Has Charles Darwin's Theory of Evolution been pretty much proven?

[Physics-Man]

Yes

No

Other

[nightdrot]

Actually, it was pretty much accepted even before Darwin articulated it. Do recall that St. Augustine referred to the idea of evolution - as a proof of God, no less - in his writings. This being long before Charles Darwin was an apple in his mother's eye.

What Darwin did bring to the debate was the idea of the "survival of the fittest." That is that evolution is spurred by the competition within and between species. Each species evolving and adapting to enable it to survive and prosper.

It was competition that spurred progress and evolution as adaptations developed that would allow each species to progress in its' environment further up the food chain. This then took on even more momentum as various schools of political and social thought adapted the idea to politics.

Thus then was born "social Darwinism." This in turn being used to justify the dominance of one people, tribe or nation over another. This itself ultimately culminating in National Socialism. Which was, as the name implies, the idea that politics, culture and society is driven not by economics, as Marx had postulated, but by the competition of the races, as Hitler would argue in "Mein Kempf."

Bottom line, though, yes, there is no argument that evolution has been proven. What remains disputed is the capacity of man to define and limit it and shape it in a determined direction. Suffice to say, if left to itself, the idea of evolution can lead to some serious consequences, as those who suffered in the concentration camps can attest.

in short, can man master evolution or has he a mere plaything of it. The nexus between evolution as an autonomous force and the will of man, individually and collectively, is what remains hotly disputed.

[MrOracle]

Many things in science cannot be definitively proven - those that are are called "laws" - such as the Law Of Gravity. The next level down is a Theory, and that's what Evolution is: a Theory. There's overwhelming amounts of evidence that it's true, and very little that would disprove it (though some gaps in the knowledge and evidence exists, but virtually all newly-discovered evidence fits neatly into those gaps), but since we don't have scientific records detailed enough from millions or billions of years ago, we don't quite consider it a law.

Science is fairly confident about how we evolved, and DNA evidence strongly supports theories that long pre-dated our ability to understand and test DNA, though that DNA evidence has helped us fine-tune the details. Still, we're talking about windows of time, not exact dates.

The most relevant thing is that there is virtually no scientifically valid evidence that would call this theory into question, and it should be noted that the men who developed these theories and wrote about them early on were all extremely religious men who were seeking knowledge about the world which they strongly believed was a creation of God. They weren't seeking to disprove God, but very much the opposite. And believing in evolution isn't at all incompatible with a belief in God - who is to say that humans didn't evolve from earlier creatures just as God designed and intended?

Anyway, science is very much aware of its own limitations, and generally is pretty careful about assigning labels to things that don't deserve them. Despite centuries of evidence that supports Evolution, it's still considered a Theory, not a Law.

[msc545]

Laws, theories, hypotheses, and wild-ass guesses in that order.

[Snsl153]

God no, of course not. Darwin's theory has more holes in it than Swiss cheese, and one glaring and embarrassing example of this is the fact that it can't even account for how the whole process of natural selection got going in the first place. 'Abiogenesis' they call it, which is just a fancy term for, "Damned if we know; it just happened, because it must have, because we're here".
Life is so much more than just chemistry, complex or otherwise. Chemistry and electricity aren't enough to account for it either, or Frankenstein's monster would have become a reality ages ago. No, there is what the philosophers call the 'elan vital', the vital force that animates life, and without which we'd all be zombies.
Life is divine, sacred, and the reason why abortion is murder (but that's another discussion).

[Physics-Man]

Thank you for your response. 🙂

[Snsl153]

Sure, happy to oblige <3

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different topics.
But if you want to talk abiogenesis, not only organic matter has been created on lab from inorganic matter, we have also found amino acids, aka the bases for proteins that are the base of life... In a comet that came from space!

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Amino acids are not life. Proteins are not life either.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

They are the basis for it.
Let me me be clear the abiogenesis was considered a theory and then those evidences for it came up.
It's the equipment to having proof that someone is a murder and then later also find a bloody knife with his fingerprints.

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Your name is appropriate, because that really is just your opinion.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@snsl153 except this is not me saying. It's literally the majority of the scientific community.

[KelleyNice]

Evolution is a scientific theory. Scientific theories (as opposed to the common definition of theory) are established facts. Therefore, evolution has pretty much been proven and can be accepted as fact. We don't know how life was first created. There are a number of hypotheses. However, within a few hundred million years after life started on earth, we pretty much know how live evolved.

[msc545]

oh, dear. I shall be kind here. Scientific theories are not "established facts" - They are certainly more likely to be true than are hypotheses, but there is a measurable and non-zero chance that everything allegedl in any theory is simply wrong. That said, I think that evolution is more likely than not correct.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@msc545 yes they are. Literally the highest standard a hypothesis can have in science is theory.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Sorry I only read half of what you said. Yes, they never have non zero chance of having something about them changed.

[Wsx2wsx2ws]

Its good you clarified that and I think people get really confused when the word "evolution" is used.
Evolution is the range of adaptability in a species. Evolution was observed by Darwin and speculated that this range might be far greater then first imagined. So great that what if everything is simply an offshoot of the infinite possibilities of adaptability. So he created this theory (of which he was very unsure). Many people misspeak and drop the word "theory" when saying evolution. Thus, often people argue over this word when in fact they are seeing its hijacked version in their mind.

But it does not hold up. No matter what has been tried by intelligent men to create an evolving life form they always fail. There is an interesting very long term experiment with bacteria. And while intelligence and control is still involved in their evolution, they are still bacteria.

I for one used to believe in the theory. But along the way I saw There are too many arguments, revamps, claims "we had it all wrong" but dogmatically steam rolling over others who point out the obvious massive holes for many people to give any credence to the theory. They would clearly acknowledge intelligence in one aspect but not in all the rest. And how they rule out with out any reason one possibility. You can never rule out a potential cause without definite proof to do so. The one and only possible cause they refuse to investigate is Intelligent design. That is not science.

But I understand. Religion leaders has failed people miserably. They lies, hypocrisy, cruelty, division was exactly what we read the religious leaders where like in Jesus' day. But Jesus did say not to follow men, Test every word whether it was true, Seek and you shall find. So the real failure is each individual being lazy or not.

