Logically, I don't know why panspermia or Dr Silver's theories would be opposed to evolution: regardless of how life originated on Earth specifically, it's still perfectly possible that it originated via evolution generally.
Even creationism and supernatural explanations perhaps don't a priori go against evolution, because there would be the further question of how that creator god or supernatural entity was created in the first place, and evolution again becomes a contender (the only one?) as a possible explanation.
It's not the 'supernatural entity' per se that goes against evolution, but the idea that a being - any being - can create itself, or in other words that complexity can arise spontaneously out of nothing.
Regarding tadpoles, is it still the common opinion that the reason we look like that is because "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny"?
Thanks for the comment buddy.
Here's the logic; there's been an established acceptability that the origin of the present day humans can be traceable to the ancient hominids. But clearly, Dr Ellis Silver has sidelined that belief with his postulations that humans came from ET colony.
If humans were seeded by aliens here, where would you group that school of thought? - is it under evolution or creationism? That's the point I want to raise. Were humans fully evolved in the ET colony before being seeded here, or were they seeded in a crude state and left to initiate the evolutionary processes?
If humans were seeded here, that also means we're not related to any of the hominids and hominin species; but we're just an independent specie. And this would also make a mess of paleoanthropology and fossil analysis.
But in all these; one thing has been common to any of the schools of thought - and that is the fact that humans are still undergoing alterations here and there; and that's microevolution. And in the long run, the accumulation of these microevolution would lead to macroevolution, or even speciation (formation of entirely different species).
Thanks for dropping by
Yeah creationists tend to accept microevolution, but say things like 'no dog ever became a cat' or something like that. In other words, they seem to accept within-species evolution, but don't accept that one species can become another species.
Obviously, that makes no sense scientifically, because 'species' is just an arbitrary name we give to things when we deem that the differences are sufficient to merit a new classification.
Once you accept a single DNA mutation, you've accepted the whole of biology and Darwin, there's no escaping it. Everything comes down to single-letter-changes piling up.