What I would be interested in hearing from NImble Duck et al is some detail on what (if anything) he does agree with and what he doesn't.
ND: You asked, so I will answer.
I've seen very little serious and specific counter-arguments to any of Cofty's posts.
ND: I have NOT tried to prove anything, so the oness is not on me to provide specific arguments. I have merely pointed out the gaping holes in the evolutionist position. I have merely asked for answers to the big questions. I have pointed out that evolutionists DO NOT follow the scientific method. They have no experiments, never mind repeatable ones, that provide a resultant in favor of evolution. They always say "soon we will have it" and state the unproven as fact. I have merely, and correctly objected to this unscientific nonsense.
Does Duck agree with the concept that an animal may adapt and evolve?
ND: This is a non sequiter. "Adapt" and "evolve" are completely different things. "Adapt" is to change within a set of defined parameters. "Evolve" is to develop entirely new parameters. To put these two entirely different things together is to confuse the issue.
Does he accept any evidence of evolution being observed?
ND. LOL what evidence?
Does he consider all gene mutations to be unable to produce positive and sustainable change?
ND: Where is the scientific proof that a gene mutation was ever beneficial?
Cofty has been clear that he considers the statement that "all living things descended from a common ancestor" is a fact. He has presented numerous lines of argument to back that up.
ND: Now, this one baffles me. This is a JW forum. Supposedly, everyone here comes from a Bible background. The Genesis account, that we all learned, speaks of all mankind coming from a common ancestor, Adam. It's a foregone conclusion that it is accepted in the Bible Belt that we all descend from a common ancestor. How you have made this an issue, and made it supposed proof of evolution is breathtaking.
Please write better stuff.