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.
|
It is actually a giant leap from microevolution to macroevolution and based upon little more than an inferred assumption. In other words it requires "belief" based upon little (if any) evidence...much the same as it requires "belief" in the concept of a creator...based upon little (if any) evidence.
I always go back one step further. In order for microevolution to lead to macroevolution there had to be an origin of life and to the best of my knowledge there are only two lines of thinking as to the origin of life and that is either abiogenesis or a creator. Since there is little evidence to support either concept "belief" is the only basis for supporting one concept over the other.