Holes in the theory of evolution

[IndependantAce]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

 

[BlackAsCoal]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

Because it's science.

There are FAR more irrefutable facts to be found in a science book then in the Bible.

 

[cnm]

Most of the evidence is inference

No, most of the evidence is evident.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First of all, you are not well informed about the theories of evolution.

Secondly, inference is a perfectly valid method in scientific study. Without it we would not have the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, or germ theory, just to name a few.

Lastly, the theories of evolution are explanations, descriptions, and predictive tools of hard data of the fact of evolution. Organisms evolve. No biologist thinks differently.

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

 

[Weatherman2020]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

The discoverer of the human genome started his work as an athiest.
He now says God did it.

When you look at the evidence of the inner workings of life with an open mind, only one possibility is possible.

Collins: Why this scientist believes in God - CNN.com

 

[The Irish Ram]

Black, That is absolutely incorrect. What science finds, God used to create. Einstein discovered a forth dimension, he didn't invent it.
Long before Hawking decided that there may be an infinite amount of dimensions, the Bible was describing their attributes. Why do you think that you won't find science in the Bible?

Evolution is taken as the truth because it was taught as the truth. Darwin was a crazy man who thought his dead daughter was following him around.< That fact they forgot to teach.
Had we known then what we know now, namely DNA, we would never had heard of Darwin. To create a new species, DNA (which is wired to self correct) would have to make a mistake and then repeat the exact same mistake, without making any other mistakes for millions of years. If that were the case we would literally be walking on all of the bones of all of the missing links. Simply because our make up is similar to another species no more makes us relatives, than a watermelon's make up means it used to be a jellyfish.

 

[IndependantAce]

Most of the evidence is inference

No, most of the evidence is evident.

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

There's far more physical evidence lacking as far than there is acquired; no one has physically observed a microscopic organism evolving into an ape or human over millions of years.

 

[IndependantAce]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

"Fact" just means it's considered fact by the scientific establishment, not absolute truth, and is therefore subject to change.

The Big Bang was at one point considered a "fringe theory" as well.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

So far no evidence of a talking snake has been found...........

 

[IndependantAce]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

First of all, you are not well informed about the theories of evolution.

Secondly, inference is a perfectly valid method in scientific study. Without it we would not have the theories of relativity, quantum mechanics, atomic theory, or germ theory, just to name a few.

Lastly, the theories of evolution are explanations, descriptions, and predictive tools of hard data of the fact of evolution. Organisms evolve. No biologist thinks differently.

Inferring small genetic changes between descendants of a species to mean that the entire diversity of life originated solely from natural selection is a huge inference.

 

[Ravi]

Viruses.

 

[rightwinger]

Most of the evidence is inference

No, most of the evidence is evident.

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

There's far more physical evidence lacking as far than there is acquired; no one has physically observed a microscopic organism evolving into an ape or human over millions of years.

We have observed fossil evidence from millions of years ago consisting of only single cell organisms and non complex creatures

There are no dinosaurs mixed in with that evidence. There are no human bones mixed in with that evidence. Only simple, noncomplex creatures. That evidence from that era is consistent anywhere on earth

So we can't watch evolution occur, but we can conclude there were no complex life forms in that period of time

 

[cnm]

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

And they are evident.

 

[cnm]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

There is evidence for evolution, there is a theory. There is no evidence for god, he she or it may be a hypothesis, if that.

 

[Sunni Man]

It takes far more "Faith" to believe in the Theory of Evolution than to believe in God and religion. .......

 

[rightwinger]

Evolution is a FACT

God is a theory

"Fact" just means it's considered fact by the scientific establishment, not absolute truth, and is therefore subject to change.

The Big Bang was at one point considered a "fringe theory" as well.

Evolution occurs. That is a fact supported by fossil, geologic, biological and DNA evidence

God is, at best, a theory
A theory supported by no credible scientific evidence

 

[guno]

Other than possibly small scale genetic changes observed by researchers, little if any hard, physical evidence exists for evolution on a global scale.

Most of the evidence is inference (ex. using assumptions to fill in the gaps); there isn't for example any physical evidence of apes evolving from microscopic organisms.

So why is the theory of evolution so often taken as absolute truth despite there being relatively little hard, physical evidence to support such as massive conclusion?

Scientific Theory Explained

 

[IndependantAce]

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

And they are evident.

Scientific theory is just observations subject to change. No one's obligated to believe something simply because it is in consensus with the scientific establishment.

Treating it as absolute truth is Scientism, not science; so who's the retard?

 

[rightwinger]

Not really; most of the actual physical evidence is simply fossil record, some transitional species, vestigal parts, etc - but these are only bits and pieces.

And they are evident.

Scientific theory is just observations subject to change. No one's obligated to believe something simply because it is in consensus with the scientific establishment.i

Treating it as absolute truth is Scientism, not science; so who's the retard?

It is the accumulation of observations that prove and disprove hypothesis.
It is part of the scientific method.