. im just a botanist student i spend my life doing field studies and observational research.
i spend my life in nature.
i am actually out there all day studying nature my opinions are much more valid becuase
i experience nature i directly observe nature everyday..
i have been doing field research on my course now for 4 years... been round 100s of ecosystems and habitats...
i have not observed evolution once.. evolution is not directly observable... becuase i study plant science i am interested in direct observation in this field. and evolution simply can not be observed.
I suggest you really get your stuff together because these folks here will smack you down if you told them you are a botanist and don't support the theory of evolution.
Statement on Evolution, Botanical Society of America
"Evolution represents one of the broadest, most inclusive theories used in pursuit of and in teaching this knowledge, but it is by no means the only theory involved. Scientific theories are used in two ways: to explain what we know, and to pursue new knowledge. Evolution explains observations of shared characteristics (the result of common ancestry and descent with modification) and adaptations (the result of natural selection acting to maximize reproductive success), as well as explaining pollen-ovule ratios, weeds, deceptive pollination strategies, differences in sexual expression, dioecy, and a myriad of other biological phenomena. Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, “evolution is just a theory,” the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true.
Some people contend that creationism and its surrogate, “intelligent design,” offers an alternative explanation: that organisms are well adapted and have common characteristics because they were created just so, and they exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design. As such, creationism is an all inclusive explanation for every biological phenomenon. So why do we support and teach evolution and not creationism/“intelligent design” if both explain the same phenomena? Are botanists just dogmatic, atheistic materialists, as some critics of science imply? Hardly, although scientists are routinely portrayed by creationists as dogmatic. We are asked, “Why, in all fairness, don’t we teach both explanations and let students decide?”