Quote:
Originally posted by sacX
Don't tell me what an evolutionary scientist would say (unless you are one)..
What you say there is what pretty much any scientist would say about any theory.
First you say flat out evolution is a tentative theory, but you've pretty much conceeded microevolution by accepting natural selection and mutation.
Now you're saying high organisation hasn't been proven, you're talking about macroevolution. That is pretty much impossible to prove in a lab, considering it took 4 billion years to occur.
Extrapolating from microevolution, and circumstantial evidence such as fossil records it's hardly a stretch, and it is widely accepted by the scientific community.
|
I can tell you what they would say. They'll tell you the same thing. Ask one.
I haven't conceded anything. I've said that we've observed mutations. I've also said that we've observed what we think are examples of natural selection in isolation. Unfortunately since life is myriad and fluid, it's difficult to always know if what we've observed is an example of natural selection or not. But undoubtedly, I'm sure it does occur....it must.
Natural selection and mutations of single cells is one thing. Evoution which proposes we derived from this process is another thing. You combine natural selection and bacteria mutations and call it microevolution. That's your preogative and it's like calling a freedom fighter a terrorist. Depending on your persepctive you'll see it one way or the other. You wish to believe this is a form of evolution. I certainly don't. And if it is, you are still forced to make the jump to say that it leads to what you called macro evolution. You've demonstrated "micro evolution," but not macro evolution. Therefore one can choose to believe macro evolution exists or doesn't exist. Either way, it's a belief.