4 ms·
No, but we have found millions of fossils in the ground from different time periods, and it looks an awful lot like different species slowly changed over time (
by justinpombrio 13y ago
No, but we have found millions of fossils in the ground from different time periods, and it looks an awful lot like different species slowly changed over time (and occasionally branched off or went extinct). If this weren't the case, scientists wouldn't believe in macroevolution either.
- boneheadmed 13y agoThe appearance of things does not make it so. Automobiles appear to be evolved from earlier forms. And they have in sense: in the minds of their creators. So too, animal and plant species appear to be directly related to other prior species populations. But the connection is only in the mind of the Creator.
- justinpombrio 13y agoWhy then did the Creator seem to largely "start over" after large extinction events? Surely he didn't forget what he knew simply because an asteroid hit the Earth. Now that you have put forward a theory, the proper thing to do is evaluate its usefulness. The most useful theories are easily falsifiable: it is easy to imagine scenarios in which they fail. For instance, if any of the planets followed a square orbit, Kepler's laws of planetary motion would be pretty much kaput. Under what situation would you consider it clear that our planet's species' evolution did not follow the mind of the Creator?
- sandman223 13y agoAt this point, the molecular/genetic evidence for common descent is pretty unassailable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
- boneheadmed 13y agoExamining the Earth, stars including the sun, living organisms and all that there is in front of us, makes it plainly known that there is a Creator.
- justinpombrio 13y agoA large portion of the population would kindly disagree :-)
- ghsalazar 13y agoAgain, bring your reproducible facts. You're speaking out of faith. The test of knowledge is the experiment (Feynman), and yes you can prove evolution through experiments.
- bankIsSketch 13y agoThe thing is - there ARE plenty of scientists who disagree; they are just shunned by the rest of the academic circle-jerk for not following the wagon. So you, as a potentially scientifically-literate individual, are the victim of journal bias. Evolution is a _theory_ that is heavily debated- the cambrian explosion is one such debate that specifically has evidence against what your comment is. Too lazy to read? Watch the docu "Darwin's Dilemma"
- justinpombrio 13y agoYeah, those academics, especially the tenured ones, just hate to say anything out of line. You emphasize _theory_ as if there was some alternative it could graduate to once it were "accepted". Scientific explanations of the world, no matter how widely accepted, are called theories. Here is the response to that film by of a Paleontologist who has studied the Cambrian explosion for the past 45 years: https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/a-paleobiologists-response-to-darwins-dilemma/ https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/02/13/a-paleob... (Apologies that his response makes me hesitant to take the time to watch it.)
- DanBC 13y agoGravity is a _theory_.
- Tichy 13y agoScience isn't democracy, things are not true or untrue depending on how many people beliieve them. You can't vote gravity away, for example.
- bankIsSketch 13y agoJournal bias circle-jerking can 'vote' science away. Watch this TED talk about how journal bias is destroying the SCIENCE of medicine (Doctors don't know about the Drugs They Prescribe): http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe.html http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_kno...