Originally posted by Sabre
So, the first flying animal was born with fully functional wings?
Its an observed fact, that species charasteristics change over long perioids of time when there is selection pressure. Genes make up our physical properties and fittest properties tend to survive compared to others. Do you see something problematic with this theory, ie. are certain physical features left unchanged no matter the pressure to change them? Simply, are arms unable to transform to better and better airbrakes when there is enough time and need for them?
Forget the fossils, if there were no fossils at all, evolution theory would still be the best around to explain the biodiversity.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html"The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. By 1898, the 95% of the moths in Manchester and other highly industrialized areas were of the dark type. Their frequency was less in rural areas. The moth population changed from mostly light colored moths to mostly dark colored moths. "
As an example, the formation of eyes over millenia, which began only as a light-sensitive spot on the skin?
Is there something special about the eyes, arent they generated by the same DNA coding that changes from human to human, to adapt its surroundings? If man was furred short time ago, why eyes could not have been just light sensitive single spots on skin, billion years ago?
This is exactly the point I was making about how things presented as facts in the past have been proven wrong as time goes by, but are never acknowedged to have been proven false.
So, evolution has been proven false, or atleast you suggest that evolution did not happen in some particular time but new species appeared some other way?
And here you admit that the data is incomplete
How could it be complete? If we would find fish with wings? No, then we would need data about transition species of fish and fish with wings, and so on.
and subject to interpretation,
As the very basic theories, like theory of gravity is open to interpretation. This is the one basic thing that makes the difference between religion and science, no taboos, no stone written facts.
i.e. not adequately proven.
This is false. Because there is nothing even remotely as consistent as evolution theory, it remains as the best explanation how we appeared on this cooled magma ball.
evolution is but one possible explanation for the existance of complex life on this planet
Point is, what explanation has most scientific data to back it up? Some things require more assumptions than others. Its pure fact that ie. flood theory requires that mathematical energy calculations are left away from it, so earth would not transform to magma ball when earths crust gets flatten in 100 year timespan. There are observed things that explain why some fossils can have reversed chronological "depth" order (id like to read more about the reversed layer order on the same fossil). There are no observed events nor theoretical events in our current knowledge of physics, that support the second runner up, flood theory.
