No, you can not credit Evolution Theory for those things. Those are repeatably measurable sciences not a theory. The paid scientists may advocate evolution, but they are being paid for saying that. There is an agenda and we know this, so let us not beat around the bush.
Sure I can. the Theory of Evolution - which is a scientific theory of course - is exactly the product of science and the scientific method. a Theory in science is as validated as science gets, the word 'Theory' in science is not equivalent to the everyday meaning and usage of the word to the layperson. It is the recognition that an idea or hypothesis has been so rigorously and repeatedly tested and continues to be validated by these experiments, data and facts that it might as well be considered true. It is a predictive framework that explains the facts and data while laying the groundwork to make useful predictions that continue to validate the theory.
It seems plainly obvious you don't understand science let alone the particular scientific theory you're rallying against...
That is religiousism not creationism. Evolutionists are doing exactly the same thing, though with an antithesis narrative. What served the elites back then who fund the sciences are now behind another horse.
Religiousism, creationism, call it what you like, they equally contribute nothing to our collective knowledge and technological progress
Ok, so, caterpillar into butterflies and tadpoles into frogs aren't what's being discussed. Changes in the frequency of alleles in a population over time, is.
You have just proven that species are locked down and that hybridisation in its unadulterated meaning can never happen.
Except that it Does! The evidence regarding ring species still remains unaddressed. How is it that the species can interbreed with their fellow species around some impenetrable barrier, yet when the two ends of that species meet at the other side, they can't breed? See the Greenish Warbler as a prime example -
Ring species - Wikipedia . That, and how is it that some of the big cats can have viable offspring with other big cats, though given their distance since divergence, the success of having offspring at all is directly correlated to it. Also regarding horse/donkey hybrids, you'll find a Jenny (female Mule) can in some cases have offspring - ergo, you're still wrong.
There is adaptation within the species and is expected, but it is not evolution from one species to a completely different one, that is a whale to a man, which accounts for evolution Theory teachings.
A whale to man evolution would disprove evolution - I don't get why you keep coming back to this. A whale, like all mammals, is actually derived from a proto mammal that lived entirely on land well over a hundred million years ago. Whatever you want to call it, change in alleles in a population over time is evolution.
Your looking at the finite and neglecting what should have been on the macro, too numerous of failed neomorpha and xenomorphs species in the inbetween processes.
Except all the similar animals living right now and in all likeliness undergoing the same conversion to sea life as the cetaceans did (otter, hippo, seal, walrus, manatee, etc.) are all getting along just fine. Your straw man of exoskeleton freaks isn't what evolution would expect to find, unless there's a survival advantage to it.
Anything that wasn't viable doesn't survive to pass on its genes. Again, more than 98% of all species that have ever lived, are now extinct.
Again it is adaptation and not evolution my friend. These defintions of terms can not be confused. You cannot use evolution whenever it is clearly an adaption process, which is absent of millions of millions of years of neomorph lifeforms that came into being but were unsustained. You would see a horror book of fossils and that you do not see.
You clearly don't understand the Theory of Evolution. If it makes you feel better, call it adaptation. As long as it involves the change in allele frequency in a population over time, we're talking about the same thing, no matter your protests... This we repeatedly see in the lab and in the wild, it's undeniable. Each and every fine grained gradual change in the fossil record over time is there for all to see, even if you won't look at it. You can only pretend it isn't there because you don't have an answer for it.
That is trying to claim a macro evolution and fails to provide the evidence and I find the terms confused again in an effort to sway me to think that the micro is somehow the macro and that adaptation is evolution. Come on friend, please, please.
Great! Pick any point on that page you don't agree with and show me your counter-evidence and let's discuss it. In fact, in everything you've posted above, the whole lot just seems to be an endless whine about how you don't like it. You don't address any of the evidence I've fronted.
Really, so you are a well funded teacher and/or researcher for the Australian government who sets teaching policy right? Now how did I know that my friend? Good guess!
Nope, Science, the scientific method and the Theory of Evolution (amongst many scientific theories) are an integral part of our education system here. Don't get me wrong, we still get the odd crazy slip through the cracks but for the most part, we've got a strong science and technology sector that's quite competitive with the rest of the first world - particularly in Medical sciences... we're responsible for quite a lot of groundbreaking progress in this sector that the rest of the world benefits from every day. Unlike us though, the US Medical Research are quite hamstrung in what they can do and as a direct result, have missed out on much of the progress in the biomedical space. Shame really... (but we don't mind!)...
I love Australia and Australians.
Yay!
