We passed the level of Darwinism almost 100 years ago. Where were you during that time?
Or do you also refer to mechanics as Newtonianism?
One fundamental cornerstone of evolutionary theory is genetics. With more and more genomes pouring in, so is the evidence for “emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms”.

I doubt you will find any living scientist today claiming that mutation and selection are sufficient – they are necessary. So is genetics, including epigenetics and population genetics.
Another necessary feature is degeneracy. It is hard to explain degeneracy without evolution.
There are a few more mechanisms which are important for evolution to work. They’re covered in most entry-level textbooks.
“Darwinism”? This is 2008 man and we have the internet. You have some catching up to do.

In the last 100 years or so, biology has developed entire disciplines providing plenty of evidence, not just one example. Any entry-level textbook should be sufficient for the average reader.

If you need one single particular example because actual education is such a waste of time, you may read the story about pax6 (or eyeless in Drosophila). However, of course one single example doesn’t cover all the evidence out there and you will easily find quite a number of things not explained by this single example (obviously). But you can find evidence for whatever else you’re missing in standard textbooks – or you can ask on blogs of journalists for the more layman explanations if that is more like your reading level.

Other than that, though, what is your alternative explanation? Magic man done it? Then my question is: how did he do it?

…Does Bishop Charlie Wagner believe in air? Why? Has he ever seen it?

*snort*

Charlie believes in lots of things that he’s never seen, including a steady-state universe, an eternal regression of life, preprogrammed genetic front-loading, and all sorts of other hoaxes.

Like all crackpots, he believes most in what he imagines to be true.

True.

It is this denial that has allowed darwinism to dishonor science and the scientific method for almost 150 years.

Charlie Wagner
http://www.charliewagner.com

Does he believe in denial?

“If it is important to someone in denial that fish not swim, then they can look you straight in the eye and tell you that fish don’t swim and believe it themselves. It is difficult to over-estimate the power this kind of denial has…

“One way of telling about this is when the idea is about an area that you are unwilling to research because you fear finding out you are wrong.”

http://blainn.com/abuse/denial.html

-Peace, Pteryxx

So basically you cannot address the question in a plausible or coherent way. Don’t feel bad. No “real scientists” that I’ve asked this question can either.

The notion that random mutation and natural selection can generate the highly organized structures, processes and systems found in living organisms is the greatest hoax in the history of science.

Irrelevant.

In other words, “no”.

Answer the question.

Sigh. What do you want? The science books describe the empirical evidence that you demand. If you need more detail, many of the papers are available for free download on the web. What, do you want a personal hand-held tour of every single laboratory, with the exact genetic sequences explained to you personally in the simplest language possible?

The ball is in your court…

No. Science has built up its consensus over the past few hundred years by having scientists who educated themselves in what was known up until that point. They then did their own work; they made the actual effort to find and describe additional evidence, which either confirmed and extended the existing knowledge, or sometimes, rarely, led to a new scientific paradigm.

But they always educated themselves first, and always bolstered their arguments with evidence.

The ball has always been in the court of the contrarians and denialists and crackpots to make their case from actual evidence.

If you can browse the web, you can read Carl’s Evolution, At the Water’s Edge, Parasite Rex, and now, Microcosm.

Have you read any of them?

Irrelevant.

Answer the question. The ball is in your court…

Provide empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible or credible nexus between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms

Charlie, I know that I, and possibly others, have tried to suggest that you open up the textbooks and read about evolution, cellular biology, genetics, biochemistry, and so on.

Have you ever done so?

If you can browse the web, you can read Carl’s Evolution, At the Water’s Edge, Parasite Rex, and now, Microcosm.

Have you read any of them?

If you really think that all of the scientists who have been researching biology and biochemistry and genetics and developmental biology and so on are all wrong, you need to familiarize yourself with all of their fields, and figure out how to actually falsify all of their findings scientifically — that is, provide evidence that something about biology that is widely understood to be correct, is in fact false, based upon something that you can show clearly and unambiguously.

He ignores them all, and has for many years.

There is one way to shut me up:

Answer the question!

Provide empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible or credible nexus between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms

No one has yet answered this challenge so I slog on….

Charlie Wagner

He ignores them all, and has for many years.

The operative term is “the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms”

Changes in fur color do not meet this criterea.

I’d never buy such a thing; but if I did, I’d call it Ben…

The problem is not evolution, it is darwinism.

Only a fool would deny evolution.

Only a greater fool would embrace darwinism as the mechanism.

There is not one shred of empirical evidence, either observational or experimental, that establishes a plausible or credible nexus between random mutation and natural selection and the emergence of the highly organized structures, processes and systems that exist in bacteria and other living organisms

Take a car. Remove the radio, the air conditioning and the seat heaters and it still gets you to work. These things weren’t in the original designs. They were added later. You could say that the car’s design evolved. But you can also remove the spare tire, half the oil, half the gas. It will still get you to work. Cars are designed with redundancy and overcapacity for reliability.

I have a pair of headphones. It has a male/female connector set in the middle of the cord. If you connect it to your computer and stand up, instead of breaking the connector pops free. So, you then have a length of cord, and a headphone. Are these bits of any value on their own? Well, the connectors are standard mini jacks. So the headphone part still works as a headphone. The remaining cord is long enough to reach my shirt pocket, so is convenient with an mp3 player.

But how about the cord? Well, i have a shirt pocket sized computer, a Nokia N800. It has speakers, a headphone jack, and a built in FM radio. It turns out that you can play the FM radio, but you need an antenna. The unit is designed to use the cord of your headphones for this. You don’t need the headphones, per se. Just the cord works fine. So the cord without the headphones can be used to play FM radio over the N800′s speakers.

And that’s the way things are designed by humans. Irreducible complexity is uncommon, and often undesirable. Especially when there is little environmental pressure to reduce the design to the absolute minimum. Of course, organisms often have such pressure, so minimalist designs pop up in nature with reasonable frequency, though not always.

Other examples are easy to spot. Does your house have more than one bathroom? More than one door to the outside?