[GurlMaster40]

Darwin had a theory that was based on information that has provided evidence against his own theory. He had believed that things were eventually evolved into life. Non living into living. Darwin’s theory was tested by a scientist who had tried it once with special chemicals and no one since has ever been able to recreate that experiment proving Darwin’s theory incorrect. Darwin believed that the birds he saw had just evolved, but it seems apparent he had yet to consider the fact that there are multiple different species. Different facts such as these he has used to attempt to prove his hypothesis correct and many other scientists have been able to use his own evidence to prove him incorrect.

[strateguy632]

Omg no! Darwin wrote god breathed life into the first life.

[Dargil]

I think Darwin correctly identified the mechanism of the ascent of life. All you need do is look at dog, horse, cat and cattle breeding to see that natural selection obviously works, even if it is not completely "natural".

But what has never been "proven" is the gaps between early forms and later forms of creation. Like a kid asked me once, "if there is a firefly, was there a "slightly warm fly"? While that was a joke, it makes the point. The ascent of life that we can observe is certain but origins are not. I choose to affirm the concept of Intelligent Design. (oh noooo. here come all the disproving links.) Creation is ongoing and part of the reason we discover new species is because the didn't exist in the past.

[Bratsondanielle]

The way I see it (and I know I'll get a lot of hate now):

We live in a society where the workers are taking care of the druggies and drinkers and lgqbtcis+- retards and the people who are just too dumb to really make it in any way...

Problem is that also enables the... uhm, less fortunate... to have a lot of babies who grow up... less fortunate (majority anyway)

Over the course of generations we will create a world where every taxpayer to support the lives (basically) of 20 or 30 people

Ok : go on. Hate me. 😄

[MuddyMole]

Pretty much, yes. A lot of the fine details are yet to be worked out, but the overall concept is not really in doubt.

I was reading a very interesting article about it, just the other day actually: https://www.theguardian.com/science/2022/jun/28/do-we-need-a-new-theory-of-evolution

[Bee-Hatch]

Just Charles Darwin?


No mention of Alfred Russell Wallace? The man who independently came up with the same idea. The man Darwin did his best to write out of history when Wallace sent him the full set of notes explaining his idea? The man Darwin used his connections in the scientific community to bury. The man who had one of the most amazing journeys to make his discovery.


If you want to learn more, look for the book The Malay Archipelago by Alfred Russell Wallace.

[Bee-Hatch]

Side note, yes it's proven. Fruit flies in labs are there because they breed so rapidly, you can watch generations of fruit flies in the space of a few days. It's literally watching evolution in action.

[Curmudgeon]

Undeniable Truth of Life #23: Evolution, while true and valid, still does not and cannot explain Creation.

We evolved, sure - but from what? And exactly how? "Natural Selection" does not explain that either. It is the mechanism, but so far spontaneous generation remains discredited, and why did Natural Selection take the paths it did for various animals (and plants), and not other ones?

[Kaneki05]

Evolution was proven ages ago. Even before he came along people made the connections. People who believe it don't exist just have a complete ignorance of how Bactria works which is the first lessons they give you in science and really not hard to grasp.

[monkeynutts]

Yeah humans like to elivate themselves above nature, refusing to believe that we belong in a kingdom that holds apes, dogs, a fly and sea turtles as significant members. It's one the reasons why the world is so fucked up. So yes lifeforms evolve and adapt to suit the environmental conditions that they live in. If they never adapted nothing would exist.

[Snsl153]

We were placed on this Earth to rise above nature, not wallow in it. The world is "f***ed up" precisely because too many simpletons think we're just animals and therefore can't do better.

[MrCon10t]

Not even close! As a matter of fact, most of the book in which Darwin stated his theory is ways and reasons he himself acknowledged it was not likel or even impossible. What’s worse is that there is no solid evidence of any kind supporting his theory.

[NathanDavis]

well, his job and his work was to prove it in the first place... lol

after that, it's been observed everywhere else

although, his works were not focused on "evolution" as it is portrayed now, his work was more focused on adaption of the species

[strateguy632]

Only the original darwin idea that "god breathed life into 1 or more species from which evolved and originated other new species " as he wrote in his book. But atheists point to Darwin... instead of what he actually wrote as part of science.

[MCheetah]

Other: I don't know. One of the biggest mistakes in science is to assume you have all the answers and nothing can be disproven. So I'll say "possibly," but I truly don't know.

[NamerOfStars]

Yep. There are a few exceptions in certain areas (hox and pax genes, mostly) where Lamarck was closer to the truth, and many, MANY epigenetic complications, but on the whole, it's pretty clear Chuck was right on the money.

[Bmories99]

No, only a part of his theory has been proven. Microevolution or the changing within a species. However macro evolution is still not proven and Darwin himself called macroevolution wrong on his deathbed.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Doesn't matter what Darwin said. Today macroevolution is also fully accepted by the scientific community. And nothing gets that credit without proof to back it up.

[Bmories99]

So please enlighten me I am an open mind what proof is there of maroeveloution. As there is none in the fossil record. Nor has it been observed by anyone. Keeping inind the scientific community has been wrong on many occasions with scientist killed/ murdered for standing up to what they believe.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Evidence for large-scale evolution (macroevolution) comes from anatomy and embryology, molecular biology, biogeography, and yes in the fossil record.

[Bmories99]

None of that eveiendence is macroevolution if you look all of it points to a sepiecies stay the same species (microevolution) not changing from one species to another. Macro evolution.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Those are all indeed proof for macroevolution. In the fossil record for example we can see transition species like icthyostega and archaeopteryx.

