Origin Of Species: Is Evolution A Fact?

Professor Paul Moody once said, “Does not science prove that there is no Creator? Emphatically, science does not prove that! Actually science proves nothing about first causes at all. ” (Introduction to Evolution (1953) p.429-430 ). Today, the solidated explanation to the origin of life is evolution, with the support from many experts who embraces this new idea that Darwin formulated. http://journals.plos.org/plos biology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.0060124 http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank /2017/02/10/darwin-day/ After Darwin published his book, Origin of Species, this new and fresh idea gained exceptional interest, because of the “science” that claims to prove its existence. However, we can find imperfection in every explanation,

As stated before, imperfection exists in every explanation, and even evolution carries its own scientific imperfections. Macroevolution that is a large part of evolution itself takes on the fact that species can produce entirely new species through mutations. However, we can dispute this claim because species technically cannot produce new species due to the impossibility when it comes to the concrete form of probability. From an article titled, “Is Evolution a Fact?,” it includes a quote by Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, a scientist from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, saying,

They use examples of how a fossilized fin from millions of years ago had a similar structure to a human hand, thus validating that we evolved from fish. https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record However, we have not found any crosses between different species, even when it comes to fossils, showing the distortion of this validation. Paleontologist Alfred Romer agrees with this statement, as he presents, “Below this [Cambrian period], there are vast thicknesses of sediments in which the progenitors of the Cambrian forms would be expected. But we do not find them; these older beds are almost barren of evidence of life, and the general picture could reasonably be said to be consistent with the idea of a special creation at the beginning of Cambrian times.”—Natural History, October 1959, p. 467. Zoologists Harold Coffin, who also agrees with this statement proclaims, “If progressive evolution from simple to complex is correct, the ancestors of these full-blown living creatures in the Cambrian should be found; but they have not been found.” Both witnesses of this account deliberately calls out the flaw that is largely ignored by believers of evolution. From this case, we see that using fossil records as the backbone does not actually give evolution its authenticity, but it rather draws up confusion that is just covered