Replies

But that does not mean it [macro-evolution] is true, but that is the best we have right now. And I would agree that macro-evolution takes a more scientific approach than global warming, but it still is not near as solid as F = ma.

No one says it's true. It's part of the theory of evolution. It's totally consistent with the part you already accept, which you term "micro-evolution." Same mechanisms, more time required. That's the whole thing. It's a rational, comprehensible, cause-and-effect explanation of the available data. It makes predictions about what kinds of fossils might be found, and what can't be found (such as a pegasus). It's a useful framework for understanding biology. F = ma is a law, which is to say it's a description of what's observed. Sort of a distillation of observations. But it's not an explanation. Theories (or explanations) are, of necessity, on less firm ground, and are always capable of being disproved by newly-discovered data, or newly-formulated explanations that fit the data better.

No one says it's true. It's part of the theory of evolution.

It is a theory. But I have had several posters at FR state it is absolute fact, just as the earth is round. Obviously you are not one of them.

Since you are knowledgeable on the subject, however, just wondering what you thought of the controversy surrounding the Cambrian Explosion, where basically all life that currently exists today appeared at the same time and that 98% of all species are now extinct, both phenomena in defiance of what evolution would predict (as well as the loss of phyla).

Even many hardcore evolutionists have a hard time with this one, including Dawkins, Gould and even Darwin.