hat is the difference between evolution and Evolution? This page will try to make the distinction a little clearer for those people who have trouble with the idea that they are two different things. Darwinian science has compressed the two into one all-reaching "fact" but it has done so in error.
It is easy for someone to state that "evolution is a fact." That is because evolution has more than one meaning. This may seem as if I am trying to split hairs to prove something abstract but it really is a very important point.
There is evolution all around us, this aspect of life deals with changes within species and populations. These slight changes can be noted, recorded, studied, and proven. These slight changes are referred to as micro-evolution (or evolution with a small "e"). But Evolution (note the upper case "E") is known as macro-evolution. This is "The Theory of Evolution" and deals not with slight variations but with the vast changes of entire species into new, very different species. This, contrary to popular belief, cannot be noted, recorded, studied or proven. We, as humans, have never seen one species evolve into another species. We have never witnessed first hand any slight changes build up to lead to a new species. And so this is the dilemma.
From this point we must go in different directions. Evolutionists say that it is due to the obvious lack of intelligent homo-sapiens to record such change. Creationists say that it is because there never was change and all species were created just as they appear today. Inbetween are many different beliefs that compromise the extremes. But in the end, these are the two main options.
The main thing to realize is that there is a difference. You cannot prove Evolution by looking at evolution. You can theorize and speculate based on evidence but it is impossible to prove that all life came from one cell.
Darwin, in fact, knew there was not enough evidence at that time to prove his theory. He published it anyway, very confident that the fossil record would eventually prove his theory true. Yet sadly, we still struggle to this day to find fossils of possible transitionary forms. And , in fact, we have found no true transitionary forms. This may seem like some audacious lie, but sadly it is true.
What is a transitionary form? A transitionary form is a fossil that bridges the gap between species. Most scientists will immediatly go to two examples to try and prove their point. The first is the fossils that "prove" humans came from apes. These fossils and examples have been riddled with setbacks, falacies, and complications since we have begun to search here. The homo-sapien fossil record is one of the most incomplete on the planet. Why do we always go here, though, to prove Evolution? Why do we not look to the more complete records like that of deep sea creatures? We have millions of fossils with literaly no transitionary forms.
The other new area of focus is that which deals with reptile to bird Evolution. Here, many fossils are shown to have both bird and reptile features. But are they true transitionary forms? A true transitionary form would not deal with the overall appearance of a creature. While that should not be completely overlooked, the individual features of the fossils must be examined and compared. It is easy to say that dinosaurs Evolved into birdlike dinosaurs which Evolved into winged dinosaurs which Evolved into birds. Many models for this Evolution have been presented. Most are widely known. But let me suggest some things to think about.
We have many models of dinosaurs with wishbones, feathers, and wings. And while these may seem proof positive, where are all the fossils from the many generations of dinosars with half breastbone/half wishbone structures, or half scale/haf feather structures, or half claw/half wing structures? If micro-evolution is an ongoing process that leads to macro-evolution, there should be millions of fossils of transitionary forms. Why are there so few?
If we think about the logical conclusions from macro-evolution, we have to think about the actual process that occured. A reptile whose fingers elongate and membrane stretches to form wings, would eventually have unusable claws well before it had usable wings. In the process of natural selection, what is this new structure in aid of? How would it help the animal in it's quest to survive? It would almost have to give up using them and run on it's hind legs till the wings have evolved for flight. Either that or the rest of the body would have to evolve with the wings so as to speed the ability of flight. But with this model, we would find a creature with wings too short to fly, legs too weak to run, bones too heavy for flight yet too weak to carry much weight, and the development of a wishbone inside the creatures chest. This animal would not survive long enough to become a bird. The only solid conclusion that can be drawn by the discovery of these fossils is that science knew less than they thought about the vast variety of animals that once lived. This does not mean that they should present them as proof. Evidence maybe, but never proof.