peg writes:
Its funny, even though its been explained to me over and over,
"bang head here"
and the explanation is that evolution is only about decent with modification,
ding! you get a cracker. correct.
I still dont believe that one kind of animal evolved into another kind.
so you don't believe it, therefore it's not true. Well, that settles it. pack up and go home everybody! Peg's solved it. No need to further refine it. Do not pass go, do not collect $200. Do not look at the man behind the curtain...
DNA doesnt work like that.
You know this
how?
And as Archangle said "you cant have evolution without having abiogenesis first"
Then Archangle is a fool for saying something so patently false. Evolution, whether it is fact or fiction, need have absolutely nothing - zip, zilch, nada, none, nein, nyet - with abiogenesis.
Evolution is, as you have already stated in your one accurate statement, descent with modification.
But no one is able to prove abiogenesis...something that apparently happened naturally back then, but doenst happen naturally any more.
And you know this
how? for the first part, I don't think it's been proven yet,
but that is still besides the point. I don't believe there's any reason why it couldn't happen again, and might not be happening right now somewhere
no one builds anything solid on a missing foundation.
So, because of one missing piece of a much larger puzzle (a missing piece, which I hasten to add, is not required for this essentially stand-alone theory to work) we should, as you say, throw the baby out with the bath-water?
Shame on you.
"We don't know everything, therefore we know nothing" isn't a very intelligent thing to say.