It has been "proven true" in the minds of the gullible; and, not coincidentally, people are becoming more dehumanized by the generation. On the contrary, if they knew what life is, they'd know whether or not viruses qualify as life forms; and of course there is no consensus among biologists as to that.
This is of course the main agenda; once you can sell the idea of killing 10's of millions of babies for the horrible crime of mere 'inconvenience' it's no longer hard to desensitize the gullible and sell them on all kinds of sociopathic agendas. The evolution cultists aren't here to spread 'science', they're here to peddle imaginary 'scientific' justifications for their assorted psychotic political cults, sexual fetishes, racism, etc., etc., etc. Left wing loons and right wing loons are distinctions without a difference when it comes to promoting mindless self-indulgence as 'respectable' as the Holy grail.
Hyperbolic drivel with no actual comprehension whatsoever! Mutations are adaptions! Some are beneficial and some aren't while others have no impact either way. Failure to mutate and adapt means dying off when the environment changes, as it does on an ongoing basis.
BZZZT Wrong! In order to refute the existing scientific evidence that supports evolution you have to falsify it across all of the scientific disciplines. Better get started!
In what ways have people been dehumanized? Also, which are the other theories for humanity's origins? I'm not sure what else it could be. Evolution has seemed to be the best assumption we can make so far.
At issue here is NOT the data in question but the mind that cannot or will not understand it. You provide no actual reason for dispute and instead simply claim it in error because you think so....you also REFUSE to offer up alternate explanation. Basically you are a prime example of what is referred to as a Troll.
Abortions have been happening throughout recorded history and probably before that too. Since the biblical god advocates abortion he must have been responsible for this alleged "dehumanizing".
There is no consensus among scientists or philosophers as to the definition of life. That's because there is no hard line of demarcation between life and non-life. That's not a bad thing. That's just a fact of life (pun intended). There is no hard line of demarcation between Latin and Spanish or Italian. That doesn't make linguistics wrong. There is no hard line of demarcation between Red and Blue in the color spectrum. What's your point?
lol you don't have any existing empirical evidence for your imagined theory. Better get started finding some, as rationalizations based on speculative beliefs aren't evidence, no matter how often you keep trying to pass it off as 'facts'.
So has human sacrifice, mass murder, thievery, mental illnesses, plagues, and diseases. We should just do away with resisting that stuff, I guess, since it's been going on a long time, not point in no just embracing it in our everyday lives ... Have a real point that suddenly makes your pet myth magically turn into real facts yet? Circular reasoning doesn't count as 'fact', it's merely defective logic.
True; there is little of it to claim evolution as 'fact'. I agree it's not the 'data'. Yes. Those of you who don't have the first clue as to what constitutes empirical science versus favored pet beliefs will always be stuck for answers. Again, your lack of any real evidence for your silly rationalizations is not my problem; I'm not obligated to prove a negative just because you're arguments are merely your opinions. Basically you're a prime example of a fashion victim with no deep knowledge of empirical science and have now resorted to whining.
Mutations are almost always neutral. For instance, you have 50 to 100 mutations compared to your parents' genetic material, yet it's unlikely that any of them express any kind of physical change. Yes, it is extremely rare for a mutation to be beneficial, but it's also rare for a mutation to be harmful. Most of them just don't do anything at all.
Let's talk about this. From the multitude of posts by you and others I get the feeling you are expecting evolution to be able to answer any and all questions we might have. And if it doesn't then you immediately dismiss it. Is that what you mean by "fact"? Is this a fair assessment of your position? If not then what standard are you using to gauge the usefulness or "factness" of evolution?
