."

Don't let his theology degree fool you. Dembski, who now carries out his research at Baylor University in Waco, Texas, says critics get hung up on his degree from Princeton Theological Seminary. They overlook the fact that he also has doctoral degrees in philosophy and mathematics and a master's degree in statistics.

"To some," Dembski says, chuckling, "if I had less education, I'd be more qualified."

Actually, that's not what his critics fault. As the Columbia Journalism Review reports, "Dembski is a philosopher and a mathematician, not a biologist." And he's director of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary's Center for Science and Theology.

Intelligent design is not, as his critics contend, "pseudo-science" or "creationism in a cheap tuxedo," Dembski argues.

Intelligent design functions at "a purely scientific level," Dembski says, referencing his books, Design Inference: Eliminating Chance Through Small Probabilities and No Free Lunch: Why Specified Complexity Cannot Be Purchased without Intelligence. His credentials include working on a mathematical "explanatory filter" in order to predict whether events, like the development of a plant or animal, occur randomly or are the products of design.

"You're looking for scientific detectability of intelligence in the natural world," he says. That doesn't necessarily mean "God" but it does imply an "unevolved intelligence."

The question of an "unevolved intelligence" sets the scientific community on edge, he says, as do the implications of intelligent design.

"The elite in our culture are materialistic and atheistic," Dembski says. "Intelligent design challenges their materialistic science and materialistic evolutionary theory. If you look at discipline after discipline, it's been evolutionized--medicine, business, religion, literature. ... If we are right, all these superstructures built on evolution need to be questioned."

In September, Dembski and others met at a conference in New Mexico, "Darwin, Design and Democracy V," to discuss, among other things, strategies for working intelligent-design ideas into public school curriculums.

The DDD-V Web site frames the debate like this: "Should those institutions seek to inform students about this intellectually stimulating scientific controversy, or should they be provided only with a bland diet of information which supports a naturalistic world view that happens to support non-theistic religions and belief systems?"

Intelligent design does have many scientists and educators worried. But they aren't afraid of a scientific challenge.

"There is no debate within science over whether evolution happened, only how it happened," says Scott. "To dissemble to students that there is an actual controversy going on is miseducating them and also lying to them."

David Zeh, biology professor at the University of Nevada, Reno, not only agrees but in an interview said at least three times that evolution is not scientifically controversial.

"Modern evolutionary biology has so many fundamentally important practical applications in fields ranging from drug design to conservation biology," Zeh says. "Any attempt to subvert its scientific integrity is, in my opinion, a threat to national security."

Challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools are on the table in Kansas, Missouri and South Carolina.

In suburban Atlanta, a lawsuit was recently filed against the school district for its 2002 adoption of a warning sticker for science textbooks that says evolution is "theory, not a fact." In Roseville, Calif., science teachers rejected the efforts of a group that wanted to add anti-evolutionist materials to the district science curriculum.

In October, Wired magazine ran a cover story, "The Crusade Against Evolution," equating intelligent design to the "next generation of scientific creationism."

In November, National Geographic ran a cover story by David Quammen, author of The Song of the Dodo, a lengthy book about island biogeography and extinction. The National Geographic story's title: "Was Darwin Wrong?"

Quammen's answer: "No."

"If you are skeptical by nature, unfamiliar with the terminology of science and unaware of the overwhelming evidence, you might even be tempted to say that [evolution] is 'just' a theory," Quammen writes. He lists other "theories"--the notion that Earth orbits the sun, continental drift, the existence of atoms and electricity. "Each of these theories is an explanation that has been confirmed to such a degree, by observation and experiment, that knowledgeable experts accept it as fact."

So far, local groups haven't argued for anti-evolution curriculum revisions in the Washoe County School District, as far as district spokesman Steve Mulvenon knows.

"I have heard nothing here about this issue at all," Mulvenon says, "which, given the conservative nature of the community, is surprising." But some educators remain wary.

Tom Nickles, chairman of UNR's philosophy department, is concerned about the growing power of the religious right and the corresponding push for anti-evolutionary curriculum in public schools.

