Evolution is an extraordinary theory that
requires provides extraordinary proof, based on
mountains (and plains and seas-full) of evidence, with no
counterexamples.
Fixed that for you, to better comport with
reality.
The different factions that support evolution have managed
to demonstrate that the claims of the other factions are supported by neither
the available data nor the available evidence.
Yes, as in any
reality-based endeavor, there are minor points still under dispute. That's the
nature of science in a non-trivial reality. None of the points in dispute make
any sense in the absence of evolution: they're of the form "Did this aspect of
the evolutionary process occur this way or that way?"
This sort
of disagreement is not unusual in any of the sciences. It's resolved, usually,
by recourse to (in these disciplines) the warehouses full of evidence; often
because someone else knows which warehouse to look in. In other instances, both
'sides' make predictions of what will be observed in the wild, under what
conditions; experiments and/or expeditions are undertaken to see which, if any,
of the predicted cases actually obtains. In yet other cases, later evidence is
uncovered that indicates that both 'sides' were mistaken.
In any case, in
order to 'overturn' ToE, it will be necessary to formulate a theory that (a)
explains all the evidence that ToE explains, at least as well as ToE
does; (b) explains the evidence differently; and (c) explains evidence, in areas
like palæontology, geology, and biology, that ToE does not explain. Then
and only then, can it be said that ToE has any competition. ---
--Bill.
NAL: question the answers, especially mine. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
