There is no evidence empirical or otherwise to support claims that life was posited here by some "extraterrestrial race of scientists" Science has moved way past Darwin and his Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection, which is nowadays included in a set of theories from a wide field of scientific study, called the Modern evolutionary synthesis, which collectively explain how evolution occurs.
There is no proof of that either. Perhaps Our Origin, seeds from vast space and Our development and Evolution as a species has been manipulated and guided by unknown forces and technologies far beyond Our comprehension.
Evolution is observable and repeatable in the sense that scientists can make and test predictions of the theory, and this is exactly what they have been doing for more than a century. If the fossil record, genetic evidence, laboratory experiments and more had not borne out these predictions (,which have been verified many times over) it would have immediately required modifications to the theory, and may have falsified it. Evolution is blithely unconcerned with the precise method by which living things came to be, whether that is abiogenesis, panspermia, creationist poofing, or some other method as yet unconceived.
Wrong! Scientists DO NOT KNOW that evolution occured/occurs because there is NO evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species. If that evidence existed you would have provided it. You haven't. Don't feel so bad, science hasn't done it either. I'm using the evidence at hand, i.e. what honestly exists, and I'm NOT creating stories to link one species to another. That's what you're doing because you're relying totally upon extrapolation (the creating of a story) in an attempt to make completely different species look related even though there is nothing. Present a valid argument using the evidence of science instead of hand-waving and trying to make something that isn't there appear to be there. Extrapolation and artistic renderings is all evolution has to go on.
They won't. They can't wrap their heads around the fact that there are people who question what they've been told when the evidence doesn't add up. If evolution was on trial there wouldn't be enough evidence to convict it. Proof doesn't exist in science. Evidence exists. Proof doesn't. That's in a nutshell. At any rate, I've asked for evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species (and that's what evolution is supposed to be). Nothing has been provided. All that exists are examples of complete species. My favorite astrophysicist, Fred Hoyle, thought this was an option since it was obvious that evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species didn't, and still doesn't, exist.
Oh good grief. Transitional species is a cop out. There is no evidence whatsoever of a species gradually transitioning into another species. These so-called transitional species are complete species of their own. By the way, I'm not loathe to search it out. That's what I do. That's how I don't except evolution as a fact and only as a theory. I'd enjoy seeing some real evidence of evolution and not the same tripe that's been served for decades. Did you read this? I say you didn't. This isn't evidence of evolution. It's evidence that a 220 million year old turtle was found in China. There is nothing connecting it with another species.
It has only half a shell, instead of a full shell. It is evidence, but you simply refuse to acknowledge it as such. Advances in genetics will allow for the creation of formerly extinct species, and how they transitioned.
FACT:You didn't quote the rest of my comments from post #994, “Present a valid argument using science instead of hand-waving.” FACT: Evidence for evolution has been provided to you numerous times by multiple people in this forum. FACT: Your arguments against evidence for evolution amount to “nuh-uh”.
Surely you recognize that Hoyle's idea would require constant visits from space aliens, including surreptitious visits to modern labs where mechanisms of speciation have been watched and studied. So far, you've given no possible alternative to evolution. And, your rejection of evolution is based on nothing. In science, you need to prove this theory wrong or provide an alternative theory that is superior - those are your options. You haven't come close to either of these options. And, you're wrong about people not having provided evidence of natural speciation on this board. You've just rejected it without any stated justification.
Actually, that would neatly explain Alien abductions and all the Extraterrestrial stories and countless X-Files events out there, Aliens might be living among us. We may have many types of Alien technology embedded in all our everyday devices. That Aliens need to monitor our progress and occasionally nudge our development and progress every so often is quite likely a reality.
" For all I know we may be visited by a different extraterrestrial civilization every second Tuesday, but there's no support for this appealing idea. The extraordinary claims are not supported by extraordinary evidence." — Carl Sagan, Encyclopedia Galactica
I refuse nothing. The article didn't provide evidence of evolution. It merely provided evidence of a complete species. You're under the impression that similarities are supposed to be evidence. There is no real evidence that it has gradually transitioned from another species any more than there is for man evolving from another species. Nothing. You say they will. In other words they haven't.
FACT: I did quote you accurately. The evidence that's been provide is evidence that there isn't evolution. Not one single time has evidence for evolution been provided. And especially by you. FACT: My evidence against evolution amounts to fact that evolution is still only a theory and haven't moved from that post for decade. Please, just once, provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning from another species. And try to do it without extrapolation and artistic renderings. WAIT! Exptraoplation and artistic renderings is all evolution has!
LOL! The old "I can't provide evidence of a species gradually transitioning from another species so I'll try to create a diversion" ploy. It didn't work. Look, you don't have any evidence that shows a species gradually transitioning from another species. You keep regurgitating the same nonsense of extrapolation and artistic renderings. You haven't provided anything that can honestly be called evolution. This must really stick in your craw because you don't have any real evidence. Just what somebody told you. Maybe you should step out of your comfort zone and do some honest critical thinking for a change.
Do you have evidence that hasn't happened? The case that evolution is a very weak theory opens the for for other ideas. I don't need to. But just about any theory can be as plausible as a theory as weak as evolution. The very theory that says species gradually transitioned from another species but can't provide evidence of it ever happening. No. It's based on the fact that there is no evidence of a species gradually transitioning from another species. There's nothing. Correction. YOUR definition of science might say that but science doesn't. Not in any way shape or form. Didn't you learn that in all of the college science courses you took? I did. Where did you get that silly definition? Seriously. Do you honestly have a source? Do you really believe that science proves anything? Where did you learn that? Nobody has provided evidence of a species gradually transitioning into another species. Not a single example. All of the examples of speciation provided have been nothing more than subspecies, i.e. they are still the same species.
It is abundantly clear that you would rather troll than present a scientific arguement against evidence for evolution.
You haven't provided anything that can honestly be called an arguement. This must really stick in your craw because you don't have any real evidence against evolution.Just what somebody with little or no knowledge of it told you. Maybe you should step out of your comfort zone and do some honest critical thinking for a change instead of vomiting anti-science drivel.
so you choose to deny scientific logic for something that is a zillion times more fantastic and completely unverifiable...
the obvious answer here is, you do not comprehend basic biology...no amount of evidence will satisfy you and even when shown you can't grasp the science behind it...