[Bmories99]

Thanks for the attempt however there is a lot of assumptions with both of these fossils. First is their age what dating method is used and what assumptions are there. The idea that these are missing links or evolved from one species to another has not been proven but assumed. As the is mo intact skeleton showing a species to species transition. The salamander or frog go through a transition from tadpole to amphibian as well. The bird could be a chicken but scientist aren't even sure what it is or whether it flies or not. Again I know I am in the minority in this discussion but too many people assume to much. Yet what we are asked is to believe something I'd true and to call it a fact when reality is if you look at it critically the evidence falls apart due to assumptions. No matter how old you think the earth is or whether we are created or evolved there are assumptions that we are not told about. Thank you this has been a fun discussion.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Radiometric dating has no assumptions to it. We can accurately determine the age of the fossils.
Regarding transitional species, they can only be called that if we have there ancestors and their predecessors. Animals that both have incredible resemblance to the transitional species. Why do scientists agree 100% that birds evolved from dinosaurs? They don't say that, nothing is science becomes a theory without it having tons of evidences for it. Do you know that simplified imagine of a man evolving from an ape? Showing the various stages? We have those stages for dinosaurs and birds. We have fossils of animals that have such remarkable resemblance in their bones, but small changes, over time.
Then there are other things like pelvic bones on whales, the laryngeal nerve and the palmaris longus.
I didn't just went to google, I follow several channels on YouTube about this. Forrest Valkai is an example.

[Bmories99]

See that's your problem. Scientist don't agree 100% and you are regurgitating the sane info you were taught in school open your eyes and ask questions. I see you arguing with other people on this forum and all I see is aclosed mind that believes everything they are told like broassoraus existed. When in reality it didn't. Then let's look at what science and hypothesis means I mean to 1800 Websters dictionary definition of science are you ready its guess. Meaning we will get it wrong just like the flat earth theory. By the way you already missed one big assumption that you keep making that the earth, universe is old.

[Bmories99]

All evidence that you piint out can also be attributed to an intelligent creator such alien's or God.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

No it can't. See the nerves I just mentioned? One of them goes to your brain, but first goes down under the aorta in your heart for no reason. The other one is literally useless. To the point in certain parts if the globe nearly 40% of the population doesn't have it.
Those and other mistakes our body has are proof enough of lack of intelligent design.
It's fine to doubt and to ask questions. But don't assume people don't have the answers for them.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Yes there are scientists that deny evolution. A very very small percentage of them. Evolution today is considered a better supported theory than gravity is.
It's taught in schools for a very good reason. That reason being, the overwhelming amount of evidences we have point to it and the vast majority of the scientific community agrees with that.

[Chazmatazz269]

No. It’s the prevailing theory, but as with all scientific theories it is subject to constant scrutiny and challenge. Discovery is not a destination, it’s a journey.

[Exterminatore]

Not until they can find a change in kind in the fossil record.


It’s called the missing link and it will be missing forever because evolution as proposed by Darwin’s model is one of the greatest lies ever told.

[TallAnon]

It's still a theory, just like gravity. Nothing is ever fully proven, but if I from an apple into the air, I'm pretty happy to assume it's going down again and won't just drift into space. Similarly to evolution, if we see the progression of species, I'd be willing to assume it's correct.

[strateguy632]

But we DON'T SEE such progression from dumb monkry to smarter monkey.
Se DO see those born after 2008 significantly dumber or weak minded than the preceding generation. I mean easily fooled.

[TallAnon]

We've been artificially evolving animals for ages and it goes fast, you can do it yourself with mice no problem.

[Avicenna]

Yes, it's proven, and it's even more remarkable because he developed it without any knowledge of genetics!

[MrHopper]

Its a theory in the same respect that we have a theory of gravity, everything seems to point to it being correct

[msc545]

We have a law of gravity, not a theory.

[MrHopper]

@msc545 it's both depending on what aspect you are regarding. The laws exist to explain what happens when for example things interact whereas the theory is the "why" it is what it is, i. e. space time is curved around objects

[msc545]

That is a theory about what causes or creates gravity, not a theory about gravity itself.

[MrHopper]

@msc545 The question mentions the Theory of Evolution by natural selection and so i am comparing it with the Theory of gravity, we are not for example talking about interactions between objects and how genes are passed on by generations. So i feel my original statement is valid

[msc545]

I do not understand what you just wrote. It seems not to make sense, sorry.

[viaamtrak]

It is s theory. That in itself means that it is not truly proven to be 100% fact. However, it can account for many things in nature.

[Anonymous]

You live in a culture with sub-replacement birth rates, clearly the theory of evolution has not been well proven to a population choosing not to have kids.

[mstbooblover]

To be honest, I see evolution already in action when looking in my garden. Just keep in mind that for instance by eliminating a particular group of living beings, they can't transmit their genetic material anymore.

[exitseven]

Natural selection cn be shown to be valid but I do not think the reason for evolution has been proven yet

[msc545]

The reason? Why would there be a reason outside of environmental pressure?

[exitseven]

@msc545 nobody really knows what causes a genetic abnormality that would allow one subspecies to be more successful than another one

[msc545]

I think you mean a mutation. The general supposition is cosmic radiation.

[exitseven]

@msc545 that only happens in comic books.

[msc545]

Actually no. Cosmic rays do impact the earth, and some can and do cause changes in DNA. Why do you think when the dentist takes X-rays you get a lead apron?

[exitseven]

@msc545 The Fantastic Four got their powers from Cosmic Rays.

[msc545]

who?

[exitseven]

@msc545

[msc545]

oh. You do know that they are not real, right?

[exitseven]

@msc545 Yes, but they still are mutations.

[msc545]

How so? They are cartoons.

[Subarugirl]

Micro evolution has been documented, yes. Macro evolution has no and is still just a theory because it has never actually been observed or documented.

[Pohjolan]

Incorrect. Macro evolution is observed and documented in DNA.

[Snsl153]

@Pohjolan Wrong.

[Exterminatore]

@Subaru

Correct and I agree.

@Pohjolan

Incorrect. Also we should have plenty of evidence in the fossil record, especially of that missing piece from Homo Erectus to Homo Sapiens, yet we have exactly 0. We will always have 0.

Every dog on this planet can be traced to a pair of 2 ancestors and is a stark example of microevolution. Yet there is 0 proof of macroevolution. Fish don’t become birds. Apes don’t become humans. Not one example of a species becoming an entirely different species. Trout for example. There are brown trout, rainbow trout and brook trout to band a few. All are fish and trout but no trout became a new species of fish or amphibian or any other type of animal.

Evolution is a fairy tale whose doctrine changes fairly often, yet it is not fought in school as theory but rather as absolute fact.

[jennifer_bloom]

I’m not sure cause I have not studied Darwinian commentary to know what scientists say, but I don’t believe it would disprove God if it was true.