"It's going to be a huge issue," Nickles says. "The current administration with its faith-based politics is deliberately catering to certain segments. With [religious conservatives] claiming credit for Bush's reelection, saying, 'We didn't just help, we did it, so now it's pay-off time,' there's an especially hot political connection."

In November, a CBS News post-election poll found that 55 percent of Americans believe that "God created humans in present form." Only 13 percent believe humans evolved without the God's help. Of those who voted to reelect George Bush, 67 percent believe in special creation by God--and half of the Bush backers surveyed said they'd support replacing evolution with creationism in public school curriculums.

In the courses he teaches on the philosophy of religion, Nickles finds university students are confused about Darwinian evolution.

"They say, 'Oh, gosh, evolution is such a controversial area,' " Nickles says. "But scientifically, it's not controversial. Politically it's not, except in the United States of America. The brouhaha is here. In any other country in the world, people wonder what the fuss is about. People in America get all tied up in religious knots."

He notes that, of Christian sects, only biblical literalists are actually opposed to evolutionary theory.

"Fundamentalists and evangelicals have dominated the press, but the majority of Christian churches, even the Catholic Church, accept evolution," he says. "Within Christianity, the fundamentalists and evangelicals are loud, but they are by no means speaking for all Christians, not by a long shot."

In confirmation, Brother Matthew Cunningham, chancellor of the Catholic Diocese of Reno, notes that a papal decree in the 1950s, reiterated since, allows that evolution is compatible with Christianity, that science and religion need not be at odds.

"How we came into being is not necessarily an issue," Cunningham says. "However God created us, in six days or six million years, that doesn't diminish God's power."

In The Origin of the Species, Darwin wrote: "When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei ["The voice of the people is the voice of God"], as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science."

Appealing to the sensibilities of the spiritually seeking masses is what advocates of intelligent design do best. Dembski, somewhat defensively, says he's an evangelical Protestant. But he's often sought out by people with diverse belief systems, from Hinduism to Buddhism.

"Increasingly, people with any sense of religious sensibilities believe there's an underlying purpose to the world," Dembski says. "And intelligent design is the only view opposed to the reductionist materialism that prevails in the academy and in the scientific view of the elites of the culture. Most of the unwashed masses, and I count myself among them, believe there's a sense of purpose. We're giving a voice to those people, saying 'The science backs you up.' "

Like those ancient critics of heliocentrism, Dembski references common sense to prove a design inference. For example: You're driving through South Dakota, Dembski says, and you come upon a rock formation with the faces of George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson and Theodore Roosevelt.

"Are you going to think to yourself, 'Did wind and erosion do that?' " Dembski asks. "No. But that's what the Darwinists are saying, that natural forces brought about this complexity. Obviously Mount Rushmore is the result of intelligence."

What do we know about the creation of Stonehenge, Dembski asks, and how do we know that a radio signal coming from space isn't a sign of intelligence?

"In virtually every instance, scientists say, 'That's a good question.' But don't bring up the question in biology. Suddenly the G-word comes to the fore."

The G-word: God.

Because scientists are, in Dembski's view, biased against religious explanations for natural phenomena, they refuse to accept the fact that Darwinian evolution is a theory in crisis, that traditional scientists are dinosaurs facing extinction as they desperately cling to theories of natural selection and survival of the fittest.

"The question is, how long do you keep beating your head against the wall?" Dembski says. "We're not telling Darwinian evolutionists to stop. Let them beat their heads against the wall. We just want to try some new approaches."


When he hears about evolution being a theory in crisis, Zeh sighs. In the past five years, the amount of evidence--from fossil records to genomic research--has increased exponentially, says Zeh, who teaches UNR's undergraduate course in evolution.

"It's a fact, an observable process," Zeh says, "if defined as the change in genetic composition of a population across generations, which is typically how evolution is defined. It's an observable process--quantifiable and well documented."

He points to the antibiotic resistance in the bacterium that causes tuberculosis and insecticide resistance in houseflies as just a couple of documented cases of observable evolution. The fossil record for Homo sapiens, already good, has gotten "tremendously better" in the past four years, he says.

