Posted by Amazing [Anointed] on November 24, 1999 at 20:08:09 {BlpRHB6gpc/CPYT8orz2ASIIcexUto}:
I saw in an earlier post commenting about evolution. As I understand, for a scientific theory or hyothesis to be moved toward the level of proven (or at least probable), the scientific method needs to be applied. There are four basic components that must be met. The process or object must be observable, measurable, testable, and repeatable.
Evolutionary theory can meet some of these tests on the micro scale, i.e. small changes in a short time that suggest an evolutionary process may be taking place. Evolution, at least in our past, cannot meet the scientific test on a macro scale. That is, we do not have sufficient data over a long time to prove conclusively the theoritical concepts that one species evolved into another. If we keep data from this point forward for the next several million years, then we may be able to observe, measure, test, and repeat the process on a macro scale. Only our future generations will be able to witness the end results.
Added to this, if science cannot exercise the above method, then it must use alternative means such as correlative evidence to suggest the probabilities one way or another. There is much evidence available in the fossil record, dating techniques, etc. to lend itself to support the probabilities that the process of evolution may have, and still be taking place.
There are also serious scientific questions which equally challange the theory of evolution. For example, the mathematical probabilities of the very first ammino acids forming, which are the foundation blocks on which life must evolve, would take about 20 Billion years to form. The Big bang theory and the recent studies in astro-physics strongly suggest that the universe is only about 15 Billion years old. Thus, mathematically, the universe is not old enough to allow the formation of the basic building blocks of life.
If one takes the subsequent probabilities for each successive phase of the evolutionairy process, it would require many more billions of years to get to the single cell life form. After that, we have all the successive time frames in which each new step must take place to achieve a higher level of life until we reach the first Homo-sapiens.
My background in not in micro biology or anthropology, but in engineering and physics. Nevertheless, I can see problems on both sides of the issue. I personally lean toward creation rather than evolution from one species to another.
I welcome comments and challenges. This is a topic I enjoy a lot.
Simply Amazing