| Final-Fan said: I think it's a serious mistake to claim it's "illogical" to consider something proven even if you didn't personally witness it. The evidence for evolution is so massively strong it's unreasonable IMO to not conclude that it or a mechanism extremely similar is occurring. When you say that even if we observed dogs evolve into a separate species, we STILL couldn't safely say that non-dogs could also evolve into a separate species or even that dogs could evolve into a different separate species. That strikes me as being hyperconservative to the point of silliness. It seems to me that I might just as well say that I don't know that all the other cars on the streets aren't driven automatically, and the drivers are just playing with the steering wheel, with the exceptions of all the cars I've ever been in. At any rate, when you ask for "clearer evidence" that seems disingenuous to me, as it appears to me that by your standard no amount of evidence would ever be enough. "As for life coming from non-life", evolution is not concerned with that question, as it obviously only covers the evolution of life once it did exist. Although if we can trace life back far enough to the simplest forms, that probably gives a pretty strong hint as to what it was and how it might have come to be. But most of all, I really wonder why you think ID even rates a "maybe". It's just such a terrible idea, not even really a scientific theory. I can only guess that you are as reluctant to consider it wrong as you are to consider evolution right (which is to say, incredibly). I've been having a (very) protracted debate on whether we can really "know" much of anything at all, but assuming that we believe the world around us exists more or less as we perceive it, I don't see any way evolution (or something extremely similar) might not be true. Welcome to the forums.  |
Not checking your check, I think that you assume that I cut and pasted a lot of this but I did not. I gathered most of this together, while trying to research the websites that Highwaystar gave to me. He seemed to be needing a quick response so I dumped as much as I had down-
More than likely the partial quote that I used was used in conjunction with the brief description I gave of Darwin’s explanation for the evolution of the human eye. I apologize if I misrepresented the intention of the author, who used it before me, with that one statement but since I included within the entirety of my comment the explanation of the Darwin’s evolutionary theory for the eye, I do not think that I too horribly represented the ideas of Darwin.
I think though I am not sure (talking off the top of my head) Darwin was discussing the problems with complex organs that quote if from a section in his book. Behe later, through microbiology showed, that the eye can not be explained in step by step fashion.
