I think the process of evolution is well established. Please, distinguish between the "origin of life" and the "origin of species". Science only has a very fractional idea of how the first cell got going. Sure, you put lightning through a primordial soup and aminoacids can form. I can imagine it happened, but the step from single cell life to multicellular... that is far more difficult for me.
But evolutionary processes are at work and it has been proven even in simple, but real scenarios. For instance, in the US there was this lake with some type of fish in it. It had no natural predators, until these were reintroduced. It took a mere 56 years for these fish to redevelop their armor. They went from very little armor to being heavily armored.
However, this does not mean evolution is the whole story. It is clear these fish had the genes for building armor and spikes and obviously, slightly more armored fish had a slightly higher chance of survival, given being hunted by these reintroduced predators. What baffles me is how the genes came into being in the first place. How does an organism go from not knowing how to build armor to getting a gene that encodes for all of the processes involved...?
Other examples of evolution in practice is island-dwarfism, which has been observed in elephants. Or inversely, birds flying to islands where they lose flight and grow huge, because there are no predators. Also, look a polar bears. Polar bears are just larger, white brown bears that split off a few tens of thousands of years ago. They can mingle and procreate with brown bears no problem. Polar bears only exist when brown bears wander off to seek new feeding grounds when there are polar ice caps.
But yeah, humans are pretty weird. To my knowledge there are only two organisms that can sweat to regulate body temperature. Humans. And pigs.
It tries to claim that variation is proof of speciation.
But the problem remains, as you point out, that there is no good evidence of any new genetic material, which is a hard requirement for the entire thing to work.
Also, one big problem with the first cell, at least from what I've heard, is that it couldn't have happened with oxygen due to the chemical reactions that would occur. Even if life could exist in its primitive form without oxygen, at what point did oxygen appear for life that needed it to exist? If trees make oxygen, and humans make carbon dioxide, both would need to exist together. How could they simultaneously "evolve" without each other to make them work in the first place. This seems ridiculous and a big reach.
The only possibility I see is that at one point either animals or plants were able to output O2/CO2 without an input, which is ridiculous.
I think the process of evolution is well established. Please, distinguish between the "origin of life" and the "origin of species". Science only has a very fractional idea of how the first cell got going. Sure, you put lightning through a primordial soup and aminoacids can form. I can imagine it happened, but the step from single cell life to multicellular... that is far more difficult for me.
But evolutionary processes are at work and it has been proven even in simple, but real scenarios. For instance, in the US there was this lake with some type of fish in it. It had no natural predators, until these were reintroduced. It took a mere 56 years for these fish to redevelop their armor. They went from very little armor to being heavily armored.
However, this does not mean evolution is the whole story. It is clear these fish had the genes for building armor and spikes and obviously, slightly more armored fish had a slightly higher chance of survival, given being hunted by these reintroduced predators. What baffles me is how the genes came into being in the first place. How does an organism go from not knowing how to build armor to getting a gene that encodes for all of the processes involved...?
Other examples of evolution in practice is island-dwarfism, which has been observed in elephants. Or inversely, birds flying to islands where they lose flight and grow huge, because there are no predators. Also, look a polar bears. Polar bears are just larger, white brown bears that split off a few tens of thousands of years ago. They can mingle and procreate with brown bears no problem. Polar bears only exist when brown bears wander off to seek new feeding grounds when there are polar ice caps.
But yeah, humans are pretty weird. To my knowledge there are only two organisms that can sweat to regulate body temperature. Humans. And pigs.
This is why the theory is not well established.
It tries to claim that variation is proof of speciation.
But the problem remains, as you point out, that there is no good evidence of any new genetic material, which is a hard requirement for the entire thing to work.
Also, one big problem with the first cell, at least from what I've heard, is that it couldn't have happened with oxygen due to the chemical reactions that would occur. Even if life could exist in its primitive form without oxygen, at what point did oxygen appear for life that needed it to exist? If trees make oxygen, and humans make carbon dioxide, both would need to exist together. How could they simultaneously "evolve" without each other to make them work in the first place. This seems ridiculous and a big reach.
The only possibility I see is that at one point either animals or plants were able to output O2/CO2 without an input, which is ridiculous.