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