Why is evolution even still a debate?

[rational experiences]

One has to transition into another somehow. Look at a tree of life illustrated and tell me that one species doesn't transition into another according to the ToE.

A human looks at all different body types living separated in the natural atmosphere that owns the body existing separate.

Sees it knows it exists in its owned body type. The heavens being life support at the ground is the state owning each separated body.

So you look at one species to claim a species created a new life by two of the species having sex.

Sex says a scientist as a human is the only reason new life exists beyond two parents types.

Is the human scientists only answer. Sex.

Sex hence is quantified as not any science thesis as a human never controlled why every body existed.

But proves in a sick mind thesis human only that it does want to have control and it's relative to machine thesis only.

 

[F1fan]

No, there's a few bone supposed to be a cat) dog ancestor, but it's a lot of supposing...more likely it was neithers ancestor. In fact it looked somewhat like a muscalid if I recall correctly

Do you think you have better knowledge than experts in science?

 

[rational experiences]

Pretty basic human science advice.

When you place position one as some chemical reactions before biology that position is a human scientists answer to life. For a human to remove any natural living form back to your theoried first place as machine conditions only.

Built a machine from chemical substances. Uses the machines to destroy react chemical substances as position one science by human only status.

Not even by God earth status as you Idealise the chemical reaction yourself a hu man only.

As a woman human life sacrificed biology attack I know your new experiments on life reduced human biology to one human only operating the machine.

As the science cell life cloner your memory believes one human can survive as the scientist can manually Clone life cells into new babies himself.

As the God human theist.

Why the alien human clone theme is human science preached by its inventor. As any human life studied biological attacked was by AI conditions seen. Then data based observed by human sciences.

The theme Human survived attack saw kind alien visions ignored as an alien atmospheric attack disappearing.... as humans only own human biology.

A one way science atmospheric channel never wanted going away disappearing aliens.

 

[F1fan]

Evolution is still a theory because the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no option but to accept the results. The only reason some reject it as a theory is due to the influence of bad religion.

This is all nonsense, in terms of science. Evolution is a theory because it is only partially developed and partially effective as a method of understanding complex biological interactions and their results.

Do you understand how hard it is to verify a theory in science? How is it only partially developed? Explain what you mean.
And is it nonsense that those who reject evolution are mostly fundamentalist Christians? Why do you think that is the case?

 

[rational experiences]

Scientists human that look at animals dead bones contemplate living animals owning death instantly no flesh no microbes no water no blood.

In thesis the body type after it had once lived.

Think of water just as water in space as just water first by mass only.

As all small cells use water they lie in thesis by contemplating water as a drop when water was created as a mass first then evaporated as a drop.

If only one drop of water existed first as says his human thesis all created form would be safe as he wouldn't personally exist himself.

 

[rational experiences]

All of everything first exists first in the same moment any human decided to thinK is not fit being just a human.

Which is how man sciences owned the human lying position human.

You didn't invent presence by theorising as a human about it is a direct human only ego warning.

Evolution is only a story told by humans thinking.

You falsely claimed human applied data proves why it exists.

You see it first in its natural position don't you any human being?

Yes should be the human only answer which is your answer.

What liars ego humans are by subject discussion you choose to want to argue with or against other just humans only Thinking.

You use maths as proof maths a human imposed measure measures by humans choosing to.impse the measure that maths says why any form exists.

Yet it already existed naturally without you claiming a measure.

Imagine if just your measure only existed no life in natural would be existing.

All you own is one human self being and it's about time you only honoured the one self human being as all human's being.

Your measure you used to build machines. First.

As if you decided without a machine to go about measuring any natural body what purpose does it own?

Would you use a tape measure as you look at all natural living bodies first.

Outside of each body first is all the gases that a heavens own as position first to measure.

 

[ppp]

Bird kind, dog kind, human kind, so on.

Heh. And yet, every creationist, including @Wildswanderer proposes a reality that directly conflicts with the real world.

 

[rational experiences]

Heh. And yet, every creationist, including @Wildswanderer proposes a reality that directly conflicts with the real world.

Every creationist a theist a satanist begins theory with Satan burnt bodies converting in mass that once had stopped burning now held sealed cooled.

Each substance gods cooled. Where you stand live as a human.

You talk about owning it's change as the human claiming you began as a hu man beings life in the not fused sealed moment a burning concerning moment.

Why?

The human should actually as a God supported human say my two human parents had sex. I inherited the sin of sex by damaged DNA in their sex act.

If you believe in God only.

If you are a satanic scientist you only believe as a human how to convert cold earth God substances.

In human reality.

So you make a choice which type of human do you support in human reality.

Science that looks at flattened crops that lost some water only wilted crop life and gained pressure patterns only is the God science. The modern theist new machine wants it not to be on the ground of God but inside their machine.

