Quote:
Quote by: Simonius  I said true empirical science, as in that which you test in a laboratory.
Well I would argue that Evolution is a conclusion that is not inconsistent with the evidence, and that the same is true of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The fossil record for instance is not inconsistent with the idea that evolution occured, it does not prove it. It is not the only conclusion that can be drawn, I am not even sure that it is the most logical conclusion. The fossil record is equally not inconsistent with creationism, nor intelligent design. Indeed it shows that at certain points in history life burst forth in abundance in a relatively short space of time, and it offers no opinion as to whether or not an entity sat down and designed us.
Aaah... allow me to explain, what I really meant was that evolution as in the development of all life on earth from amino acids, the development of aquatic creaures to land dwellers, the development of humanity from ultimately a small rodent like ancestor etc etc can not be test in a laboratory. Creationists except that micro-evolution, small changes within a species can occur and that these can be observed, what they claim is that the sum of these micro-evolutionary changes can not change one species into another species. And that claim can't be verified in a lab, there exists other evidence either way but not laboratory evidence. |
And the mating of one speicies with a different speices does not work and cannot produce a brand new speicies. And with mating as a method then how else can one speicies evolved from a older speicies?
What would really change cold blooded frogs into some warm fuzzy little animal, etc. None the less we have a geological record which indicates that certain kind of spiecies exsisted before later types of animals. Prehistoric ants have not changed much, but the sudden appearance of many kinds of warm blooded animals and birds following years and years where the earth was more or less dominated by liziards, salamanders, insects, frogs, and marine life would suggest that the latter evolved form the former. Does the fosil record confirm this however, with in-between samples of the drastic transformation? We can suggest climate changes and comet attacks but how can weather effect evolutionary changes, has that idea been lab tested?
For example: The bears can live in all kinds of climates. As do many of our different kinds of dogs. But they are still bears no matter where they live, even if some have white hair instead of brown hair, etc.
What exactly causes evolution from one speices into another speicies and how was that lab tested?
None the less, any attempt to prove that evolution is wrong does not make creationism the only other right answer. Or visa versa. Especially if the "wrong" is simply a lack of evidence at some point.
Which is the most apparent and most likely to be proven.
1 - that environment shaped the animal to fit that surrounding.
2 - that the animal was shaped to play a role in that environment and ecosystem.
3 - which of those two is most likely to be random selecton and which would be most likely to be creative organization to maintain balance.