[DaveJord]

No doubt when don't let nature weed out the underbrush and we do everything we can to get bottom feeders a excuse to leech off of society we all loose.

[Mijopapi2000]

How so? Monkeys are still apes. If it was real they would have evolved into us. There would be no apes.

[Subarugirl]

You aren't familiar with genetic mutation or micro evolution are you? That's like saying that if evolution were true all canines would still be wolves.. or that all people would still be dark-skinned about averaging around 5 ft tall..

[Mijopapi2000]

@Subarugirl I'm familiar with the fact that everything they tell us are lies and then naive people like you believe their fake explanations. That is what I am familiar with.

[Subarugirl]

So then... no you don't know what micro evolution is?

[Shamalien]

Does not account for the origin of species, but yeah natural selection has been proven

[Snsl153]

It doesn't account for the origin of species. That's a rather big problem for it, don't you think?

[Shamalien]

@Snsl153 not a problem for the theory of evolution via the process of natural selection itself, even though they wanted it to account for the origin of species and it does not, the theory still stands

[Snsl153]

It doesn't stand though, because it cannot explain one of the central realities in the biological world - diversity.

[Shamalien]

@Snsl153 it doesn’t have to explain everything. Natural selection is a verifiable process which does what the theory says it does.

[Blackcosmo]

I don't believe in evolution. We humans were never apes.

[Pohjolan]

We are still apes.

[Blackcosmo]

@Pohjolan That's your opinion at least.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Pohjolan from our DNA, to the shape of our clavicle, to our thumbs, to having bone around our eyeballs, yes we are apes.

[Pohjolan]

@blackcosmo
Not my opinion. We are apes by definition and classification.

[Blackcosmo]

@Pohjolan I still consider it your opinion because I don't believe in evolution.

[Pohjolan]

@blackcosmo
Its not a matter of belief or opinion. Sure you can pretend that the earth is flat if you want to but it does not change the world around us which has been shaped by evolution.
You can believe that 0.5mv^2 is not real but it won't make your car brake faster.

Your beliefs or pretentions are irrelevant to how the world is as a whole in reality.

[Blackcosmo]

@Pohjolan This is what I believe and it's my opinion.

[GurlMaster40]

I really enjoy watching different people with different scientific theories even if they are not their own, try to prove their side correct to the other side/theory.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@GurlMaster40 evolution is the only scientific theory here. And it's not about being "my theory" or not. Is science, is knowledge, it is what it is.

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Don't be so arrogant! 'Evolution' isn't even much of a theory, much less a scientific one.

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I suppose you think astrology is "scientific" as well, and phrenology too.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Snsl153 "astrology is "scientific" as well, and phrenology too."
Except we actually have demonstrable evidences for evolution.
Do you know what a scientific theory is? Theory is literally the top that an hypothesis can reach in biology.
Before you say it laws are only in math and physics. Cell theory will never be "cell law", just like the theory of evolution will never be the law of evolution regardless of how many evidences we have for it.
Nothing raises to the level of theory without it being peer reviwed, analysed, tested, replicated, and survives all scrutiny placed uppon it.
I am having this discussion somewhere else and found an article from this year, by National Geographic.
education.nationalgeographic.org/.../theory-evolution
You want to debate science with National Geographic go ahead.

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 "... we have demonstrable evidence..."
Simply repeating this won't magically make it true. I've seen most of the so-called evidence for evolution, and at best such evidence can be interpreted in more than one way, to support alternative hypotheses, and at worst the evidence isn't actually evidence at all.
Anyway, why does it bother you so much that so many reject the idea? You seem passionate about trying to convince us. Maybe you're actually just trying to convince yourself that it's true. ;)

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Snsl153 there is not alternative interpretation when literally all of the evidence points to one place.
Regarding your question, I like to argue. That is the only reason I come here. In several topics I love to have discussion with different people.

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Yes, you seem to enjoy disagreeing with people. Well, with me anyway. I tend to do the same.
I don't believe your claim here that "all the evidence points in that direction". It just doesn't. I don't accept the traditional creation story either, and I often wonder why we can't just admit to ourselves that we simply don't have the answers, that we don't know.

[GurlMaster40]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 all of the evidence points in many different directions. Most of them also point in the direction that proves this theory wrong. Also science doesn’t require any demonstrable evidence to prove a hypothesis correct or incorrect. And if you want to go based off of that then all of the so called evidence you are referring to is all evidence that proves this theory incorrect.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Snsl153 I have nothing against you in particular.
I have to ask, when you say that all evidences don't point in that direction. Very well give me one that doesn't.

[GurlMaster40]

Also astronomy is a form of showing evidence just not in a demonstrable form.

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 The mind-boggling complexity of the cell. When Darwin was around, literally nothing was known about it, and so he couldn't consider it as being either evidence for or against his new theory.

[Snsl153]

@GurlMaster40 No, astronomy is different, because we can (and do) make predictions in the field all the time, and have been since ancient times (ex. the movement of the planets, solar eclipses, that sort of thing).

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@GurlMaster40 I will ask the same of you that I just did of @snsl153, give me an instance where the evidence doesn't point to evolution.

And "Also science doesn’t require any demonstrable evidence to prove a hypothesis correct or incorrect." This is more a less true, because empirical evidence is also evidence.
But any hypothesis that can't be tested and falsifiable is not even considered by science. That is why "does God exist" is not a concern of science. Because it's not possible to verify if he does or not.
Reagrlless, in the case of evolution we do have lots of demonstrable evidence.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Snsl153 Oh please not this again...
Yes, the cell is complex... So what? Today we know how literally every part of the cell works. Just because something is complex doesn't mean it wasn't naturally created.

[Snsl153]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Yes, this again, because evolution cannot account for it. Irreducible complexity is REAL, and counts as strong evidence against the Darwinian fairytale.

[Snsl153]

@Pohjolan Definition and classification? Then the definition needs to change, because we have very little in common with monkeys when it comes to the things that actually, really matter (like knowing the difference between right and wrong, and being able to ignore primitive instinct).

