{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
3/10/2015 3:16:28 AM
57
The fossil record is not adequate evidence and that's pretty much the only thing in the way of proof the theory has to back it up. Its called skepticism and its the only way we ever really find out if something is true or not especially when it comes to deductive arguments.
Anybody that puts their blind faith into a theory without looking at the evidence thus conforming to scientific orthodox deserves a Darwin Award.
English
-
No I'm right. The evidence for it is not irrefutable and until it is then the theory should not be considered a fact.
-
Direct observation is not irrefutable?
-
There is no direct observation
-
Yes there is.
-
http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/irwin.html
-
This only proves that species can adapt. Evolutionary theory is a lot more in depth than a simple statement that species can adapt. None of this proves that the complexity of the species increases with each adaptation which is a fundamental element to how the theory explains life arising from non-life.
-
1) The article explains speciation, which is the formation of a species from another species, or what you would call "macroevolution". 2) Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it require an organism to evolve into a more complex organism, only one that is better suited to its environment. 3) The theory of evolution has nothing to say on the origin of life
