- There are six basic concepts of evolution: Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Evolution of stars and planets from gas, Organic Evolution, Macro-evolution, and Micro-evolution. However, only the last one has been observed and can be called science. The first five are believed by faith.
I don't know of any text or curriculum that organizes these "six basic concepts of evolution" in the manner you have. I'd be interested to know where you adapted this context from. Regardless, very few scientists actually differentiate macro/micro evolution, particularly in the context you intend. And the other evolutionary concepts you've mentioned are, indeed, believed by faith, but it certainly isn't the sort of "faith" that those deluded by the superstitions of religion might have. The kind of "faith" that informs belief in a scientific concept is akin to the "faith" I might have that the sun will rise tomorrow at a given time; or the "faith" I might have that if I step of the roof of my home I stand a good chance of injury or death. This kind of faith is grounded in evidence -evidence that is freely available to those willing to learn. Its unfortunate that there are so many who willingly ignore such opportunities for gaining knowledge and exploring the true wonders of the universe in favor of sticking to superstitions that originated in one of the darkest periods of human knowledge and understanding.
- Lucy, the oldest known ancestor of humans, is 2.9 million years old. However, Richard Leakey found a normal human skull under a layer of rock dated at 212 million years... so most experts now agree that Lucy was only an unusual chimpanzee and not a missing link.
Completely and utterly false. If you are going to make claims of such ignorance, at least do us the courtesy of
attempting to cite some source. Lucy is *not* the oldest known ancestor of humans -there are far older species than
Australopithecus afarensis known to paleoanthropologists. There is no out of place human skull from 212 million old strata. And no one that is considered an expert in the field of paleoanthropology considers
afarensis to be "an unusual chimpanzee and not a missing link." The latter part of that claim is misleading to say the least.
Afarensis is a link that is certainly not "missing."
- Fossils. Scientists will state that we can tell the age of fossils since we know the age of the layer of rock where they were found. But, that seems to be circular reasoning. How can they say that the layers are different ages? Petrified trees are often found going through many of the layers. Some are even upside down running through "millions of years" worth of rock.
This is another assumption that contains so many factual errors and demonstrates an ignorance of geology more than it shows any enlightened perspective on the problems of science. Indeed, it may well be out of the scope of this thread to give a class on dating techniques, stratigraphy, and geology in general. However, I would say that this information is readily and freely available to anyone who genuinely seeks an education and If you are
genuinely interested I could provide a brief bibliography that should be available in any good library, particularly if Inter Library Loan is taken advantage of. Education is free to those that truly want it. But suffice to say that there are many complimentary methods of establishing chronologies of geologic strata -some of which involve dating methods like Ar-Ar, K-Ar, paleomagnetic dating, dendrochronology, varves, pollen analysis, etc., etc. With regard to the oft cited yet never understood notion of "petrified trees" penetrating "millions of years worth of rock," one of several rational explanations involves intrusions. Others involve tectonic movements. And so on. Not a single out of place petrified tree has ever been shown to exist that didn't have a reasonable, plausible and parsimonious explanation.
- We're also told that human embryos have gill slits proving man evolved through the fish stage millions of years ago. But... Ernst Haeckel made up those drawings in 1869 and they were proven to be wrong in 1874, as they were not "gills" but folds of skin. they grow into bones in the ear and glands in the throat.
Who says this. Please cite a reference that is of the 21st century. The fact that a talented illustrator of the 19th century created drawings that were still used in the 20th by some textbooks has little bearing on what evolutionary scientists actually say about human embryonic development. Please cite a primary source (not some high school text book) that says what you are claiming above.
My point is that evolution isn't any more fact than creationism is.
Actually, your point comes across quite clear. It isn't what you say above, however. The point you've made is that you truly don't know much about evolution that you didn't read in some anti-science source. Many of the things you state above are straight out of creationist propaganda and have little bearing on what is actually known in the sciences they cover.
The moral of this is: if you're going to criticize science, it might be advantageous to educate yourself in it. That accomplished, you'll find that science
welcomes criticism that is valid. But the criticism above is invalid. Thus, unwelcome.