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Snsl153 I say this again because that is an old and flawed point.
For example an eye. When people talk about Irreducible complexity they like to talk about the eyes so I will do the same. On that logic the eye could have never been any different than what it is today, because with a single element out it wouldn't work right?
RIGHT!
That is why no one is saying that an eye today can function without any of its parts! This is a misunderstanding of evolution.
You can't look at a structure today and say "without a single part it doesn't work". Of course it doesn't, but what you are missing is that the eye wasn't always what we have today! It not always worked the same way.
The first version of them was only able to notice shades, at some point black and white until it is what it is now. As it evolved, at every stage of it's evolution it always worked and needed every part of it to work.
And look at the diversity of eyes we have! From tarantulas to birds, so many different ones with different capabilities and different structures!

[GurlMaster40]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I’m done fighting with you. I have to go comment on other posts and I’m done waisting my time that I could be using to help others, to fight w u. I’m glad you have your own opinion and theories and beliefs, I have different ones no one should try to force others to try to see the other side if that person is firm on their own side.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@GurlMaster40 I wish we could talk more, but I respect your decision. Have a good day.

[GurlMaster40]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 you too It was interesting discussing scientific theories.

[AviatorTom]

It's not possible to PROVE a theory, but much of the evidence in nature indicates that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is very likely to be true.

[msc545]

It is exceedingly well-supported and accepted except by religious fanatics.

[888theGreat]

where is the half frog /half fish . There would have to be one to prove it

[MuddyMole]

Plasticity is a possible explanation. This is an excerpt from an article I was reading:
Emily Standen is a scientist at the University of Ottawa, who studies Polypterus senegalus, AKA the Senegal bichir, a fish that not only has gills but also primitive lungs. Regular polypterus can breathe air at the surface, but they are “much more content” living underwater, she says. But when Standen took Polypterus that had spent their first few weeks of life in water, and subsequently raised them on land, their bodies began to change immediately. The bones in their fins elongated and became sharper, able to pull them along dry land with the help of wider joint sockets and larger muscles. Their necks softened. Their primordial lungs expanded and their other organs shifted to accommodate them. Their entire appearance transformed. “They resembled the transition species you see in the fossil record, partway between sea and land,” Standen told me. According to the traditional theory of evolution, this kind of change takes millions of years. But, says Armin Moczek, an extended synthesis proponent, the Senegal bichir “is adapting to land in a single generation”. He sounded almost proud of the fish.

[Twalli]

Due to the inability to provide a decent test, it can't be proven conclusively. Despite that, a stronger or more comprehensive theory has yet to gave been offered.

[Therisinghero12]

In my eyes yeah, still a lot about evolution we don't know, but not knowing everything doesn't make it wrong

[TheSpaceGnome]

Yes, a million times over. The evidence is a part of everyday living.

[Pete671]

If it's still a theory, it's not been proven surely,,,

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Theories in science don't mean what most people think they do.
Gravity is also just a theory.
Nothing gains the level of theory without being studied, peer reviewed and endure all scrutiny possible.

[Abrakadab]

I think... it's called the the Law of gravity

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@Abrakadab laws exist in mathematics and physics.
The law of gravity is defined by an equation.
The theory of gravity, by Newton basically says (in lame terms) that gravity exists.

[genericname85]

you do not need to proof a thing that you can litterally watch happening.

[Anonymous]

Technology has caused our concept of reasoning out the window. The more we learn to more stupidly become in logic

[Jouth]

Well how come Charles Darwin didn't evolve into a monkey? He just died!

EVOLUTION DISPROVED!!

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

Do you understand how evolution works?

[Jouth]

Charles Darwin did not understamd

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

There was were. any things about it that Darwin did not knew. That is true.
But we don know them today.

[Jouth]

that's because he was wrong dont you see

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

He was wrong about somethings, not everything. Science doesn't follows people it follows evidences. Even if Darwin himself had thrown away his theory, it would still be considered today. Because every piece of evidence we have points to evolution.

[boredgal]

you should ask Ross about that, not Phoebe though.

[MrOracle]

True, but to be fair, Phoebe is the authority on cats with oder issues...

[I_Can_Help]

Yes. And a long ass time ago.

[driven159]

Yes, all you have to do is open your eyes

[Snsl153]

Okay, my eyes are open. Now what?

[driven159]

@Snsl153 look around you and see how animals have changed to adapt to their new environment if you don't see it than you are not looking look at the galagoes islands the iguanas that developed webbed feet to swim

[AlphaGhost]

Its knows as adaptation, which got absolutely nothing to do with evolution. The crocodiles were present in the Dinosaur era but their evolution has stopped and there are numerous species whose evolution is at dead stop like monkeys.
According to evolution their conversation should continue no matter what, there is no hardcore evidence to support this hypothesis and half of the world didn't even consider it theory.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost "According to evolution their conversation should continue no matter what" this is false. Unless a species has a reason to evolve it won't. Because there is nothing that will increase the survivability or reproduction chances.
That is why crocodiles evolved until today and now they stopped. No reason to evolve so no mechanism that will cause that evolution. Even if mutations occur the mutated individuals will not be more picked or survive better.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 This is not present in original theory and you can't freaking prove it either. So this argument is entirely useless and I don't know what you do but I am MD, let me tell you something nothing is certain unless its proven to be correct.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost what does it matter regarding the original theory?
Darwin was wrong about a lot of things regarding evolution. Today we know more. We know better. That contemporary knowledge is what matters.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 No idiot there is something known as "Scientific method" learn it !

