And how do you know this? NO!!! I don't want to hear about peppered moths making a sudden transformation, I was to hear about any species anywhere that made a gradual transformation due to survival of the fittest. You NOT only do NOT have evidence of such a gradual transformation but you also do NOT have evidence it was caused by survival of the fittest. You will now dodge this question entirely and NOT present any experiment or evidence to show it.
But you reject or ignore all the evidence. Your second sentence above is an example.
These threads are full of evidence. There is more and more varied evidence for natural selection than there is for the germ theory, a spherical Earth or a sun centered solar system.This is a true delusion. You maintain an unsupported belief despite mountains of contrary evidence. Practically every organism you can name is a product of natural selection.
I must hang around different people than you do because most of the scientific type people I know tend to agree with me and they arrived at their positions the same way; experiment. They have been paying attention to all the experiments going on in the last half century rather than picking and choosing what suits their beliefs. Things like chaos, plant communication, human consciousness as a function of belief, etc etc are real and subject to experimentation. Ever hear of single celled organisms that use their environment for memory, or crows that communicate? How about waggle dances that prove even insects know something about astronomy? It's believers in science who are out of step with the times.
I wonder what sort of "scientific types" these are, who don't believe in science.
Science does not choose what suits its belief. It tailors its beliefs to fit the evidence. This is the whole point of science -- don't believe what you like. Religion's done that forever, and got nowhere. Believe what you're unable to disprove.
Do you believe natural selection is not supported by experimentation?
These examples you give are evidence-based and known to science, though some of your interpretation makes no sense.
So what is your point?
Without the supernatural how can you believe in Darwin and be certain that change in species can be understood without so much as a definition for "consciousness"? Now you'll dodge this.
What's consciousness have to do with evolution? Explain, please.
You have nothing, no evidence, and no experiment. Science has been changing because actual experiment does not fit 19th century beliefs.
19th C.beliefs? You must mean religion....
For the 1000th time; NO. Science never makes any conclusions. Those positing "settled science" are lobbyists, politicians, and the faithful.
Lobbyists and politicians are not known to have much understanding or respect for science. The faithful? Who are they?
Faith is anathema to science.
There is no such thing. Science can never be right no matter how much evidence one believes he has and all theory derives from experiment and NOT evidence. No experiment supports Darwin's beliefs derived from false assumptions. He couldn't have been much more wrong but at least he had a valid excuse'; he was building on 19th century beliefs and science.
Just as in my lifetime "skeptic" has come to mean "an individual who accepts what he has been told without question", science has become the world's leading religion.
Anyone who believes science is evidence based is not only doing it wrong but he doesn't even know the meaning of "metaphysics" and is more than half a century out of date with experiment and true science.
Please stop trolling. Your posts have become so bizarre they can no longer even be taken as sincere.
