Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack
But there is plenty of evidence for macro-evolution? There is no need to directly observe it for there to be sufficient proof for it. Similarly macro-evolution (if you will accept speciation as macro-evolution) has been observed.
|
But, what about the scientific method that you just outlined? There is no way to test the hypothesis. We can look at evidence (just like I see evidence of God) but neither can be tested empirically with the scientific method. We can test micro-evolution (specialization) empirically, because we can observe it. We cannot, however, test the evolution from one species to another, because we cannot observe (and therefore test) it, we cannot test our hypothesis.
The thing is, I do think that evolution between species is possible. I'm just pointing out that one of the crucial theories in science really doesn't really follow the scientific method. If one is to hold another area to the scientific method, their area should be held to it as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Laura
Therefore it was written. It had to be written somewhere along the line. So writings/written. Sorry for my terminology not being the greatest.
|
But the fact stands that the majority of it was not "handed down in stories," but was written from a first hand account. It was not written by some person who had heard a lot of stories and decided to combine them from memory into a book.