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost what about it? Evolution has been observed in real time. Both in and out of the lab. It's tested and more than proved at this point.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 Bro don't take it personally you want an educated person to take you seriously?
Talking to you right now is beyond me cuz you have zero idea how science works and if it was reproduceable with evidence, it would have already been called LAW. There are thousands of theories with outrageous claims and all of them have laboratory experimental evidence.
If someone want to prove evolution is true,
they have to evolve monkey into bacteria and even then its nothing cuz you have discuss the process of mutating... stop your B. S

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost you are the one with no knowledge. Laws are only in mathematics or physics! You will never have "the law of evolution"
God himself could descent to earth and say "I used evolution to make the diversity of life on this planet". IT WOULD STILL BE CALLED THEORY.
Only if God gave an encyclopedia full of literally everything there is to know about evolution, all the mutations, evolutionary paths, philogyny, of every single species that was then we can call it just evolution. Never the law of evolution.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 You are some next lvl idiot to make up shit like this, Scientific method first invented by Ibn al-Haytham in 10th century applies to every field of science and Biology like every field of science has laws.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_rules
https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/AD0604369.pdf

WoW they teach this shit in 6th standard in my home country and it continues till 12th standard... USA education system is trash and you are its finest example.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 I bet you are High school pass and watched some documentary or any other shit online, then proceeded to bombard people with idiocy.
Dude we are in dark ages of Scientific advancement and perfect example would be "Cell theory" cuz we still can't decide viruses are living or non-living things, you are here talking about concepts like evolution.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost I have a masters in engineering actually.
What does one thing have to do with the other? Virus are not considered living organisms. But let's say that was in debate in the scientific community. So what? Just because one topic is on debate doesn't mean all are. There is no debate regarding the veracity of evolution.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 So you are an engineer, stay in your fucking lane and don't interfere in our matters and you lied again
cuz validity of Evolution is very big debate in scientific community, that's another lie you have shoved out of your ass bro. There are genes in human genome and other advance primates, which can never ever be explained by evolution cuz there are entirely out of this world... Where did they come from?
Secondly whatever questions evolution claim to answer can be answered with other theories of origin and Darwin provided zero experimental evidence to his claim, its not 90's when science use to be extremely controversial and treat certain unproven aspects like facts.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
1) No empirical proof exists that macro-evolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) is occurring at present, or has ever happened in the past. No one, throughout recorded history, has ever seen it.
Evolutionist anthropologist Jeffrey H. Schwartz stated in his 1999 book Sudden Origins. . . that with the exception of Dobzhan sky's claim about a new species of fruit fly (micro-evolution, not macro-evolution), the formation of a new species, by any mechanism, has never been observed.
2) No transitional fossils. If evolution had taken place there should have been a great many transitional structures preserved in fossilised form recording the stages of development from one type of organism to another type.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 For instance, invertebrates are supposed to have transformed into vertebrates, having passed through many intermediate stages. The fossil record does not document such transitions.

Yet there are countless millions of fossils, all of which are non-transitional. Prof Schwartz claims that instead of filling in the gaps in the fossil record with so-called missing links, most paleontologists found themselves facing a situation in which there were only gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species. Not only are the links missing, but professional evolutionists now admit they cannot even imagine how one species could be linked with another.

In the American Scientist review of the book In Search of Deep Time by Henry Gee, Peter J. Bowler writes: "We cannot identify ancestors or `missing links', and we cannot devise testable theories how particular episodes of evolution came about.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 3) There is no evidence of evolution at the molecular level. Even with DNA sequence data, we have no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination (N. A. Takahata, Genetic Perspective on the Origin and History of Humans - Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics; vol 26, 1995, p34).

DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution are found to be inconsistent with the fossil record and comparative morphology of the creatures.

Anthropologist Dr Roger Lewin has commented: "The overall effect is that molecular phylogenetics is by no means as straightforward as its pioneers believed. . . The Byzantine dynamics of genome change has many other consequences for molecular phylogenetics, including the fact that different genes tell different stories" ("Family Feud", New Scientist, vol 157 January 24th, 1998, p39).

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 4) Geological timescale questioned. Evolution theory depends upon the great age of rocks calculated by the geologic timescale. This scale was based upon principles of geology recently invalidated by laboratory experiments. (French Academy of Science 1986, 1988, Geological Society 1993, Fusion, May-June 2000).

If this fact had been known in the 19th century, Darwin could never have formulated his theory. Evolution depends upon geological formations taking millions of years to form, and Darwin's geologist friend Charles Lyell provided those years with his principles of geology. It is these principles that now stand refuted.

New knowledge of geology allows the reconstruction of the original conditions in which the rocks were formed. These original conditions include the time taken for formation. In reconstructions, the time taken is shown to have been in weeks or even days rather than millions of years (see www.geology.ref.ac/berthault

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
5) Evolution ignores laws of physics. The supposed evolutionary process breaks the most universal and best-proved law of physics, the law of increasing entropy, known as the "second law of thermodynamics"

It applies not only in physical and chemical systems, but also in biological and geological systems, in fact all systems, without exception. The law stipulates that all systems tend to lose order. They go towards disorganisation and loss of complexity.
The law of increasing entropy therefore precludes evolution, because all evolutionary systems are expected to increase in order and complexity. Physicists E. H. Lieb and Jacob Yngvason explain: "No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found, not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy [the `first law'], the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles"

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
I would like to answer argument with legit evidence like I have quoted scientist and their publications. Evolution is like a cult religion which scientist are sticking on to without any reason and have zero evidence to back it up.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost You are not going to like this...
If you don't mind I will begin with number 5.
5) This is the reason why you should believe the scientific community and not make assumption on your supposed knoledge. The second law of thermodynamics doesn't go against evolution. Literally the guy that came up with it said so. I don't recall the name I am honest, but I do recall that he spoke about the theory of evolution too. He did no supported it, BUT he said that the second law of thermodynamics wasn't a problem to evolution. Why? Because it only applies to CLOSE SYSTEMS! A close system needs to have no trade of matter and energy. No recieving or giving. There are no closes systems in the wild. The earth itself is not a close system. Those can only be made in a lab on controlled conditions.
See what happens when you actually know what you are talking about? You can tell people why they are saying things without all the information.
The very man that came up with the second law is against you on this. Yet there you are claiming it does go against evolution. So... you either didn't read the entire law or you went for a 5 minut google search to try to dispute me and this is the result.
"The second law of thermodynamics says that when energy changes from one form to another form, or matter moves freely, entropy (disorder) in a closed system increases"
Read to the end next time.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 4) This will be a common theme... You give the name or a source of an individual that makes a claim that goes against what is accepted by the scientific community and you chose to believe them over the majority of experts?
For example, not long ago it was found a T-Rex bones that had blood cells. Living tissue. Creationists and other rush to claim that it was proof that the skeleton didn't had millions of years, but much less. Of course even if some said that the vast majority of scientific community did not agree with that. They were quick to realize that the unusualy high content of iron in that blood kept it. The skeleton itself was still millions of years old.
Millions of years... I even wen to see that news again. It had 80 million years. It was found in 2015. Funny how they still date them so old and using the same methods that you say to be invalidated.
Doesn't this sound odd to you? If they were invalidated why are they still used? Well maybe because they weren't. Relative and absolute methods of dating fossils are still very much used today and they do date fossils to be million sof years old. Carbon dating is an example. Is still very much used today. And it will continue to be unless the laws of physics change.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 3) I know a thing or two about this. More than you as it was obvious on the 5) point. But I don't know everything so I have to do some research.
Regarding molecular evolution...

www.sciencedirect.com/.../molecular-evolution
www.britannica.com/.../Molecular-evolution
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK230201/

Apparently there were some major discoveries since the early 90's, where that first paper comes from. Two of those links talk about that. Se the first link, a study on molecular evolution from 2019.