The idea that, say, a human cell is so complex that it must be the work of an "intelligent designer" harkens back to 18th-century Christian philosopher William Paley, who came up with the watch metaphor for intelligent design. A watch, Paley argued, was so intricate, "so formed and adjusted as to produce motion, and that motion so regulated as to point out the hour of the day," that it could not result from chance. "The watch must have had a maker," Paley wrote in Natural Theology.

The fallacy in Paley's argument was as evident to Darwin in the 19th century as it is to many scientists today.

"You have to look at it as a historical process and at what you see in the fossil record," Zeh says. "There's good evidence of transitions from simple organisms to much more complex organisms."

About 3.8 billion years ago, the first fossil evidence of single-celled bacteria appears. It took at least another billion years for evidence of eukaryotes (organisms that have cells with a nucleus) to appear. Time is the key.

"Natural selection is not a chance process," Zeh says. "This idea of intelligent design is really just the same argument as Paley's watch--it's 'common sense that complexity doesn't just happen.' The answer is, it's not just produced by chance. It's chance and the organizing force of natural selection, and it takes a lot of time."

Zeh calls intelligent design "an absurd idea," given that many organisms seem less than intelligently designed.

"There are many aspects of organismal biology that are not optimal," Zeh says. For example, only 2 to 4 percent of the human genome is useful in coding for proteins. At least 50 percent of the genome either serves no useful purpose for humans at all or it "creates problems," Zeh says.

If that flew right over your head, here's a simpler example: Aging. Until recently, most humans didn't live beyond the age of 40. Genes that manifest themselves at older ages, like Huntington's chorea, were largely invisible to natural selection.

"As people do live longer ... we have all these genes that express themselves beyond age 40 or 50 because they haven't been purged by natural selection," Zeh says. "I don't think you'd call that intelligent design."

The political climate for evolutionary research is more threatening than ever for scientists, Zeh says. Darwinian evolution has become a term that researchers avoid.

Evolution-based research is the cutting edge in fields like directed molecular evolution--which shows some promise for developing cancer treatment--and in developing genetic algorithms for use with problem-solving computer programs.

"In a lot of cases, this kind of work is going on and people have to be cautious about invoking evolution," Zeh says. "So it's not realized that the theoretical underpinning of these fields is evolutionary biology."

Zeh thinks Darwinian evolution should be taught in grade school science classes.

"It's the organizing principle of biology and should be taught like American history," Zeh says. "It's fundamental to understanding all sorts of things--not just biology but human nature."

And if creationists or intelligent-design proponents have their way?

"As I said, I think it's a threat to national security," Zeh says. "We will fall behind the rest of the world in many areas."

Forcing science to conform to a dogmatic set of ideas about existence, whether religious or otherwise, has been a problem since the days of Galileo.

"Ideology interferes with science," Zeh says. "The results are disastrous. People should learn these things."

ha. good post.

I think most of us would agree that if not God, something certainly created the universe and set things into order.

Insects becoming resistant to insecticide and bacteria becoming resistant to medicine does not support evolution on the whole. Evolution says we become more complex by mutating, but more than 90% of mutations always result in loss of genetic material, not in gaining of material.

A wolf can be bread into a poodle by removing/destroying its DNA but a poodle can't go back to a wolf. A poodle has lost most of its DNA that influences it and an only produce more poodles, but that same wolf can be bread into a great dane or a rotwielder - because it has a full set of DNA.

A mutation can cause you to survive a disease, but only by losing information from your genetic makeup. Then another disease can come along and wipe you and your offspring out because the DNA that was lost is now needed again.

Did God create poodles? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp&qt=poodle&col=&n=1)

ha. good post.

I think most of us would agree that if not God, something certainly created the universe and set things into order. I agree wholeheartedly.

Insects becoming resistant to insecticide and bacteria becoming resistant to medicine does not support evolution on the whole. Evolution says we become more complex by mutating, but more than 90% of mutations always result in loss of genetic material, not in gaining of material.
"It's a fact, an observable process," Zeh says, "if defined as the change in genetic composition of a population across generations, which is typically how evolution is defined. It's an observable process--quantifiable and well documented."
So, for you humans who are for example "Negroid-Caucasian" JUST lose genetic material? They don't lose AND gain genetic material?

