Queequeg
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
Curious about the RPF views on evolution. I have found my beliefs completely change in the last few years. Damn you Youtube.
At this point I believe that the normal neoDarwinian theory of evolution is completely unsupported by the fossil record. I would also say that even if Lamarkian evolution is included there is still very little proof. Some major issues I have are:
1) There is no fossil record of a tree of life; it is more like a garden of life with many root organisms from the various phylum and then many species evolving from them. There are so many missing intermediary species that evolution just doesn't seem to be supported by the facts, even for punctuated evolution.
2) many parts of living organisms are a package deal. They aree multi-component systems that cant evolve gradually piece by piece. The most common example is the bacterial flagellum
3) There has never been any observed example of macro evolution of a new species, just minor changes to an existing species.
plus many more
At this point I believe that the normal neoDarwinian theory of evolution is completely unsupported by the fossil record. I would also say that even if Lamarkian evolution is included there is still very little proof. Some major issues I have are:
1) There is no fossil record of a tree of life; it is more like a garden of life with many root organisms from the various phylum and then many species evolving from them. There are so many missing intermediary species that evolution just doesn't seem to be supported by the facts, even for punctuated evolution.
2) many parts of living organisms are a package deal. They aree multi-component systems that cant evolve gradually piece by piece. The most common example is the bacterial flagellum
3) There has never been any observed example of macro evolution of a new species, just minor changes to an existing species.
plus many more
Last edited: