The discovery of DNA, DNA sequencing, radiometric dating, fossil evidence, etc. provides proof of evolution. The doubters have simply suspended critical thinking. They, on the other hand, make wild religion based claims with no evidence whatsoever. Rather than attacking proven science I would like to see religious fanatics provide some proof of the religious claims they make. I will pose a simple challenge for the evolution deniers. Explain vestigial organs as a product of god.
I think what you are looking for is something that happens over incomprehensibly long time scales.... it is impossible to scientifically demonstrate long term phenomena (many millions of years) over a few years. Can we perform an experiment that proves erosion caused the Grand Canyon? No. All we can do is collect as much information as possible and come up with the most reasonable explanation that is consistent with that evidence. We do that with the Grand Canyon, we do that with crude oil deposits, we do that with dinosaur fossils, we do that with Astro physics. We come up with our best explanation of the phenomena we observe and go with that until we find an explanation that better explains the data. So, for example, at one time we thought that a flat earth at the center of the universe best explained our world. Now we have changed our ideas based on ideas that better conform to the evidence. The same might happen with evolution. We might come up with an idea that better conforms to the data. So far we do not have a better idea. Yes, because we ourselves have created the arbitrary concept of species, like we created the concepts of hot, or red, or round, or moral, or beautiful, or musical, or long. We come up with words to describe things around us... when does a big pile of ice become a glacier? When does a puddle become a lake, when does a hill become a mountain? People invent words to describe things... that is what Darwin did... in order to organize the mountain of data that he encountered. But if it works better, we can say that no such thing as species exists... then we do not have to discuss whether one species can change into another. Species do not exist... simply a variety of forms of life with greater or lesser difference from each other Adaption is what happens in the shorter term. Evolution is adaption that happens over geologic time scales Look, Adaption and adoption are arbitrary human terms.... the difference between them is only what we say it is.
Thanks for sharing your opinion. Could you please be more specific about which claims you refer to Are you saying that fossils do not exist? Or mayb something else? Nothing proves evolution Evolution is a hypothesis that best explains the evidence Do you have a better explanation. If so, please present it, or give a link to someone who does If I understand you correctly, you are saying the evolution cannot exist because of the nature of dna.... so, if I were to agree that some intelligent design by god, or space aliens is the Origen of dna.... then, after dna was created, can we agree that evolution proceeded to generate the diversity of life... or was there something else that the creator created? Let’s get specific with what was created and when
please provide your scientific evidence for any of the claims you've made above. Particularly the "He believed that one kind could evolve into a different kind. A scientific impossibility." Make sure it's a peer reviewed scientific paper. Thank you in advance.
Why should I bother? I'm still waiting to see evidence that one kind of life can evolve into another. But there isn't any.
I did not concede anything, and I do not lie. There is no scientific evidence that supports evolution. There is evidence for adaptation. We see it happen. But evolutionists take that fact and claim that over time those small changes result in new kinds of life. No evidence to support it. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.
You were directly challenged to provide evidence for your absolute claim, and declined. That is a concession. You also lied when you said there is no evidence of evolution. and you know this is a lie. . as well as this.
The vast majority of the scientific community and academia supports evolutionary theory as the only explanation that can fully account for observations in the fields of biology, paleontology, molecular biology, genetics, anthropology, and others.
I did not concede anything, and I do not lie. There is no scientific evidence that supports evolution. There is evidence for adaptation. We see it happen. But evolutionists take that fact and claim that over time those small changes result in new kinds of life. No evidence to support it. None. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Welcome to my ignore list.
The vast majority of the scientific community used to believe that flies could spontaneously generate from garbage. Actually, they still believe this. It's called abiogenesis. Life from lifeless chemicals. LOL! Some people will believe anything. And a majority does not mean anything in science. It is the evidence and repeatable experiments that matter. Evolution has none of those. There is not one single scrap of scientific data to support it. Only assumptions. Evolution cannot be proven by the scientific method. It also can't be disproven by it either. Because there is no scientific evidence for it. Convenient. Isn't it?
No...they don't. Abiogenesis is not a form of spontaneous generation, as it does not say that fully-formed lifeforms arose from inorganic materials. It simply states that the precursors to modern life arose from self-replicating organic molecules. Science deals in evidence not proofs. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources.
Mankind always makes mistakes. You can't use that as an excuse. Christianity used to believe the single purpose of the heart was to house the human soul. Does that mean Christianity is garbage? I don't believe so. It was just a mistake by Christianity that has since been resolved. --- Evolution makes strong predictions of what will be found in the fossil record. When every fossil find conforms to the strong predictions of evolution, that is massive evidence. It's one of the problems with creationism. Creationism also makes strong predictions of what will be found in the fossil record. But, those predictions are WILDLY different from what is actually found. For creationism to be true, one would have to believe that a supernatural power carefully arranged the entire surface of the planet to considerable depth as a false record to deceive mankind into accepting evolution as the explanation. That is a conjecture that both religion and science find unacceptable. --- Scientific method is fully capable of finding evolution to be an inadequate explanation of what is found - either in the lab or in nature. When scientists find stuff that doesn't appear to conform to evolution it is a big deal, and research continues until it is understood. We've seen that with flight development, with eye development, etc.
Isn’t that normal science.... if the theory does not fit the data, you alter the theory to get a better fit
No it isn't. Science, real science, is observation and experimentation. It's called the scientific method. Perhaps you've heard of it. Evolution does not use the scientific method.
Also, in order to have a valid scientific theory, you must be able to disprove it. You can't do that with evolution because it's all guess-work.
They couldn't have done that even if they had wanted to. It's simply not possible. The fossil record confirms the root premise. There is no room for "altering" the theory of evolution to fit the record.
But what does the record tell us? The millions of fossils that we have found had to have been buried quickly or they would not fossilize. What could account for that many fossils, found all over the world? A flood, perhaps? And where did all the sediment they were found in come from? Sediment that spans the entire Earth? Only a universal flood can explain that. Also, look at the Grand Canyon. Scientists tell us that the layers of sediment were laid down over millions of years. So why are their several consecutive layers that are bent 90 degrees? This cannot happen unless all the layers were deposited at the same time. There is also a problem with the geologic column. There are many fossils that have been found in the wrong layer. Millions of years after they were supposed to have become extinct. Explain that. There is also the fact that soft tissue has been discovered in fossils that are supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old. How do you explain this? And don't try to tell me it's a hoax. They have found it in several fossils, and even extracted DNA from them. Dinosaur DNA. DNA cannot last millions of years. It's impossible.
Yes, when you OBSERVE that the hypothesis does not match the data.... you check your data, and /or modify the hypothesis
And that data is what, exactly? What experiments have been performed on evolution? Oh. That's right. You can't experiment on something that happened in the past. So they look at a bunch of old bones and say to themselves, " Hey! This fossil kinda looks like this one. It must have evolved from it." That's not even close to science. It is nothing but supposition, without any scientific evidence to back it up.
Most of this is easily refuted by those with only passing exposure to the fields in question, especially geology. In general, you need to cite expert opinion. Statements from you that something is impossible doesn't really work.