A wolf can be bread into a poodle by removing/destroying its DNA but a poodle can't go back to a wolf.

I agree. No, it can't go back to a wolf because after the lengthy process of being bred into a poodle it has acquired poodle DNA. But, we must not forget that today's modern poodle is a domesticated animal. I'll bet you if you re-introduce a wolf-poodle hybrid into the wild the instincts of the wolf will show up given time.

A poodle has lost most of its DNA that influences it and an only produce more poodles, but that same wolf can be bread into a great dane or a rotwielder - because it has a full set of DNA.

Exactly, so, at somepoint (let's say) Wolf "A" was taken from it's natural habitat and bred ONLY with other wolves, to keep it's purity intact that you may have this specific wolf (we'll say Wolf "J") to begin cross-breeding with poodles?
But somewhere along that process, a wolf had to be domesticated (or it'd rip any animal offered to it to pieces) especially being taken out of it's natural habitat. And in doing this, the wolves subsequent to that wolf adapted (evolved) as well - even if only in instinct.
Yes, granted it may have lost it's natural ferocity, it also gained a civility needed for it to survive (or it'd be put down.)

A mutation can cause you to survive a disease, but only by losing information from your genetic makeup. Then another disease can come along and wipe you and your offspring out because the DNA that was lost is now needed again. Exactly, like the common cold...or influenza. It evolves/adapts into different strains order to survive. Please, consider bacterial infections and that big combrucktion that was in the news (concerning SARS) not to long ago about people taking antibiotics.

Did God create bacteria and bacterial resistance? (http://familydoctor.org/680.xml#3)

Again,"There is no debate within science over whether evolution happened, only how it happened," says Scott. "To dissemble to students that there is an actual controversy going on is miseducating them and also lying to them."

ha. good post.

I think most of us would agree that if not God, something certainly created the universe and set things into order. Ah yes the "Creator". You know in asking thses questions you might soon help you self understand my faith.
Parietal has responded to the rest very well
Insects becoming resistant to insecticide and bacteria becoming resistant to medicine does not support evolution on the whole. Evolution says we become more complex by mutating, but more than 90% of mutations always result in loss of genetic material, not in gaining of material.

A wolf can be bread into a poodle by removing/destroying its DNA but a poodle can't go back to a wolf. A poodle has lost most of its DNA that influences it and an only produce more poodles, but that same wolf can be bread into a great dane or a rotwielder - because it has a full set of DNA.

A mutation can cause you to survive a disease, but only by losing information from your genetic makeup. Then another disease can come along and wipe you and your offspring out because the DNA that was lost is now needed again.

Did God create poodles? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?loadpage=cs.html&url=http%3A//www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/poodles.asp&qt=poodle&col=&n=1)

Did God create bacteria and bacterial resistance? (http://familydoctor.org/680.xml#3)

Nothing exists without the Creators intent for it to exist. Even evolution. Different things cause evolution. We have caused species to evolve. Its called genitic engenering.

the human being is still evolving!
:rip:

Most of what is being talked about here are small mutations and adaptations which do not "change" a dog into a cat or something else. The dog remains a member of the K-9 family.

The dramatic changes, (i.e. the whale) that moves a creature from a four legged land animal to a free swim ocean animal are something else. These are called Transitional Forms http://www.origins.tv/darwin/landtosea.htm Check this out. It shows that creatures can, and have evolved from one thing to another. All the transitionals of the whale have been found.

Those who believe in Creation like to tell us that there are no Transitional forms but there are many of them http://www.cesame-nm.org/Viewpoint/contributions/MACPHE2.html These alone are proof that Evolution is more that a theory.

the human being is still evolving!
:rip:

In some cases!!! :rolleyes: But as I look at some of my fellow beings I have the feeling that some are de-evolving!

There are a handful of so called 'transitional forms' and many have been offered and rejected, some were even frauds.

