The theory does so adequately which you would know if you had a basic understanding of it. I linked a course on the matter but you didn't want to read the transcript or watch the video because your ignorance is set in stone.
Demonstrate that mutation and selection is adequate or say nothing at all.
I don't see a demonstration of the power of mutation and selection here. But no, that wasn't the point. You're wrong.Yes it is you idiot, your claims are wrong and demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding of the issue at hand.
If you know better then I don't know why you keep erecting this strawman to say "this is what you believe" when it is not your opinion at all.
The theory requires this mechanism to be adequate, not sure how you can say it demonstrates it. If the mechanism isn't adequate then the theory can't be correct. Its that simple.The theory does so adequately which you would know if you had a basic understanding of it. I linked a course on the matter but you didn't want to read the transcript or watch the video because your ignorance is set in stone.
I'll be sure to take a survey of the board next time I need to know what the truth is about something.
The theory requires this mechanism to be adequate, not sure how you can say it demonstrates it. If the mechanism isn't adequate then the theory can't be correct. Its that simple.
Literally, exactly how I argued as a young deist.
*I was never all in, my gut wasn't in it , but I was heavily influenced by religion. In some ways, still mildly
I had to take books out of the library regarding science and evolution because my Christian school refused to teach it
You are right and there is no way to prove that evolution happened by direct observation. It' is just a story we tell ourselves and one into which we put our faith. From a body of data and scientific theorizing we have devised explanations that create faith. The faith so produced satisfies minds with ordinary schepticism, but will not reach those who have a bias for an alternate agenda. That is why those of us not deep in the weeds of evolutionary theory look to scientific consensus to give form our opinions.
This board isn't the arbiter of truth. A completely irrelevant point to bring up.You have the truth about adding numbers? 1+1 = 2, 1+2 = 3, 1+3 = 4 ... now do you have to do this a million times to know that 1+1.000.000 equals 1.000.001? Cause if you do you are welcome to take a survey of the board and maybe we will save you some time.
Assuming linearity is your problem.You cant talk your way out of a math problem. Its been tried. Cant be done.
The theory requires this mechanism to be adequate, not sure how you can say it demonstrates it. If the mechanism isn't adequate then the theory can't be correct. Its that simple.
What evidence verifies it? Please be specific. That is what I'm challenging you to produce.Science is evidenced based, you have to look at the evidence to see the demonstration of the function. The theory has predicted that the mechanism was adequate and the evidence verifies it.
That is how scientific research works, it's inductive and makes predictions but those predictions are separate hypothesis until evidenced. When evidenced they are demonstrated and can be included into the theory (or be a separate hypothesis or theory, the theory of evolution is really a collection of verified hypotheses).
You are mistaken on two fronts. It is a great analogy because it explains the way I'm thinking about the topic. And it isn't a strawman because it just isn't one.
Now all you have to do is show that observed "evolutionary changes" adds up like that.
The theory assumes that it does just that. Without the mechanism it can't work.Oh, if you just knew about this wonderful scientific theory called evolution that does just that.
Camels are thought to have come from South America.
What evidence verifies it? Please be specific. That is what I'm challenging you to produce.
Whether or not I understand it is irrelevant. You can't demonstrate it and that is why you're blustering about like this.How would you understand it when you don't understand the theory or even how scientific research is conducted?
Start with the biology workbook for dummies: http://www.dummies.com/education/science/biology/what-evidence-supports-the-theory-of-evolution/
I made the vow to myself that I wouldn't give personal insults anymore. This comment has tested me greatly.
The theory assumes that it does just that. Without the mechanism it can't work.
That would probably be a wise move to be honest.I'll be sure to take a survey of the board next time I need to know what the truth is about something.
Whether or not I understand it is irrelevant. You can't demonstrate it and that is why you're blustering about like this.
Your name calling is irrelevant. If this aspect of the theory is evidenced then it shouldn't be difficult for you to present it. Yet all you do is bluster nonsense.Again you scientifically illiterate twat, that is not how science works.
Scientific theories do not assume things, they are well evidenced or they are not scientific theories.
None of those things is "evidenced" to be able to produce the results you blindly believe they can. Again, I am not relevant to your total lack of ability to demonstrate that the mechanism is adequate.Of course it's relevant, if you don't understand it you'll just hand wave it away as "not evidence" which is the main problem here. You don't understand it so it didn't happen, as if your ignorance could control reality itself.
http://nectunt.bifi.es/to-learn-more-overview/mechanisms-of-evolutionary-change/
You won't get this but there are the various different mechanisms, all evidenced.