Anyone should ask how all the pressures owned by space gas water are going to change just for his new machine.

And think self sane.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is selection going on, hence the name. It's just that the selection is natural and unintentional, as opposed to human selective breeding or the finger of God.

There's no agency that consciously selects is what I mean. Individual organisms select mates, but outside of that the process just happens.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Right! There is no reason. That they do anyway is evidence of a soul made in God's image.

How? How does it demonstrate the existence of a soul, the existence of a god, or that these souls are made in the image of a god?
And isn't it possible that it's just a weird thing our brains do? Can we be sure other animals don't have similar feelings?

 

[rational experiences]

There's no agency that consciously selects is what I mean. Individual organisms select mates, but outside of that the process just happens.

If a human selects a reaction don't they base choice and reaction on their owned consciousness?

If you say no cosmic law as a O suns and O planets o. Various and scattered various masses. In space as the space is empty to be quantified the space then mass owning no space owns no time measure either.

Its just mass until it cant hold its form as O. Whilst human science gives earth nothing holes mining included.

O a sun cooling didn't choose to burst blast again the process ceases body cooling in space that causes blasting.

No choosing.

Two humans first both separate as humans two of one consciousness dominion status human owning one choice the same. Sex.

Humans as humans about how man's inferred about humans united. Baby man son he said was human liFe sacrificed as you seem to ignore he was human and human born.

Because if being human one status is the human.

Not one created a human as some theists have as a human misquoted. God earth as one of ...is a sealed planet.

Science a practice choice of the human lied.

As one human did try to remove life of one human by submitting it to its lowest denominator origin in water as type. Theme however type is biology is not human's beginnings just another coercion science likes to use.

Pretence a human pretending they're a God.

As you ask why did science define space a woman when today still just a human man he says space is space?

If you quote one human plus maths is the female you prove you chose to try destroy all life knowing the ie.ovah ova ovary was life cell continuance.

Bible hence was a written man's hu man science I'm the life destroyer confession. Proof he theories it himself.

 

[rational experiences]

How? How does it demonstrate the existence of a soul, the existence of a god, or that these souls are made in the image of a god?
And isn't it possible that it's just a weird thing our brains do? Can we be sure other animals don't have similar feelings?

Humans wanted Phi fallout to heal and disappear off the crop body attack themselves.

To begin again as science machine only without the fall.

Maybe because a crop begins growth as a seed in the earth he is possessed science theses as he invented by thesis all things changed... believed life of a human came from his sperm seed.

So his family had to preach life of a baby began in an ie.ovah ova ovary.

As science claim Phi is God. A soul of a human or animal as an ark that fell out as the fall of man. A fake theory.

The metal lightened star metal mass hit Ararat. Sucked together into a mass by vacuum causes was set alight came back in.

Star metal not iron doesn't support red celled warm blood. That type of dinosaur mass Atmospheric mass constant water supported supports cold blooded thick skinned giants.

As a no ice just lots of water held in a higher burning gas mass. Said father versus the human baby now adult science liar.

The advice is the fall of the man of science. As science his reactive practice began inside his machine. So it didn't say fall of the man...of science. If it did you'd own no argument today.

G O D it's word was heavenly mass that cools on the face of space gas spirit light cold and clear with water. Described as scientific cooling. By humans who can talk about all subjects whilst Living.

Only GOD was the exact term no other words allowed. No thesis.

As it ends it's fall gas burning as pressure flattening crops it is by water mass loss only.

The conditions why water ground mass was lost equates why water ground mass life support was lost as a human only question to answer.

 

[PureX]

Reported. I've given you enough slack in this area.

Incidentally, maybe you should have your ducks in a row before calling others fools.

Maybe you should learn to read, better.

 

[PureX]

Evolution is still a theory because the evidence is so overwhelming that there is no option but to accept the results. The only reason some reject it as a theory is due to the influence of bad religion.


Do you understand how hard it is to verify a theory in science? How is it only partially developed? Explain what you mean.
And is it nonsense that those who reject evolution are mostly fundamentalist Christians? Why do you think that is the case?

This isn't about "those who reject evolution". It's about the proposition that evolution is not really a theory, but a proven fact. Which is it isn't.

It's called a theory because it is a theory. In science, a theory either works (elicits predictable results) or it doesn't, within the context of it's testing. If the theory works, it stands as a viable theory, if it doesn't it is rejected as a viable theory. For it to become an accepted truth, as some here seem to be suggesting that it has, it will have to had ALL possible questions springing from it resolved. And in the case of evolution, that very clearly has not happened. As there are still some very big questions left unresolved.

 

[Valjean]

Then you have to have multiple miracles at once.

