It is generally accepted, by most people, that evolution is a scientific fact. However, if you look at the assumptions that it is based on, you will realize that evolution is not science. It is a philosophy. I challenge you to provide any scientific evidence that supports evolution. The simple fact is that there is none. https://www.jashow.org/articles/science/evolution/six-false-assumptions-concerning-evolution-part-2/
A scientific fact is a documented observation. A temperature reading at a particular time and place using a specific instrument would be a fact. There is no method in science for producing a fact using logic. It's just not what a fact is.
"Boo hoo, your science doesn't prove my religion right, so your science must be wrong." - Every Creationist
This guy isn't dogmatic. https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=forbidden+archeology+michael+cremo What does everybody think of what he says?
I think he says things that have nothing to do with evolution whatsoever. Ancient civilizations are an interesting topic though...sounds like a cool thread.
I don’t see why you needed to create two threads for this topic just because your source stretched their article over two pages. I addressed both parts in your initial thread (though apparently you were actually interested in discussion the article you linked).
The fallacious source that the OP is using is entirely based on religion. All this "proves" is that theists are threatened by ongoing scientific discoveries that expose the fallacies of religion. Since the OP did not provide an actual scientific source for his baseless allegation about Evolution there is nothing to refute. Science deals with the reality of the universe not the fears and superstitions of religions.
There appears to be a theist need to spam Science forums with religious disinformation. It is so patently absurd given that theists don't understand even the most basic of scientific principles it is only worth a chuckle at most. There is no point in any "discussion" because the motivation is inherently dishonest.
The truth is emotional people are not scientists, the angrier a person gets with uneducated people is inversely proportional to their own I.Q. and education. It is important to look at and study all points of view dispassionately. At one point, technology was looked at as "Magic" by primitive societies, guns, sailing ships, and those men seemed as Dieties or immortals to those primitive people. Ancient accounts reflect mainstream belief of that era. Mythology contains a certain amount of valid information mixed in with chaff. Every part of science is constantly being revised, updated, so to blindy accept anything, is not wise.
I agree we have to be careful with everything we read or hear - checking other sources, examining the credentials of the source, looking for confidence levels expressed in the science, determining whether there has been review by others or publication, etc. Too many times people accept what's said in the popular press which may have little correspondence to the actual science. BUT, science is quite stable on the fundamentals of issues such as evolution, climate change, relativity, ... In the case of this thread, evolution is so strongly accepted that it is a foundation of all modern biology, and there is no opposing theory. One has to deny the very validity of scientific method as a way of exploring nature in order to reach a point where there is doubt. Plus, opposition must always be examined with every bit as much skepticism - looking for review, credentials, etc., etc.
Evolution is the foundation of biology? Seriously? Biology does not need evolution. It is a science unto itself. Name just one discovery in the field of biology that required evolution. You can't.
Everything we eat has come to us through evolution, guided by human selection rather than natural selection. Thank evolution the next time you decide to eat. And, that's just the agriculture branch of biology.
Do not confuse passion for dismissal. Some things simply do not require study after a relatively quick evaluation. I dismiss moon landing conspiracy out of hand after physically seeing moon rocks and watching reflected laser pulses returned to Earth from "Mirrors" placed there. I am comfortable denying Bigfoot due to an understanding of breeding population requirements and lack of physical evidence.
That's not evolution. It's selective breeding. Do you comprehend the difference. After all, a carrot cannot turn into a new vegetable.
Of course it can. Selective breeding (such as survival of the fittest, or survival of what was chosen by a human, etc.) is a mechanism of evolution. Forming a new species from a carrot just requires a lot of generations.
Discovery usually means finding something. In general, evolution isn't a tool for finding things, at least as I understand the term. So, the search that "discovered" dna didn't USE evolution in that finding, but that branch of investigation had a lot to do with learning how evolution works.
A carrot will always be a carrot. It cannot become something else. This is a scientific fact. Every observation ever made confirms this. Like begets like. Now. you can have carrots that are different. But they are still carrots. There are also several different kinds of apples. But they are still apples. They will always be apples.
But evolution doesn't work. There is no such thing as evolution. What you refer to is called adaptation. It is the expression of genetic traits that already exist. Look at all the different breeds of dogs. They are not new species since they are all fertile with each others, as well as wolves. No evolution going on here.
Yes. The small changes you mention will mount up. In time, one can have something that can no longer breed with the carrots we have today. That's a new species. The longer that goes on, the more difference will be apparent.
Yes. We can have a lot of variety within a species. That doesn't mean we can't have new species. It just means we can have a lot of variety within a species. The number and variety of new types of dogs is an example of the change that can happen. In fact, not all members of the species can interbreed successfully. We're headed toward having different species of dog through evolution with human selection.
Why should we debate this, it makes it appear your lack of knowledge and basic understanding is so bad as to make debate mute, there are natural history museum entire wings devoted to evolutionary proof of all kinds go visit one and then ask the scientists on duty your questions or take a good college class or go to the Public Library and read some books if grown up books are too hard read something from the children or young adult sections. I will not sit here giving you credibility like you have a position you don't and most people here with any understanding of science should ignore you to if they have any sense.
BZZZZT Wrong question! Evolution explains how biological adaptions via DNA result in different forms. You obviously don't understand the terms sufficiently to even ask the right questions, let alone grasp the answers.
Biology explains adaptation. Not evolution. There is no scientific evidence that a species can turn into another distinct species. There is also the fact that people have different definitions of species. In describing life, there are different kinds of life, called kinds, obviously. This is what Darwin meant by species. He believed that one kind could evolve into a different kind. A scientific impossibility. Species, in science, are usually referring to subspecies of the same kind. species do change, but it is not the result of evolution. It is adaptation...The expression of genetic traits that already exist. BTW, these adaptations are not permanent. they can revert. So how is that in any way related to evolution?
