Macro Evolution Epihpanypy.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Which?



Quote:

Quote:
3. The line does not extend back 7 million years. At some point a human woman appeared who had no mother.



Dat de one.


[/ QUOTE ]

You can discredit the Bible by showing something it claims is definitely wrong. This can be done with the Book of Mormon and the Koran. Or, you could weaken the claim severely by proving human evolution. Then again, your claim is irrefutable since you require no evidence.

[/ QUOTE ]

NR, you still seem to be ignoring that science is basically a process of successive approximation. Each new approximation tries to better explain observations as the predictions of a theorized framework.

Of course there is sometimes fuzziness in the empirical details of a theory---evolution has plenty of such fuzziness waiting to be clarified. But even our fuzzy understanding of evolutionary mechanisms has allowed for a stunning range of empirical predictions which by and large have been stunningly accurate.

This is the nature of science; uncertainty prevails everywhere data or imagination are lacking. But still evolution is the best (indeed, only) scientific explanation of biodiversity. It does not require faith to believe it as such.

Are you familiar with Ken Miller? Here is an hour-ish talk he gave on how ID masquerades as science.

[Jetboy2]

[ QUOTE ]

That's a beautiful theory. Too bad the facts get in the way so badly. If it happened like you say there should be many, many fossils that are mostly similar but with notable differences.


[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Apparently, you do not understand fossils. Fossilization does not automatically occur. Dead organisms typically disappear through decomposition. So, why would one expect a perfect fossil record?