Web Search powered by Yahoo! SEARCH
Bill, you are confusing science with history. The scientific evidence validating evolution is vast: the ubiquity of the genetic code, meiosis, mitosis, all the shared features among cells, whether primitive cells without a nucleus, nucleated cells, plant, mold, insect or mammal cells, they all translate ribosome sequences into proteins exactly the same way. We are all related.
Evolution is not a tautology, but an inequality, just like entropy, from which Prigogine mathematically derived evolutionary equations to earn his Nobel prize.
How humans evolved, how the first cell evolved, how life crawled from the seas, these are all historical questions, and evolution is a tool used to comprehend historical data. Evolution is not obligated to explain any of the things you demand of it.
Paleontology is dependent on what evidence fossilizes, but evolution is not. They are different fields, and evolution is a present-day process that is validated by chemistry, physics and mathematics, not by luck digging through Earth's rot. The greatest insights into how the first cell operated are coming from organic chemistry, not from fossil evidence.
Our understanding of how cells evolved has advanced significantly since men were zapping beakers with electricity hoping to get a spontaneous protein, and the contours of primate evolution fill with evidence with each passing year. Turning a blind eye to this evidence will not make it disappear.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Username * Don't have an account? Sign up for a new account
Password * Can't remember? Reset your password
Comments can be shared on
Add both options by connecting your profiles.