I don't know if I believe in macroevolution or not. I find that God usually likes to work over time in my life, and evolution can be thought of as God's continuing work of art in creation over millions of years. It seems cool, and like something God would do. But I have some questions, and I thought maybe some of you people with more knowledge of science could help me out.
Are there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species? Macro-evolution works by a beneficial genetic mutation that gets passed along to the offspring, right? But I would think that in at least some cases the original species would not be wiped out by the species with the genetic mutation. If no living species is the direct ancestor of another living species, I see this as a big problem, because when you consider the great number of species, mathematically, not every single original species would die out. Can scientists prove with genetic testing if one species is the ancestor of another?
Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation. How many years should we wait without seeing this before we start to seriously doubt the theory? When we consider the rate of change from single celled organisms to humans and lions, when would statistically expect to see this? Let's give a starting date on when our observation of the environment was sufficient to expect to see this and count from then. Are we talking 200 more years? 500? I don't know, I'm looking for someone to tell me.
That brings me to my next question. Is evolution falsifiable or verifiable as a theory? Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory, so what findings would make evolution make that leap? And what findings would make scientists reject the theory?
What do you think about the Pre-Cambian (I think that's the right term) explosion?
Thanks,
Greg
Are there any living species that scientists believe are the direct ancestors of other living species? Macro-evolution works by a beneficial genetic mutation that gets passed along to the offspring, right? But I would think that in at least some cases the original species would not be wiped out by the species with the genetic mutation. If no living species is the direct ancestor of another living species, I see this as a big problem, because when you consider the great number of species, mathematically, not every single original species would die out. Can scientists prove with genetic testing if one species is the ancestor of another?
Another problem I have is that we have never seen a beneficial macro genetic mutation. How many years should we wait without seeing this before we start to seriously doubt the theory? When we consider the rate of change from single celled organisms to humans and lions, when would statistically expect to see this? Let's give a starting date on when our observation of the environment was sufficient to expect to see this and count from then. Are we talking 200 more years? 500? I don't know, I'm looking for someone to tell me.
That brings me to my next question. Is evolution falsifiable or verifiable as a theory? Newton's theories are now laws, relativity is not a law instead of a theory, so what findings would make evolution make that leap? And what findings would make scientists reject the theory?
What do you think about the Pre-Cambian (I think that's the right term) explosion?
Thanks,
Greg