Exactly what type of "observation" are you expecting for evolution? We have already observed the development of new species. Are you saying we need to witness the development of a whole new family or class or kingdom before you will accept the Theory of Evolution?
No. And neither am I denying that 'we have already observed he development of new species.' But I'm also not fully on board with that either. Possible, to be in between, I think. Especially for me in this thread. I'm working through the material, thinking critically, making up my own mind. You have claim it has been observed and I observe that works for you. If it is in material I am reading on this thread, and you pretty much know that, then trust I'll get to it. If not in that material or any material in this thread, or in the other thread (with all the resources), then do let me know that ASAP, and I'll likely be glad to look at material / source you would have me look at to verify the claim. Can't say, that will put me fully on board. Sorry.
What about all of the evidence we can observe about those organisms which preceeded us? While far from a complete picture, there is ample evidence to indicate a continuous progression from simple bacteria up through eukaryotes, multicellular animals, vertibrates, mammals, and primates leading eventually to humans.
Again, I'm not perhaps as familiar with evidence as you are, so let me get to it when I get to it. I may have a few critical issues before I get there, ones that may question very foundation of TOE, but I'm sure you all can handle it.
I will note that there may be, I think likely is, but not sure, philosophical difference I have with evolutionists. Partly has to do with observation / objectivity, but I can reserve that for another debate than TOE. And sure enough there are enough other threads where that is going on. With TOE, my larger disagreement, philosophically, will be (has so far been) with how much I see TOE not being all that different from how I understand Creationism. I fully realize there is old school version of Creationism and that is where larger debate is perceived. But I think the old school version is in need of update that I would say validates previous understanding while making it plausible to consider within framework of TOE. This may not come up rigorously in this thread, even while I've directly referenced it twice now. Part of this philosophical disagreement, for me, is that TOE really doesn't seem to be explaining much to me. So far it really does seem akin to "change happens" as if that was somehow being denied 100's of years ago. So, this may be the obvious split I have with old school Creationist, but I also can't believe TOE would be that overly simplified. And yet, so far it comes off that way to me. That philosophy of TOE is simple, but taxonomy (jargon) is what makes TOE the 16 billion pages of info that we have on the topic. If I am over simplifying the 'whole case for TOE,' then again, just bear with me, and trust I'll get to the meat in good time, and revise my words that I'm spewing out now.
