As far as I am concerned, 4.7 billion years constitutes ‘enough time’ for evolutionary processes to succeed, at least on earth. Darwin called it ‘natural selection’ which is a key component. Biologists agree that descent with modification is one of the most reliably established facts in science, but they are just scientists.
And don't forget "survival of the fittest" is thrown in there as well. In his first edition of his book, this time by the entire title: Origin of the Species by Means of Natural Selection or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, Darwin regarded "Natural selection" and "survival of the fittest" as different concepts. By the 6th edition of Origins of the Species, he thought they meant the same thing, but that "survival of the fittest" was more accurate. In a still later book, Descent of Man 1871, Darwin ultimately abandoned "natural selection" as a hopeless mechanism, and returned to Lamarckism.
Back to evolution..truth mixed with lies.
The truth part is "natural selection" but not at all in the Darwinian evolution sense because new, higher genetic information is not gained and thus no evolution change from one true species into another.
Evolution by "descent with modification" and "survival of the fittest" is the lies part...the Evolutionary kool-aid of Lamarck (1744-1829), Alfred Wallace (1823-1913), Darwin, and his modern followers, evolution teachers today that so many uncritically gulp down.
Wallace is considered the man who developed the theory which Darwin published. Wallace's theory is that species have changed in the past by which one species descended from another. In Feb. 1858, adding to descent with modification, he conceived the idea of "survival of the fittest" as being the method by which species change. But the concept proves nothing. The fittest? Which one is that? It's the one that survived longest. Which one survives longest? The fittest. This is reasoning in a circle. The phrase says nothing about evolutionary process much less being the mechanism or proving it.
Then in the 1900’s, genetics was applied to evolutionary theory and we started getting many answers that previously eluded us (beyond our technology at the time). There are numerous books written by the scientific intellectuals who deal with one aspect or another of the evolutionary process.
No, Genetics has no proofs for evolutionary theory becasue Genetics is science and ET is not science but pseudo science.
Sure analyses of DNA sequences in various species show similarities, but so what? That confirms the accuracy of taxonomy and not postulated evolutionary sequences say from fish to amphibians to reptiles to mammals. Molecular genetics confirms systematics, Linneaus not phylogeny of Darwin.
In truth, natural Sciences have failed to provide any evidence for Darwinian, neo-Darwinian or biological Evolution, whatever you will call it.
Ken Miller is a practicing Catholic scientist and had no problem proving human evolution.
Ken Miller has proven no such thing. Stop regurgitating the kool-aid. I'll concede such a thing as "Theistic Evolution" was developed where some foolish Christians tried to bolster ID theory and accommodate this unproved postulate of materialistic philosophies such as atheistic evolution theory is.
Much time and intellectual effort went in vain and along the way, school age children have been duped into believing they evolved from apes.