As you suggest CG everything is still producing after its own kind, there are many species but they all come from a higher class.

There are many types of chameleons but all can be traced back to 2 distinct monera. That means there were most likely only 2 original chameleons.

Darwin observed a bunch of finches(birds) that showed many adaptations over a period of time and came up with evolution. They were all still different species of finches. They didn't turn into any other animal. They even have horseshoe crabs that are thousands of years old and are exactly the same as the newest specimens.(guess evolutionskipped them)

If they really had valid proof, it should be in the thousands of specimens not a handful of unconvincing specimens.

In my opinion evolution does not occur, just mutations that give rise to new species, but they are all still from the same ancestors - nothing new is ever produced.

I read one excerpt where they were showcasing fruit flies with 7 legs and saying it is proof of evolution. First the extra leg was induced by an intellient force(scientist), 2nd the ability 2 grow a leg was always something a fruit fly could do, they just induced it to grow an extra leg. There was no new information, they were acting on existing information, further a fruitfly with an extra leg would be disadvantaged.

Another experiment they induced chickens to grow scales on its back! Chickens produce scales and feathers on their legs, making them produce them where they don't normally grow does not constitute evolution. They always had the ability, and they are still chickens. DOn't we have humans with extra appendages? Is that evolution in action or a mutation gone wrong?

There are a handful of so called 'transitional forms' and many have been offered and rejected, some were even frauds.
If you read the article, you would have seen that here are many transitional form.

As you suggest CG everything is still producing after its own kind, there are many species but they all come from a higher class.
This is the norm.

There are many types of chameleons but all can be traced back to 2 distinct monera. That means there were most likely only 2 original chameleons.
Who evolved from something else.

Darwin observed a bunch of finches(birds) that showed many adaptations over a period of time and came up with evolution.
Well, there is a bit more to it than that!

They were all still different species of finches. They didn't turn into any other animal.
No, they did not. But Darwin showed that "creation" was not fixed as it was once believed.

They even have horseshoe crabs that are thousands of years old and are exactly the same as the newest specimens.(guess evolutionskipped them)
As it skipped the cockroach!

If they really had valid proof, it should be in the thousands of specimens not a handful of unconvincing specimens.
It is in many species, the horse, the whale, birds, even man himself! I don't see that as unconvincing.

In my opinion evolution does not occur, just mutations that give rise to new species, but they are all still from the same ancestors - nothing new is ever produced.
That is a great modern concession for Christianity. At one time it was believed that everything bred true. After all God said "it was good!" If it was good why change? Now it is admitted that species change. Christendom is making slow progress. When I was a boy, the Church said there was no such thing as Dinosaurs. Now they admit that there were such things - they just missed the Ark?

I read one excerpt where they were showcasing fruit flies with 7 legs and saying it is proof of evolution.
Agreed! No proof at all.

First the extra leg was induced by an intellient force(scientist), 2nd the ability 2 grow a leg was always something a fruit fly could do, they just induced it to grow an extra leg. There was no new information, they were acting on existing information, further a fruitfly with an extra leg would be disadvantaged.
True.

Another experiment they induced chickens to grow scales on its back! Chickens produce scales and feathers on their legs, making them produce them where they don't normally grow does not constitute evolution.
As birds evolved from reptiles a throwback to reptilian scales is not impossible.

They always had the ability, and they are still chickens. DOn't we have humans with extra appendages? Is that evolution in action or a mutation gone wrong?
Could be both! Sometimes these mutations are useful, mostly not. Nature is a very wasteful thing. Many more things are born that can survive and in the end everything ends up as food for something else, mutations or not.

I can understand the reluctance of the Christian community to accept Evolution. In their minds if Evolution is true, the Bible is not. If man, the great Apes, and monkeys all descended from a common ancestor, what happens to the Garden Story? If we are no more than a highly evolved primate (which we are) that throws God out the window - or so believes many in Christendom. But the truth is, we do not know the reasons God had for using Evolution to bring the world of creatures into being. Maybe that was the only way it could be done. But if the Church can't come to terms with Evolution it will not survive.