Roger Lewin words are being taken off context here! He worked with Richard Leakey on a book on human evolution.
"Leakey proposed controversial interpretations of his fossil finds. In two books written with science writer Roger Lewin, Origins (1977) and People of the Lake (1978), Leakey presented his view that, some 3 million years ago, three hominin forms coexisted: Homo habilis, Australopithecus africanus, and Australopithecus boisei."
He was not arguing that evolution doesn't happen or that the fossil record is agaisnt it. He was saying that it was being misinterpreted! A guy you presented as evidence that evolution doesn't happen, wrote books on how human evolution began in Africa. Nice job.
There are other things he talks about, like how odd it is that DNA puts cows closely related to dolphins than to horses. At the time they found this odd, today we know it to be true.
www.nationalgeographic.com/.../whales-evolved-from-small-aquatic-hoofed-ancestors
That's from national geographic, dispute that.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 2) Yes it does. Go see who ichthyostega and tiktaalik are.
Do you know what professionals say about the missing link? That is not missing anymore.
By the way the man you just quoted, Jeffrey H. Schwartz, teaches evolutionary biology. And you want to use a professor that teaches evolution, to prove that there is no evolution?
Do you want to know what he says about the missing link? That is not missing anymore.
www.sciencedaily.com/.../070210170623.htm
That evolutionary changes occur fast and not slow like Darwin said. So to him, there is no missing link because species mutated into other without the need for transitional species.
This is his hypothesis of course. Most disagree with him and say that there are transitional species like the two I just mentioned.
But did you just saw how much you took one of his sentences off context? Third time you do that. Third time your own source does not agree with you.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost
1) And here you quote him again. While macro evolution was not observed doesn't mean it can't be proven. We never saw atoms of oxygen and yet we know they exist and how they work.
About how we know:
evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/.../s12052-010-0213-5
www.nature.com/.../

In resume.
5) You didn't read the law to the end.
4) You claimed that methods of dating were dimissed when they weren't and the age of findings continues to be of several millions of years.
3) Misquoting and believing an old source when bigger advancements happened since.
2) Misquoting to a riddiculous level!
1) And again!

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost from that last remark I bet you taught that I wouldn't have answers for you. Well surprise.
Evolution is like a cult religion? Go see the definition of religion, you will be surprised.
Also we do have evidences for what we know, not believe, know.
I just showed it to with you and gladly. For real you literally shot your own foot by not reading the entire law and not seeing in what context your sources were talking.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost literally a bonus.
https://youtu.be/-UT-7S7g6_I

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
5) are you fucking dumb or something bro,
quote where did it said in my argument, that law of thermodynamics is supported by evolution and freaking idiot engineer. The Second Law of Thermodynamics is universal and valid without exceptions: in closed and open systems, in equilibrium and non-equilibrium, in inanimate and animate systems -- that is, in all space and time scales useful energy (non-equilibrium work-potential) is dissipated in heat and entropy is generated.
Stop making up shit bro and you didn't even read half of what it said in point... YOU LIED ABOUT LAW
sites.google.com/.../the-second-law-of-thermodynamics
closed loop is used in experiments cuz its possible to measure everything within that system, otherwise it applies everywhere in universe.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
4) No they are invalid and entire scientific community considers them ESTIMATION, THEY are freaking estimates bro. Its not one guy everybody considers them false cuz its EXPERIMENTALLY PROEVEN TO BE.
You have no idea about this thing and you watch "High School" dropout youtubers... really !
I am Doctor and you are engineer bro, have some respect for our status and follow legit sources and Scientist never say they are 100% sure its the fossil date idiot and NO WE DON'T USE GEOLOGIC TIME SCALE
topex.ucsd.edu/.../lecture13.html
https://www.discovery.org/a/10661/
We use CARBON DATING and it is extremely accurate as compare to your method !

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 You are quoting 1970's papers who do you think I am Dumb idiot !
I am asking for process by which you claim "Evolution occurs" and you are quoting nothing that is relevant to my question,
I was saying there are no intermediate genes ever found and you have provided nothing in its favour and funny thing is you don't even know what theory of evolution claims !
You don't even know "How evolution claims it works"
We have entire Human and animal genome sequenced and there were ZERO genes undergoing evolution, its absolute evidence against evolution there were zero genes !
So go find evidence for Evolving genes but remember, WE HAVE ENTIRE GENOMES sequenced to say otherwise...
Let me educate you on Evolution, Mutation is the process they claim by which evolution happens but to prove their point they have to find genes undergoing process of evolution.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
3) Another thing instead of quoting useless assumptions and stories I want DNA EVIDENCE and funny part is you don't know anything about Molecular biology, you are quoting scientific papers that got absolutely nothing to do with point no 3.
Let me tell you how evidence will look like
www.icr.org/.../
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature08700
www.icr.org/.../separate-studies-converge-human-chimp-dna
www.icr.org/.../genetic-gap-widens-between-humans-chimps
journals.plos.org/.../journal.pgen.1005721

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
No you are an idiot Jeffrey H. Schwartz literally said and do you know why?
He is reputed scientist who will not lie about stuff like you otherwise NCBI will cancel his licence and where is the evidence to your Rapid claim,
Nobody freaking cares about what anybody says unless its proven by experiment and HE HAS NOT FOUND LINK,
I asked for missing link in fossil record not some comment... if you have one present it don't link me trash theories.
Go and find missing links !