No, you have to have lots and lots of time. The process usually involves the gradual accumulation of millions of imperceptibly small variations, over many generations.

No parents bear offspring that are a perceptibly different species from them, just as no parent ever gave birth to a child who spoke a different language. Yet we know these changes happened.

 

[Valjean]

Why would we even have emotion? It actually gets in the way of survival.

No, they're important motivators and survival mechanisms. Why do you think they're so widespread through the animal kingdom?
Useless features -- anatomical, physiological and neurological -- don't tend to evolve.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This isn't about "those who reject evolution". It's about the proposition that evolution is not really a theory, but a proven fact. Which is it isn't.

Just like gravity, it's both.

There's the fact of evolution: living things share ancestry and species evolve into new sub-species.
The theory of evolution explains the mechanism of how that happens.

Same with gravity. The fact of gravity is that things with mass exert gravity - the bigger the mass, the bigger the gravity. That's a fact.
The theory of gravity explains how that happens, it explains the mechanism underpinning it.

It's called a theory because it is a theory. In science, a theory either works (elicits predictable results) or it doesn't, within the context of it's testing. If the theory works, it stands as a viable theory, if it doesn't it is rejected as a viable theory.

Bzzzt.
Ideas in science start out as a hypothesis.
When that hypothesis is tested and re-tested and confirmed over and over, it gets promoted to theory.

In science, a theory is a body of knowledge, a collection of well-tested and confirmed propositions that explain a specific phenomenon within a specific scope of inquiry.

Theory is the graduation stage of a hypothesis. There's nothing "higher" then theory.
And sure, theories can still turn out to be incorrect / incomplete in light of new evidence.
That goes for any scientific theory, not just evolution.
It also goes for relativity, germ theory of disease, atomic theory, plate tectonic theory, etc etc etc.

For it to become an accepted truth

Again, this is a misnomer.
Theory is the highest stage an idea can get to in science.
There's nothing beyond that.

A "really good theory" remains a theory. It doesn't become "truth" or whatever.

, as some here seem to be suggesting that it has, it will have to had ALL possible questions springing from it resolved. And in the case of evolution, that very clearly has not happened.

This hasn't happened in the case of ANY theory in ALL OF SCIENCE.
It's a logical impossibility as it would require us to know everything about everything.

So once again we come to the point where your objections aren't geared towards evolution per se, but rather to ALL OF SCIENCE.

You can take your exact "argument" here and replace "evolution" with literally ANY theory and the merit would be exactly the same. Which is to say: pretty pointless.

As there are still some very big questions left unresolved.

Such as?

 

[Valjean]

Do you think of coyote has emotions about killing a rabbit?

Yes, A strong drive to hunt. Pleasure in the act of hunting and of obtaining a meal. Emotions are important motivators.

Look, you can draw blood from predators before and after a hunt, or even just viewing a picture of a prey animal, and you'll see huge spikes in various catecholamines, endorphins, &al.
You can put a dog (sorry -- I don't think anyone's tried a coyote, yet) in an fMRI or PET scanner, and watch the excitation responses and amygdalar activation from various visual, auditory or olfactory stimuli.

Emotions are a primitive, "lizard brain" feature, that developed long before mammals or birds came on the scene. They're what motivates animal behavior.

Animals are just as emotional as humans, probably even more so, since their behavior is less modulated by rational cognition, outcome imagination and complex planning than ours.

And yet the human predator can hesitate because "0h that deer is so cute."

Whereas in a non-human predator, it's just s straight-out emotion motivating it, without any cognitive buffering or interference.

 

[Valjean]

But the emotion isn't helpful trust me. I know. Even getting Buck fever isn't helpful. The most effective Hunter would be the one with no emotion whatsoever about it.

It depends on what emotions we're talking about. Enculturated emotions and socialization might, indeed, interfere with the pure, unaltered, hunting drive and the pleasure of hunting that motivates predators -- and got humans through the ice age -- but this is social conditioning, that's altered the strong, natural, unmodified, emotional drives animals rely on.
It's animals, not humans, who are the emotional ones.

["All animals and people have the same core emotion systems in the brain"]
-- Temple Grandin. Temple Grandin - Wikipedia

 

[Valjean]

No... For example, all canines would be one kind.

So "kind" equates to a taxonomic family?

Wildswanderer said: ↑
Switching to another branch of science isn't an argument. I'm talking about our knowledge of the past. We don't even get our own history right and we are expected to believe we know what happened billions of years before we existed.

Our own history is complicated, convoluted and full of details.
The date of a particular stratum or fossil, or a gradual anatomical change over time, is more straightforward.
It's like asking how we know what the climate was like at a particular point, when we can't accurately predict the weather a week from now.
Apples and oranges.