All of what you say is reasonable. You say, for instance:
"- The canonical genetic code is consistent with the theory of
common descent."
Bertvan:
True, but that is different than an assertion that the existence of a line of
common descent has been documented.
And
"- Patterns of differences in sequences of proteins and heritable
information support the idea that these differences have accrued
since the time of a last common ancestor."
Bertvan:
Again, true, but this is hardly the dogmatic assertion that "random mutation
and natural selection" is responsible for macro evolution, and school
children should be told that no other explanation is to be considered. I
gather you favor the idea of one common ancestor. Some people, even
Darwinists, have suggested more than one common ancestor. 3? 10? 100?
1000? If the number gets too big it might resemble special creation.
And
"- Evolutionary interrelationships have been used to advantage
in medical research."
Bertvan:
Are you saying medical breakthroughs have occurred which depended upon
"natural selection" being responsible for macro evolution?-or depended upon
the existence of one common ancestor?
And
"- Species have been observed to form, both in the laboratory
and in the wild."
Bertvan:
Some people question that speciation was what critics mean by macro
evolution.
And
- A novel symbiotic association has been observed in the
laboratory.
Bertvan:
What has symbiotic association to do with "random mutation and natural
selection"? I have no objection to Darwinists listing evidence which
"supports" common descent and "random mutation and natural selection". I
acknowledge that evidence. As a non-scientist, I am put off by the way
Darwinists claim the matter is closed, and attack anyone expressing
skepticism.
Bertvan