Hi venetian.
I take your point regarding the gaps in the fossil records, but it would be surprising indeed if there were no gaps. It's a wonder any living thing manages to become fossilized at all. The odds against fossilization are truly incredible.
But lets look at some quite robust records: the Burgess Shale. Half a billion years old and packed with fossils of middle Cambrian life, all beautifully preserved.
We can however look at a rather more modern example, the evolution of the horse from Hyracotherium to what we lose money on in the grand national. We have the fossil records, all fifty million years worth. It's all there, every step of the way.
The only comeback the creationists have is, (and I know you aren't one) they were planted by Satan. That answer does not cut the mustard, it's not an answer at all, it's a cop out.
As for otherworldly intervention. I'm quite taken with the idea of panspermia, or cosmic ancestry. The glaring problem with the hypothesis is: how can life survive the blazing hot plunge through our atmosphere? Nonetheless, some interesting comments here.
I think evolution is a fact to a certain degree. But I also think that species can make an evolutionary leap quickly as the environment changes, by deep conscious intent. May be this explains missing links. Species that don't/cannot change die out.
RP
Hi Pixie.
I think evolution is a fact to a certain degree.
Pixie, that statement invites the obvious question, to what degree is it not a fact? Either evolution is a fact or it isn't, we can't have it both ways. If you feel there was another influence then could you explain what that influence is. As for deep conscious intent. I'm afraid you've lost me here. Can you expand on this?
Missing links? There are no missing links. This is an oft repeated canard. I'm not accusing you of fabricating it, but it's an easy one to quote without realizing it's a falsehood.
It's worth repeating: there-are-no-missing-links!
Species that don't/cannot change die out.
Bulls-eye! You've just beautifully summarized Darwin's entire theory in just seven words. Change/adaptation was the imperative that drove us out of the trees in the African savanna. Adapt or die. We adapted, we are still here. We are evolution in action.
It's worth repeating: there-are-no-missing-links!
Simply repeating over and over, doesn't make it so. 🙂 It could be argued that some species have altered in a way that doesn't increase, but decreases, their chances of survival. So I think Victorian Darwinism is too primitive. After all, I've read that even Darwin had doubts about his own theory, believed in God, didn't know in the end of his life if all species had evolved, and, regarding humanity, was sometimes more of a Creationist.
Other doubts about the fossil record - the book does go into fossils too - are in the huge book, "Forbidden Archeology", which makes the point that literally hundreds of times completely anomalous archeological and fossil finds had been put under wraps and hushed up - because they don't go along with prevailing theories.
Theories in science are paradigms; people get brainwashed to over-believe in the current paradigms; data is hidden or ignored if it contradicts, and careers can be lost in academia if the prevailing wisdom is questioned: therefore it's "required" not to think outside the box.
V
OK lets stick with the dogs for example.
Explain to me how a wolf turns into a poodle (fluffy white or black for instance) but by the same token turns into a bull terrier ( sleek strong sturdy) neither of which bear any resemblence to wolves other than are generic in a fashion.
Tell me why the said poodles and bull terriers are not evolving into something else.
As has been said, varieties of dog have been brought about by artificial human breeding - so not a good example for debating evolution.
When different varieties of dog interbreed they invariably revert to the 'mongrel' or feral dog which looks more like an African wild dog than a pedigree pooch.
Hi Pixie.
I think evolution is a fact to a certain degree.
Pixie, that statement invites the obvious question, to what degree is it not a fact?
To be pedantic, evolution is not a 'fact' it is a widely held and supported 'theory' 😉
There is no scientific argument to totally refute the creationist view that 'it was all made by God in such a way as to fool unbelievers into their opinions'
I personally believe in a pattern of biological development from common ancestors but also think the Darwinian dogma, especially in its Dawkinsite version, is certainly not the full answer.
I think the real interesting question is how/why life began, once you get to the level of multicellular creatures it's not surprising that small random changes accumulated into new species, but how those creatures actually arose from 'chemical soup' is way beyond us right now.......