Is evolution true?

Evolution is a theory?

Yes. Theory is a global (universalized) view of a concept, or hypothesis. Evolution is ONLY about speciation, and no person has ever seen it.

K: all scientific theories like gravity and evolution are consider theories… all of them…
yet, if you want to disprove gravity, go to the nearest rooftop and toss yourself off…
if you live, let me know if the “theory” of gravity is true or not?

Kropotkin

Pretty sure evolution includes micro-evolution not just macro…

K: now I see the problem… you are completely ignorant of what evolution is…
if you knew anything about evolution (and I explained speciation if you read my post,
then you would know too) you would know that evolution is more then just speciation.
of course this would mean you actually knew what you were talking about and you don’t…

Kropotkin

Is anything in science not based on a theory regarding origins?

Peter,

We can demonstrate gravity.

We’ve never seen speciation. Ever.

You clearly don’t understand that speciation is the branching of reproductive organisms such that they can no longer reproduce with each other or exchange DNA …

maybe scientists are just using the evidence for micro evolution and passing it off as valid for macro?

There is no such thing as micro evolution…

That’s just adaptation.

Evolution is speciation. Defined solely by the ability to reproduce or not

K: and we can demonstrate speciation in the same way as gravity…

Kropotkin

Everyone in the world can drop a quarter to the ground.

Nobody in the world has ever seen speciation.

You really are ignorant about this topic.

See… The problem I have with people is this:

They need a fucking religion.

We only have 2.

God or evolution.

If they rejected god, then they need evolution …

If they don’t have either, they don’t know what to do with themselves!

clearly I am arguing with someone who is dumber then dirt
and I’m sorry to compare you with dirt because at least dirt is good for
something…

Kropotkin

Dumber than dirt…

You asserted an argument without expounding upon why the argument is true.

Anyone can do that.

Grass is purple. The sky is neon green. You’re an idiot.

Evolution is RELIGION peter. It’s not a fucking fact

K: it is not a fact but a theory and it is not a religion… it is science
I have already given you an argument for speciation in an earlier post and if you ’
had read that you would know…and as for your anti-science beliefs…
you know I think there is an flat earth society meeting
in your area that is begging for you to attend…go be with your people there…

Kropotkin

Peter, you really know nothing about science.

Nobody in 1.3 million years has observed evolution, even with tools.

Nobody.

That doesn’t mean it’s false…

You’re an absurd person peter

E: Dumber than dirt…

You asserted an argument without expounding upon why the argument is true.

Anyone can do that.

Grass is purple. The sky is neon green. You’re an idiot.

Evolution is RELIGION peter. It’s not a fucking fact
[/quote]
K: it is not a fact but a theory and it is not a religion… it is science
I have already given you an argument for speciation in an earlier post and if you ’
had read that you would know…and as for your anti-science beliefs…
you know I think there is an flat earth society meeting
in your area that is begging for you to attend…go be with your people there…

Kropotkin
[/quote]
Peter, you really know nothing about science.

Nobody in 1.3 million years has observed evolution, even with tools.

Nobody.

That doesn’t mean it’s false…

You’re an absurd person peter[/quote

K: YES, THEY HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION… it happens every single day…
when a child is born with different characteristic then their parents,
that is evolution… it is really not that hard to understand unless
you are as you clearly are… a religious fundamentalist who thinks the
bible is the only word possible… the earth is 6000 years old and all that…
perhaps a philosophy site is wrong for you… try a fundamentalist site…
that might be more your style…

Kropotkin

K: it is not a fact but a theory and it is not a religion… it is science
I have already given you an argument for speciation in an earlier post and if you ’
had read that you would know…and as for your anti-science beliefs…
you know I think there is an flat earth society meeting
in your area that is begging for you to attend…go be with your people there…

Kropotkin
[/quote]
Peter, you really know nothing about science.

Nobody in 1.3 million years has observed evolution, even with tools.

Nobody.

That doesn’t mean it’s false…

You’re an absurd person peter
[/quote

K: YES, THEY HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION… it happens every single day…
when a child is born with different characteristic then their parents,
that is evolution… it is really not that hard to understand unless
you are as you clearly are… a religious fundamentalist who thinks the
bible is the only word possible… the earth is 6000 years old and all that…
perhaps a philosophy site is wrong for you… try a fundamentalist site…
that might be more your style…

Kropotkin[/quote]
That’s not speciation Peter, that’s adaptation …

You need to get your terms straight…

All those different birds on the Galapagos that were recorded can still mate with each other. They had ADAPTATION differences. Not speciation!!

When a child is born different than it’s parents, it can still have offspring with it’s parents or others from the same SPECIES!!

Peter, honestly, I’m talking to you like a 5 year old right now.

Peter, you really know nothing about science.

Nobody in 1.3 million years has observed evolution, even with tools.

Nobody.

That doesn’t mean it’s false…

You’re an absurd person peter
[/quote

K: YES, THEY HAVE OBSERVED EVOLUTION… it happens every single day…
when a child is born with different characteristic then their parents,
that is evolution… it is really not that hard to understand unless
you are as you clearly are… a religious fundamentalist who thinks the
bible is the only word possible… the earth is 6000 years old and all that…
perhaps a philosophy site is wrong for you… try a fundamentalist site…
that might be more your style…

Kropotkin[/quote]
That’s not speciation Peter, that’s adaptation …

You need to get your terms straight…

All those different birds on the Galapagos that were recorded can still mate with each other. They had ADAPTATION differences. Not speciation!!

When a child is born different than it’s parents, it can still have offspring with it’s parents or others from the same SPECIES!!

Peter, honestly, I’m talking to you like a 5 year old right now.
[/quote]
K:ummmmm, I am trying to explain something very easy to a fucking moron…
ok, you don’t know what speciation is and you don’t know what adaptation is
because adaptation is about environmental adaptation, adapting to the environment
a species finds itself in… when a child is born, it has different characteristic
then the parents, that is a function of evolution… that is how different traits
are inherited… traits that allow one to function in any given environment…
and traits that are successful and allows one to function in any given environment
are then passed along to the next generation…
(but this is the randomness of evolution in that we cannot predict which
traits will be passed on to the next generation and this is part of the
confusion people have with evolution… they don’t understand how randomness
plays a role in evolution, both in the inherited traits and in which traits
will be useful in a given environment) if you are different then your parents…then
you are part of evolution… you were passed traits that will allow you to adapt to
a given environment and if the human race is very unlucky, you will pass those traits
along to the next generation… that is evolution is…passing of traits and how those
traits allow you to adapt to your environment…natural selection is the second part of
the equation but you don’t even get the first part… so why waste time
trying to get you to understand something that is clearly beyond you…

Kropotkin

I suppose this was supposed to be a response to my second question:

At least the first half. It still doesn’t specify what parts of the research to keep and regard as valid. Nor does it answer the second part about taxonomy: Keep the present system; revert to 1850? Make up a new one that ignores evolution? Or what?

And it completely ignores the primary question:

You say it’s a theory and not a fact. You’ve gone to some trouble to discredit the theory.
Well, what are the facts, in your view?
Short of facts, what is a better alternative working theory that would fit with whichever bits you want to keep of the current state of scientific research ?

Just repeating “You’re all stupid, no it isn’t.” really doesn’t convince anyone that you have the tiniest glimmer of a microscopic clue what you’re talking about.

Peter is being belligerent in quite a frightening way …

I don’t discredit the theory at all.

I’m simply saying, it’s not a fact.

It’s not very controversial to say that.