Evolution (Introduction)

by David Turell , Thursday, July 23, 2009, 02:38 (5601 days ago) @ xeno6696

It seems to me that your argument here again comes down to the necessity for evolution to be 'proven' true (a specious claim because natural science relies on evidence-based inference not proof) is a specimen from every generation or at least say, 1 every 1000 years. In the case of the whale, considering that we can geologically age the samples I think that shows fairly well that the process is slow. At least with whales. - 
Not only whales. The process is slow for all species, except the Cambrian Explosion. I don't know why the confusion. Evolution occurred. No doubt. It is the method evolution uses to advance to new species that I question. Small, even tiny steps or jumps. The evidence currently present does not allow us to make a decision. - - > > My answer to both paragraphs above is the same. There are fossil gaps, so we cannot answer the question of whether there are the tiny steps always or are there occasions for giant steps. I don't know. I can't answer that question from the evidence we have presented to us. We do not know if Darwin'as proposal in true or not. You want to believe in it with no evidence, just theory. I want evidence. Yesterday I presented a paper that defined three species of horned toad on good evidence: genetic, morphologic, and environmental. Fine paper. Good proof. That is all I am asking, and I admit that with the proper evidence Darwin will be proven correct. But not so far. - I don't know why the above paragraph is confusing. - 
> I think what you mean to be skeptical about is the specific means of evolution and not evolution itself. - That is exactly what I mean. I am making a fine point about the current state of evidence, not that evolution did not happen. In all my posts I have accepted that evolution happened. I have always questioned the method.