The question hanging in the air is why the theory of evolution is able to make such accurate predictions about new fossil finds if the theory is wrong. There is also the question of what other falsifiable explanation is able to make these kinds of predictions.
The theory of evolution predicted that there were species with a mixture of ape and human features. We found them. The theory predicted that there were species with a mixture of bird and dinosaur features. We found them. The theory predicts that there were never any species with a mixture of mammal and bird features. We never find those fossils. So why is this? Why does the fossil record look like this?
Has it been proven âbeyond a reasonable doubtâ that the (alleged) evolution of tetrapods from fish, for example, was the result of a natural process? I donât think so.
I find it fascinating that scientific community generally accepts that itâs a fact that the history of life on earth is the result of neo-Darwinian evolution, while it canât so much as prove that that history is the result of a natural process.
The fossil record tells us that different life-forms have appeared on earth at various points on time. The fossil record doesnât even tell us what happened, let alone how it happened.
Why would you propose that what we see happening around us is not the same as what has been happening all along? Everything we observe is happening via natural processes, so the burden of proof should be on the claim that anything has ever been otherwise.
Name one (alleged) evolutionary transition in the fossil record that you can prove was the result of a natural process.
Iâm not disputing that evolution has occurred. My argument is that the âprocessâ that was responsible for evolution cannot be known. Evolution cannot be proven to be the result of a natural process any more than it can be proven to be the result of divine creation.
I find it fascinating how people who havenât studied evolution can be so confident that people who have studied evolution - and even make a living from it - have never thought about such things.
Itâs also fascinating that people can be unaware that there might be things they donât know that they donât know.
Hint: you canât prove anything other than mathematical theorems (and even that requires assumptions). Especially if the possibility of supernatural interference has to be taken into account. You can only show that the evidence is not inconsistent with the theory.
The scientific community generally accepts that itâs a fact that the history of life on earth is the result of neo-Darwinian evolution because decades of evidence that could have disproven evolution hasnât done so, and the theory has been used to predict a great many thing that have later been confirmed, from the nature and location of fossil finds to the details of genome structures.
Did the theory of evolution predict that the ancestors of vertebrates would be non-vertebrates?
Did the theory of evolution predict that the ancestors of organisms that reproduce sexually (male and female) would be organisms that reproduce asexually?
Since youâve responded to me saying nothing about evolution can be proven by asking me what I can prove, youâre clearly not bothering to read my posts and itâs a waste of time trying to assist you.