The existence of gaps or shortcomings in a theory do not show that the theory itself is wrong. True - you can't use the fossil record to *prove* the Theory of Evolution. However, nothing will ever prove the Theory of Evolution (or any other scientific theory).

You don't prove theories in science. You can either *disprove* them, or fail to disprove them. There is no way to ever prove them.

Darwin painstakingly took many hundreds of thousands of examples of animals and plants, examined their structures, similarities, and differences, and constructed a theory to account for these facts. He imagined evolution to be a slow, gradual series of minute changes that, over billions of years, resulted in life as we now know it. His original theory has now been shown to be somewhat incorrect.

The changes are not gradual. Currently the theory is that evolution progresses along a course of "punctuated equilibrium", meaning living things remain essentially static for long periods of time, until there is some sort of massive change to the environment. At that time, many species die out, and others arise. The changes are not gradual, but sudden.

There are many reasons why the fossil record may not show some intermediate states in evolution. One possible reason, as the OP points out, is that evolution simply doesn't take place. Although the record does, in fact, show many intermediate changes in species, it also fails to show some important ones.

Another reason could simply be that, compared to the static periods, the periods of change are brief. You've got millions of years of little change, with perhaps only centuries, even decades, of sudden, massive upheavals. You just aren't going to see many fossils from a period of only a few hundred years, no matter what they might be doing during that time. To put it into perspective, if a certain million-year era produced 10 feet of rock (I think that's an extreme), a thousand years would give you only about an eigth of an inch of fossils. Most of the action is taking place in that fraction of an inch, though. Mostly what you get is the "before" and "after" pictures, without much of the "during".

I don't see any conspiracy with evolution. I see a fossil record that seems to support - or at least, not refute - a theory that species can change. In fact, I see more recent work that shows that species *do* change. Just as natural selection can drive evolution, so can "unnatural selection", humans breeding animals for various traits. Look at dogs. They descend from the wolf, yet you've got the chihuahua (the existence of the chihuahua is proof that there is no God, but I digress).

Maybe the Theory of Evolution is wrong. Some new discoveries - or reinterpretations of older discoveries - may result in science abandoning this theory. But so far it fits more of the facts than anything else around. It's not perfect, and it might not even be right, but it's the best we've got for now.

Originally posted by chiron613


I don't see any conspiracy with evolution. I see a fossil record that seems to support - or at least, not refute - a theory that species can change. In fact, I see more recent work that shows that species *do* change. Just as natural selection can drive evolution, so can "unnatural selection", humans breeding animals for various traits. Look at dogs. They descend from the wolf, yet you've got the chihuahua (the existence of the chihuahua is proof that there is no God, but I digress).

Nice, you made a better job of explaining how the theory works than i do. star for that. However, the main reason I am replying to you is that I found your above statement interesting. How does the existence of the chihuahua serve as proof that there is no god?
I never heard that one before.

carbon dating sucketh.


according to their own data, all geological strata have already been pre-dated and named. when a dig takes place, the strata are identified and the appropriate dates assumed. as a result, no new dates are collected with carbon-dating unless the artifact or fossil is important enough to do so. if the item visually does not appear to belong to the already pre-dated layer, it is tossed out as contamination. the reason given is because they can't afford to date each item retrieved in a dig, and there's no reason to date something that obviously is out of place in the pre-dated strata. it is clearly then contamination and is removed from consideration.


with that process, how can you ever arrive at any answer other than the one you want?

convenient!

Originally posted by newworld
Nice, you made a better job of explaining how the theory works than i do. star for that. However, the main reason I am replying to you is that I found your above statement interesting. How does the existence of the chihuahua serve as proof that there is no god?
I never heard that one before.

Small dogs exist as a result of domestication and selective breeding of dogs at the direction of humans. Before people, nature selected the best traits because those who lived to reproduce had their genes passed onto the next generation. The existence of a small dog that came as a result of selective breeding doesn't mean that nature could not have produced something similar on its own. Many small mammals have thrived both in the past and today. A smaller animal needs to eat much less and can hide from predators much easier. Also, larger predators probably wouldn't even bother going after something so small.

God doesn't exist because there is no evidence that he exists - period. Religion is a group of people with a preconceived notion who spend their lives building evidence to support that conclusion. Science is about spending your life observing and experimenting and only then SUGGESTING a conclusion and inviting others to disprove it. That is the difference.

Science is why we have longer lives, how we feed billions everyday, how we communicate across the world, explore space, but it has also brought about devastating weapons of war. Science is a neutral tool - it is man that defines its nature as good or evil because good and evil are human inventions.

A man chooses to do good or evil based on his own values and his own will. A Bible isn't necessary to inform man that killing, raping, and stealing is wrong. If the idea of God was a sufficient motivator or enforcer, we would not need government, police, laws, courts, or prisons. These 'earthly' institutions only exist because people DONT believe in eternal justice in heaven and hell. They know that human suffering on this planet, here and now matters! They know that justice here and now in this world matters.

When evil men wish to do evil things, they use religion as a justification because they are going against inherent human morality. All of us are not good people but I know that most of us are. A good man doesn't need God to tell him he's good and reward him for being good. A good man acts on his own because he knows what's right.

Religion is just another label to divide and separate us, to inspire fear and hatred of your fellow man. You don't need it to have a purpose in life. Define your own purpose.

[edit on 4-10-2009 by andrewh7]