Maybe we should start with that, as the topic involves science and this has to do with scientific process. So, my question for you is: What else is there in science that describes how something works and is stronger than a theory?
Quite the contrary if evolution is a fact. The fossil record should be replete with transitional species. I'
again with your scientific ignorance of the definition of Theory.... Theory as in Theory Of Evolution is the highest level acceptance of truth in Science...Theory=Proven to be True you deliberately fail to address this fact every time it's brought up, you the self proclaimed science expert doesn't even know the scientific definition of Theory...or you do and by refusing to address the truth would mean you're completely disingenuous and trolling clearly you shouldn't be discussing anything of science because you're incapable of the cognitive levels required... it's a Theory because it's proven to be true...sigh, this is a difficult learning curve for you...
let me predict his response...there won't be a response... to admit he doesn't know what Theory means reduces his claimed science savvy to zero...to admit he does know means he's trolling...
The theory of evolution is itself a strong statement concerning what will be found in the fossil record. Fossils are not found to be of random ages, for example. They are found in time order as per their features and dna (if dna can be retrieved). That is a prediction of the theory of evolution. Of course, the fossil record is not the only evidence of evolution. We also see it transpire in labs. In fact, scientists have identified specific mechanisms whereby change is made such that successful interbreeding is not possible. From there, the populations are separate and over time will grow more differentiated.
You don't "need" an alternative. I'm just pointing out that a successful alternative could reduce the theory of evolution.
The fossil record should be replete with species transitioning. That is the whole basis of the theory of evolution (toe). Unfortunately for TOE there are only fossil records of separate and complete species. Where are the missing fossils? As for the second part, there should be evidence of species transitioning now because, if they are truly evolving per the TOE we still have the original, there should be evidence of change. I never said that or implied it. All I want is honest evidence of evolution. That has yet to occur.
Ever fossil IS a transition. Evolution does have speciation events, but it does not propose that they are somehow major leaps - such as from some dinosaur to some bird. Speciation comes about by some separation in the population that allows the two separate populations to differentiate independently. The missing fossils either simply haven't been found due to factors concerning where they are (deep under cities, inside rock formations, in strata under water, under farmer's fields and other places we don't look) or they are missing because decomposition was too complete. Think of how many plants and animals have lived over the last million years all over the world! It so fabulously outnumbers the fossils found that what we get is no more than a sample. But, the samples we get align according to the rules laid down by the theory of evolution - what we find are confirming instances. In humans, the last 20K years has shown us gaining blue eyes, gaining the ability to digest milk as adults and losing brain size by about the volume of a tennis ball (which is probably made up for by brain complexity). So yes, we do see evolution even in large species. We see more change in species that have short life cycles, of course. You can't watch humans evolve in a lab!! You've been given all sorts of evidence of evolution - over long time frames, over short time frames, by fossil, by studies that not only demonstrate the change but lay out what actually happens genetically, by medium time frames such as changes in moths and birds that end up with populations that can not interbreed (separate species). You just don't want to accept it.
The Broken Record™ continues to bleat. What is curious, if not comical, are the other posters who continue to react to his nonsense.
No it wouldn't. Good grief the fact that the theory of evolution is so full of holes that it need to be manipulated with extrapolation and artistic renderings is evidence that it's not viable except in theory isn't enough. Why would anyone honestly believe an alternative would make a difference?
Whoa, that is not a true statement. Not every fossil is a transition. That's wishful thinking at best. Or they never existed in the first place, which is what the evidence suggests. There's always an excuse when the evidence isn't there. And they are still the same species. It's not that I don't want to accept it. I'm completely open to it. The problem comes from that fact that there isn't sufficient evidence for me to believe something that's based almost entirely on speculation. That's the truth. I appreciate your civility. Others on this thread are very mean spirited and ugly.
And it is....but for some reason you will not accept them. Thus I state it is not possible to show you one that exists today. One of the best fossil chains of transition involves whales so I will show you again so you can dismiss it:
Shameless lie. Shameless lie. Every species and every fossil is a "transitional species", as evolution is always acting on all living creatures. Because 20,000 years is A very short time. As you uave been told many times. Pay attention,son!
Then how do you explain the complete scientific consensus on it, and that it is accepted as fact by the entire scientific community? Are they liars, or incompetent, or both? Regale us with your hilarious answer
Let's check the scoreboard: Evolution: still the most robust scientific theory in history and an accepted fact Creationism: not science, not allowed in public science classrooms, not one shred of evidence
I'm not a Creationist, but you know that. You can't stand the fact that someone can see the fallacy of evolution without religion having any impact on the decision. You must deny evolution because you won't, I mean, can't post anything to support your cause. Deal with it.
You'll have to admit that we've come a LONG way by having the theory of evolution as one of the foundational principles of all modern biology. Until you have something better to offer or can present some falsification, it would be STUPID to back away from ANY theory that has been so monumentally productive and important and for which NOBODY has shown any falsification. I'm sure you would agree with that.
IF by chance ANYONE actually wishes to dispute the validity of Evolution then PLEASE DO SO. As it is NO ONE has presented ANYTHING that debunks or even minimizes the theory or concept in any way, instead wasting eveyones time with senseless drivel and creationist claptrap. ITS IS TIME TO PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
No, I can't admit that. Evolution has done nothing worth while. Making up what might have happened is a far cry from being a foundation of any part of biology/zoology. Evolution relies heavily on making up what might have happened. This is falsification plain and simple. Not at all. It's a fallacy.
What are you talking about. I've totally refuted evolution. You, on the other hand, can't put a single shred of of a species gradually transitioning into another species. It's the foundation of evolution and there's not any evidence to support it. Oh, I forgot. You conceded this discussion because you can't provide any solid evidence for evolution. Once again I accept your concession. Gee, this is fun. Got any other diatribes that don't contribute to the thread?
Evolution makes up NOTHING and in fact requires verification in virtually every aspect or claim made. Evolution does not state what "Might have happened" but instead shows us what DID happen and even shows what WILL happen in some cases, allowing us to use the concept to combat ailments in medical science. Evolution has provided many "Worthwhile" advances in both knowledge and physiology/medicine....I think you might be confusing evolution with Abiogenesis which is very common in the creationist.
Why is it that your mind cannot absorb the fact that a creature cannot be "Caught" in transition by definition because it has not finished transitioning into the creature it will become. You have been shown the fossils of creatures that became todays creatures and dismissed them so NO ONE will ever provide the impossibility you require....this is likely by design to try to make your position seem more tenable but instead just makes you seem a fool.
