ICANT writes:
Does it take intelligence to understand what is preached about the ToE here at EvC?
It takes intelligence to understand anything. Including the ToE. It also takes an effort to learn, just like tying your shoelaces or riding a bicycle, basic arithmetic and advanced calculus, advanced physics and throwing a football. Without intelligence or application, none of these skills could be learned or understood.
It's easy to understand some of the basics of the ToE, but it takes years of study and application to understand it the way a biologist does. Unfortunately the general public is rife with misconceptions about the ToE. Hell, I'm a layman too, so people like WoundedKing have likely forgotten more on the subject than I've ever learnt.
ICANT writes:
If this old country boy is ignorant please explain to me how we can start a theory of evolution when we have no life form to begin with?
Please elaborate on why you think the theory of evolution must account for the origin of life. While you're at it, perhaps you'll tell me if you think it should also explain the origin of the universe and the formation of stars and planets. If not, then I think your question has been answered.
ICANT writes:
As I understand it the Toe is an attempted explanation of how that first life form has produced all the life forms on planet earth.
It is more than that. It is an explanation for the patterns that we see in nature, and accounts for the observed similarities of all life-forms.
ICANT writes:
The problem is there is no verifiable direct evidence that such an occurance has ever taken place.
For what? The origin of life? Well, there is life now, and at point there wasn't any life, so I'd say that's verifiable.
Or are you talking about universal common ancestry? If so, you're mistaken when you refer to it as a single "occurrence". Speciation and evolution are easily observed in nature, and the same principles that bring about new species or traits today are the same that have acted throughout all of life's history (with a few exceptions, sex being one of them). So even common ancestry is verifiably evidenced in nature.
ICANT writes:
There is no evidence of transmutation evertaking place.
Ah, the "crocoduck" argument, I think. What is transmutation? If you're under the impression that it involves species crossing clades, then you are mistaken. If not, I'm not sure what you mean by "transmutation".
ICANT writes:
There is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution' having ever taken place from all the little mutations that occur in species.
What do you mean by "Macro-Evolution"? There is ample evidence of significant evolutionary change even throughout the time that we've been around to study it. Taking evidence of the past into account, like fossils, makes a pretty good case for these changes to have taken place throughout history.
Respectfully,
-Meldinoor
™ Version 4.2
