This is a response to a misleading article and here's why.



Untestable evidence:



Testable scientific research does indeed exist. From various experiments ranging from bacteria, guppies, fruit flies and various plants, there is a wealth of scientific work done and being done with regards to evolution that are repeatable and testable. Your statement is completely and utterly false.



With regards to your specific example of the e.coli experiment, you clearly state that you expect the e.coli to have evolved into mushrooms. I agree completely with you, this did not happen and in most probability will never happen. And here is why.



Firstly, evolution doesn't work that way. If you understood evolution, you would understand that it does not allow for such a change. The only thing that would change e.coli into mushrooms that resides within human frame of reference is magic...or miracles....depending on what you want to call it. For basic, single celled organisms to evolve into multi celled organisms would take various mutations happening. For the right combination of these mutations to happen, it would take a certain amount of luck...we only know of it happening once since life began on this planet. So for the bacteria to evolve into mushrooms...eish, it doesn't quite work like that no matter how much you want it to.



Ara-03 evolved into a new species of BACTERIA (a life form family such as mamalia)...no longer being able to be classified as an e-coli strain. This is well in line with evolution theory. If you want it to change into a COMPLEX organism, be prepared to wait. The Cambrian explosion only occurred several hundred million years AFTER the development of bacteria. I know I know...here comes the time excuse...but it is not an excuse, but rather forms an integral part of evolution theory. Just because you cannot accept that part and want it to happen within your lifetime wont make it miraculously happen. That is in fact a very childish point of view to have...just because it wont conform to what I want it to be it must be impossible. I sure know a few kids like that...



Common ancestor argument:



I rather like this argument that you have made. It completely goes against genetics and logic...but it is the first one that I have heard that even attempts to explain away the DNA evidence, which most creationists tend to ignore.



So let's, for the sake of argument accept that this argument holds water and see where this takes us.



1. God is a biological being, if god has DNA, which he passed on to us...then he must have a body of some sort. It would be impossible for him to be omnipresent as he will then be a physical being with shape and therefore occupy a specific part of the the universe. This also immediately disproves that god is all powerful as it would be impossible for him to be omnipresent. With these two limitations placed on him...should he then still be called god? I think not. This is starting to sound more and more like some sort of theory involving aliens.



2. With DNA being like it is, a complete road map of your entire ancestry, the piece that would be representing god would be identical in EVERY SINGLE LIVING ORGANISM ON EARTH, because he gave birth to every single organism on earth and because they didn't speciate at all (according to you), there is no room for other ancestral DNA that is not species bound. Therefore each and every piece of DNA that represent an inactive gene (the majority of your DNA) will be the same from one species to the next (as these genes come from your ancestors). This of course means that all work on DNA is completely wrong as all evidence refutes this completely and utterly. With this revelation that our DNA testing is faulty to such a large degree, we should inform all the justice departments in the world so that they can release all criminals that were convicted based on DNA evidence.



Your rationale that god is the common ancestor flies completely in the face of not only scientific evidence, but also all biblical "evidence".



Furthermore, this is an incredible claim to make, so please provide us with the evidence. (I assume you do have testable evidence...you know...like you so adamantly state evolution doesn't have.)



Atheists don't belong in science:



I do not understand why you make this statement as you back it up with only a rant...but you made it so I will address it.



From your statement I must assume that you blame evolution and other things that you do not like on atheist scientists...well, history does not support this little rant...and here is why.



One of the best known and most influential evolutionary biologists in history, David Lack, was a devout Christian up until the day that he died. His work influenced many current day biologists, including Lenski and Dawkins.



The Big Bang Theory was first proposed by Georges Memaitre...a Roman Catholic Priest.



Sewal Wright. Practicing Christian who was very well known for his highly influential work on Evolution.



Theodosius Dobzhansky was a Christian geneticist and evolutionary biologist (despite his name, he was American). He furthermore wrote a highly entertaining essay that was published criticizing creationists. It was name "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light Of Evolution".



Ronald Fisher. He was a British statistician, geneticist and evolutionary biologist. Richard Dawkins named him "the greatest biologist since Darwin". He also preached in the Church of England as a deeply devout Christian.



Charles Darwin was a Christian.



I can go on and on to show you how Christian scientists have actually influenced, worked on and keep working on things that you do not like them to be working on. Evolution, the big bang and all these things in science that you do no like is only possible due to religious scientists who contributed to their respective fields. So lay the blame for Evolution, BBT and whatever else you do not like at the feet of atheists all you want...but at least be honest enough to admit that religious scientists either came up with these things, worked on these things and keep working on these things. Without their help, our knowledge of Evolution, the BBT and the rest of the bodies of science would not even be close to where it is today.



