FACT IS SHOWN THE EVOLUTION OF SPECIES?.
have been many attempts to argue to justify that statement, I will take as an example an excerpt from a lecture by Antonio Pardo at the University of Navarra: [i] "It should be noted that the evolution of species within the meaning of macroevolution, is not actually observed directly, but it must be admitted if it is to maintain a minimum consistent with what has been observed in multiple disciplines, and a coherent logic: it is the only deduction to the evidence that there are fossils of creatures that now live, and now there are living things which are not fossils, as has been proven beyond doubt, that spontaneous generation in the recent circumstances of the world is impossible, the only valid inference is that, in past times, creatures of kind have led to beings of another kind by generation. This is what we call evolution. Apart from this evidence and inference from fossils, there are many other evidence pointing in the same direction: the constitution basically the same for all living beings, composed of proteins, sugars, genetic information, diaphragm, respiratory, etc. Such coincidences, very abundant, they speak of a common origin, and support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution, ie the emergence of new species generation. " In this review, we break down four arguments: 1. "If you want to maintain a minimum consistent with what has been observed in multiple disciplines." 2. "It's the only deduction to the evidence that there are fossils of creatures that now live." 3. "Now there are living things which are not fossils." 4. "The constitution basically the same for all living beings .... Support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution. " I will discuss these four arguments to see if it really the evolution of species is the only consistent conclusion. 
ON "WHAT IT TAKES OBSERVED IN MANY FIELDS." I understand that is primarily concerned with genetics, embryology, molecular biology and sociobiology. All these sciences have much to say about how life is, how living things behave, what is the cause of some diseases and so on. But everything they say, everything what they say about the origin of species, can not be proven, so their claims in this area are always conditional, can not happen to be logical explanations for how things happened, if indeed what happened. In no case are evidence in the empirical sense. Also these sciences can show what he can achieve by manipulating human life, but what happens in a laboratory does not have to be what has happened in nature. These sciences can never scientifically prove anything about the origin of life and species. The only science that can say something strongly, on the evolution of living beings throughout history Earth is paleontology (included in that name paleoanthropology and multiple auxiliary sciences such as sedimentology and paleogeography). Thus, all the other considerations evolutionary science can not be accepted as evidence that evolution ever existed, are hypotheses that require begs the question, because clearly intended to demonstrate something, using what they want to establish as a principle of his argument. Due to ideological manipulation of the groups who control the scientific publications and large grants, it broadcasts an ideological version of scientific discovery, and only those fit into the "scientifically correct", which in this case is the evolutionary paradigm. Is overwhelmingly larger volume of scientific information to provide arguments against the evolutionary hypothesis, but its spread is inversely proportional to its ability to challenge the paradigm, and as is the case of a bibliographic survey done here, suffice it to an example is sufficient by itself: The experiments Weigel and Jürgens 2005 [ii] that managed the production of a variety of Arabidopsis thaliana with a mutation clearly identified, but the plants granddaughters and great granddaughters repaired the genetic mutation and were phenotypically like their predecessors before the mutation. It turns out that the same has been observed in other organisms and even humans. [iii] This has been proven in the greenhouses of a university, can not directly infer what was the origin of species throughout history, just an indication. But no one has experimentally observed that a species will mutate and become another. It is not correct to indicate that the observations of many disciplines support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution. Therefore, it can be perfectly consistent with what we have observed all these sciences, (not all the interpretations that have been noted), and it does not suggests that the evolution of the species is a fact, more Quite the contrary.
(continued soon)
ON "WHAT IT TAKES OBSERVED IN MANY FIELDS." I understand that is primarily concerned with genetics, embryology, molecular biology and sociobiology. All these sciences have much to say about how life is, how living things behave, what is the cause of some diseases and so on. But everything they say, everything what they say about the origin of species, can not be proven, so their claims in this area are always conditional, can not happen to be logical explanations for how things happened, if indeed what happened. In no case are evidence in the empirical sense. Also these sciences can show what he can achieve by manipulating human life, but what happens in a laboratory does not have to be what has happened in nature. These sciences can never scientifically prove anything about the origin of life and species. The only science that can say something strongly, on the evolution of living beings throughout history Earth is paleontology (included in that name paleoanthropology and multiple auxiliary sciences such as sedimentology and paleogeography). Thus, all the other considerations evolutionary science can not be accepted as evidence that evolution ever existed, are hypotheses that require begs the question, because clearly intended to demonstrate something, using what they want to establish as a principle of his argument. Due to ideological manipulation of the groups who control the scientific publications and large grants, it broadcasts an ideological version of scientific discovery, and only those fit into the "scientifically correct", which in this case is the evolutionary paradigm. Is overwhelmingly larger volume of scientific information to provide arguments against the evolutionary hypothesis, but its spread is inversely proportional to its ability to challenge the paradigm, and as is the case of a bibliographic survey done here, suffice it to an example is sufficient by itself: The experiments Weigel and Jürgens 2005 [ii] that managed the production of a variety of Arabidopsis thaliana with a mutation clearly identified, but the plants granddaughters and great granddaughters repaired the genetic mutation and were phenotypically like their predecessors before the mutation. It turns out that the same has been observed in other organisms and even humans. [iii] This has been proven in the greenhouses of a university, can not directly infer what was the origin of species throughout history, just an indication. But no one has experimentally observed that a species will mutate and become another. It is not correct to indicate that the observations of many disciplines support the idea of \u200b\u200bevolution. Therefore, it can be perfectly consistent with what we have observed all these sciences, (not all the interpretations that have been noted), and it does not suggests that the evolution of the species is a fact, more Quite the contrary. (continued soon)
[i] Antonio Pardo, "The Evolution. State of the Seminar on Science, Reason and FeJueves, March 10, 2005, 12 am. Hall of the Humanities Building University of Navarra. Www.unav.es/cryf/
[ii] Detlef Weigel and Gerd Jürgens: "hotheaded healer" Nature 434 p.443 - 2,005.
[iii] Hirschhorn, RJ Med Genet. 40, 721-728.
Semogil March 31, 2011
