Quote:
|
We may never discover them, but until we do then you have to go with that which makes the most, and scientific, sense.
|
I couldn't agree more. I just see far more "scientific sense" in the theory that life forms on earth vary because they came from different sources rather than one. Don't forget that species such as plants have little in common with with us other than we both live on the same planet. It makes far more sense that the beginning of plant life on earth came from a different source than the idea lightning struck a mud puddle and all life was born.
If memory serves me correct, as far back in the beginning as science has taken us, even the simplest life forms had the DNA building blocks to become what they are today. But plants, for example, have no building blocks to ever become anything other than a plant. For this reason it seems rather useless to say just because we haven't found the plant-to-animal mutation that it does exist because simpler mutations exist.
I just think the theory of evolution as far as ALL life on earth has a common beginning is seriously scientifically flawed. No examples exist or could scientifically exist if you take into consideration the lack of the necessary building blocks. To believe these differencing life forms probably came from different sources seems a more realistic theory.
And with this in mind, would it be so hard to believe the reason we haven't found any examples would be because its more likely than not they came from different sources and there is no such thing? Different species of animals that is.
Then there is that pesky scientifically testable probability thing. The probability that something still exists after a millennium of searching. Sooner or later science will have to make the call that if it exists we would have found it by now. Until then I guess Bigfoot lives.