THIS MAN IS A GENIUS!!! BUT!!! BUT!!! He explains on a level that I understand, but still does not prove how Evolution made it through the Scientific Method. Thus, it is still a theory, and has become a religion BECAUSE people believe it is fact. Do you understand what I am saying? No names of Scientist that has proven Evolution through the Scientific Method, just more data which cannot be proven, with evidence that we see. Look... It is like this. The Big Bang Theory - they say there was nothing - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING... THEN... BOOM!!! Everything. I can prove that wrong with 2nd grade math... Nothing (0) + Nothing (0) = NOTHING!!! When 0+0 equates to (a number we do not know for all the molecules in our universe) I will believe in the BBT. Evolution is the same. Just because someone says it, without proving it, doesn't make it true. Latest - String Theory. It was a theory before it went through the Scientific Method. Evolution hasn't gone through this method either.
Individuals are species... Thus, individual life evolves. Please understand the text of what we are talking about please...
We have had several discussion... I THANK YOU MORE THAN YOU KNOW!!! Seriously. We have debated for over a decade. THANK YOU!!! MUCH LOVE TO YOU AND YOURS !!!!!
1) I do because of case written science from microbiology 2) There is not, because if there was, there would be a thread. 3) Evolution 101 disagrees with the TOP evolutionary biologist on this plant. Anything else you want me to disprove?
Easy... Provide this "Mountain" of evidence. Fossils aren't evidence of evolution, but contradict it (Google is also your friend). And read your last statement... That is EXACTLY WHY EVOLUTION IS IN THE RELIGION FORUM!!! Thank you for being on my side and proving my point!!!
What about the others? It was TLTR - so I skimmed. Why can't there be MORE than just us - we found out we didn't come from cave men, and another race was found in Asia like last month... Please consolidate and I will be more than happy to discuss...
Post what it is you would like me to read if you think something is of interest. Clearly you did not understand what you read - since you have yet to figure that mutations lead to changes in species over time. No need for Berkeley - any high school biology textbook will tell you that.
Your comment 1)The "above" was Photoshop. 2) About evolution being sparked by "gamma" radiation is ridiculous. There would be Hulk's. And the Japanese would be evolving as we speak. 3) Question:. How many life cycles (because Evolution doesn't deal with time) does it take for a lifeform to evolve? My answer 1) you don't know that 2) there are many examples of such mutations - even if the one posted is a little hyperbolic 3) it only takes one life cycle for a life form to evolve - .. as soon as a mutation occurs - that is passed onto offspring - evolution has occurred. 1) Seems like you have wandered off the page .. how does some case in microbio - support your claim that the photo was "photoshopped" B) even if it was - photoshopped . there are gazillions of examples of different traits in humans - that just being one example - that are not "photoshopped" so your comment is pointless. 2) your comment is logical fallacy .. and simply false - there are gazillions of examples of mutations .. some have brown eyes .. some humans have blue - You use terms like biology - and microbiology - and science, but you do not seem to have any knowledge of the basics in this particular subject area. 3) Your comment does not address the fact that it only takes one life cycle to evolve. Then - after all this nonsensical gibberish - 1 and 3 not even addressing the comment and 2) uneducated falsehood - you claim to have disproven something. You have yet to make argument mate - never mind disproven anything. Perhaps we should back up a bit and start with the definition of an "arguement" ?!
well it would be the starting point for evolution that's the only reason I'd mention it. in order for something to be science it has to be falsifiable. You can't falsify or evolution so it's a theory. Again the beginning of Life would have been the beginning of evolution since it's life that evolves. If you want to separate these two that's your business.
Evolution as a scientific theory is not a religion. People may believe in it without understanding the underlying evidence, but that doesn't make it a religion. A religion, after all, is more than a mere unfounded belief by definition. As for the Big Bang, it's not "nothing" in an absolute sense. It's whatever the universe was prior to its sudden expansion becoming what it is now.
Well, scientists have certainly found multiple methods of genetic change in lab settings. They have watched genetic change happen - the kind of change that causes new species to arise. As for everything coming from one plant, evolution goes back way farther than that - earlier than the point where evolution led to plants and animals being differentiated. But, Scientific Method is designed more as a method of eliminating false hypotheses. In fact, there is proof of falsehood, but no proof of truth. There is a real reason for that. So far, nobody has been able to prove evolution to be false. And, there is no alternative hypothesis that competes with evolution in terms of predicting what will happen or what will be found - from findings of evidence of ancient life to why flu vaccines work for only a short period of time and why our antibiotics are becoming less and less successful. It explains how agricultural practices have brought us all our food crops. And, let's not forget that the mechanisms of evolution can be watched in a lab. Today evolution is one of the foundational principles of all modern biology. As per Scientific Method, if you believe that to be false, you are the one who has to provide the proof.
I would say it is a theory, not proven fact, because Scientific Method can create theory, but has no way of producing proven fact. I wouldn't consider abiogenesis to be a missing component of evolution, because the theory of evolution is entirely limited to changes in life that exists.
Wrong! Evolution only begins AFTER the origination of life itself. That is creationism nonsense. I RECOMMEND that you READ these articles in order to understand the MEANING of falsification as it pertains to science and evolution. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13675-evolution-myths-evolution-cannot-be-disproved/ https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00045845 https://www.scientificamerican.com/...scientific-theory-can-be-falsified-is-a-myth/ Wrong AGAIN! The term EVOLVE in this context means to GRADUALLY CHANGE from one form of LIFE to ANOTHER form of LIFE. But that CANNOT happen WITHOUT any form of life ALREADY being in EXISTENCE. In essence you are erroneously conflating the myth of CREATION with Evolution. FACTS matter!
Evolution can't start without it. I guess all of science is also creationist nonsense. I No idea what you are even arguing here.
I would like you to read "Evolution 101". If you just Google that, a University will come up from California. Read it, and we can go from there. I apologize for my tardiness, still dealing with family. (Did you know when a mother dies, the family gets absolutely retarded for the money and house?)
Quite confused. Not going to lie. Been drinking and I try to make my post honest. When BOTH my mother's died, my life was something that I couldn't (or wish) anyone to dream of. It sucks... But, I will continue now. Could you please refine your last post in three (3) separate post I can answer in detail please.