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 If anyone wants to prove rapid theory he have recreate in laboratory where he has rapidly evolve rat into monkey, which he has not done and his theory is entirely baseless that's why nobody believes him.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
again you have not quoted anything related to my questions !
If Hypothesis can't be proven then its nothing other than statement and you can't argue against it, if we go by your logic then Creationism is also a theory cuz it also can't be proven.

1) Paper you quoted is list of suggestions and when those suggestions will be proven then you can quote them.

Let me reiterate,
I asked for mangos and you have quoted shit of alien, and even that shit is not evidence cuz they are statements not supported by evidence.
I will give you example "what a paper with experimental evidence looks like?"
journals.plos.org/.../journal.pmed.1003660

Nobody will ever consider you seriously if you can't anything like this complete with experiment and results.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 5) Again, the very author of that law disagrees with you. It only applies to close systems.
What the hell is that site? Here is an actually scientific paper on the matter.
evolution-outreach.biomedcentral.com/.../s12052-009-0195-3

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 4) They are called estimations because it's impossible to know the exact number of days a fossil has, but we can determine the age with remarkable accuracy.
That youtuber has a Phd on biology, teaches it and does research on the topic. Far from highschool dropout. He explained this topic in the video better than me.
You being a doctor doesn't make you an expert on this. Clearly.
The second link is from a creationist site. And you talk about legit sources? Come on.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 3) You were the one using papers from early 90's. The ones I showed claim that ever since we had many more evidences for evolution.
Which process drives evolution? Many. Genetic drif, natural selection, mutations, etc.
I am very aware of what evolution is and the papers I gave you are works on molecular evolution. Did you read them? of course not. They did talked about the topic.
Regarding the evolution of the genome here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26836/
www.sciencedirect.com/.../genome-evolution
Both of those are scientific papers.
You said that it doesn't happen. Yes it does. Let me quote one of them. "Genome evolution is driven by random point mutations that lead to single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), larger variations in core genes (e. g., deletions or duplication of repeat regions) that may differ between lineages, and MGEs that include insertion sequences, transposons, viruses, and pathogenicity and genomic islands"

Lets see the parpers you gave...
Again the ICR creationists, not going to take those seriously. The second and last paper are the same from different sources and only talk about the Y chromossomes. They explain why there is a big difference between the Y chromosomes of humans and chimps. They explain why we have that difference, not that it disproves common ancestry. In fact they do say chimps and humans have a common ancestor.
Read before you post!

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 2) You didn't read what Schwartz said and you didn't read what I said. He supports evolution 100%. How do you expect to disprove it by quoting somene that defends it is beyond me.
Within science you can try to disprove theories and publish papers about it. Even creationists have pubished papers on evolution. Schwartz simply says that the evolution was so fast that you don't have transitional fossils. Doesn't mean the scientific community agrees. Here is one example from one of the most respected men in the field.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0fexCTRgUss
I love when he says "missing links are not missing anymore". Don't you?
By the way he also talks about common ancestor between humans and apes.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost 1) So... you think that people just assume that macroevolution happens? I give you articles about it, and you think they came from imagination? Oh well...
Here:
link.springer.com/.../s11692-017-9434-7
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4721102/

Of course all of them say that the experiments have limitations due to not having millions of years to perform them. And this will be your main point I am sure, but easy to refute. Even with the limitations macroevolution is still considered as fact by the scientific community. Because the overwheling amount of evidences we have points in that direction.
education.nationalgeographic.org/.../theory-evolution
Again National Geographic from THIS YEAR. Debate them on science is literally what you are trying to do here. Doesn't that sound odd to you?
Also from live science:
www.livescience.com/...oversy-evolution-works.html

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost
A final note. I really wonder what makes you try to dispute evolution when the experts are with me on this. From National Geographic to Livescience. It's lietarlly taught at schools in biology worldwide! As a famous book among scholars title goes: "Nothing in biology makese sense, except in light of evolution."
That and you literally have misquoted, given creationist sources and not read the very papers you gave. Literally some of the sources you gave disagree with you. The others are creationists.

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8
Which expert are you talking about idiot,
even talking to you right now is beneath me cuz you have no idea how science or scientific community works... go watch your YouTube video's dumb idiot.
Recently Australian Post Doc (2 PHD's) talked in favour of Anti-Vaxers, so idiots like you are mentioning exist and there is continuous debate in scientific community, where outright ridiculous claims are continuously made by scientist and rejected by scientific community.

Scientific method is simple, you need experimentation to support a "Null Hypothesis" and without it Null hypothesis is rejected and hence Evolution can't be proved and hence its false or cultist propaganda.

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost you are right you do need experiments in order for the scientific method to apply, and that is exactly what we have in favor of evolution.

There you go again, picking one or two supposed experts that are either taken out of context or that the entirety if the scientific community disagrees with.

I found it assuming that people still refuse to believe in medical science and biology when they trust science for literally everything else.
And for what? Because saying things against what is considered to be factual makes you feel special?

[AlphaGhost]

@This_Is_My_Opinion8 and evolution have zero direct experimentation to support it cuz it would require to evolve bacteria to mouse.
"You can't kill a cow and claim I conquered the universe"
You are uneducated trash, who google evidence and paste these links here and it wouldn't even matter if you read it cuz you won't understand it.
I have read every single paper you pasted here and none of it contain any evidence, its people say that, that and that BUT these things don't matter without evidence.
but low IQ people like you believe in illuminati and speak trash after watching youtube video's and funny part is, they don't even know what experimental evidence is !
So byeeeee stop wasting my time and stay away from things you don't understand cuz there is a reason degrees exist

[This_Is_My_Opinion8]

@AlphaGhost again you keep insulting your own intelligence and the intelligence of literally all the experts in the field that somehow know less than you do.
And let me remind you you misquoted several experts, didn't read a law all the way through, presented articles that actually agreed with me... And you think you won this?
And yes evolution was observed in and out of the lab multiple times. You are just chosing to believe what you want at this point.

[Dimension453]

I think so.

[Fuentes]

How?

[Dinosaursandanime65]

Darwinopterus

[Anonymous]

Yes, mostly.

[enocheli]

no lol