You have not the foggiest clue of what reality even is actually. You simply refer to your baseless belief system as 'reality' in a cheap and crass attempt to elevate fables from the so called science fantasy factory.
Sorry but I do not make friends with people who ignore an fairly understood post:
You need to learn what the fallacy of argument from authority actually is ...
The scientific consensus is different.
Using a consensus is a way that a layperson can trust science. A group of scientists use their expertise and evaluate the evidence for and against a scientific theory.
I see so if a majority of ppl agree on a belief held without proof - theory is supposition (.eg an assumption or hypothesis). Then the authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. The layman would be foolish to disagree? Did i get that right? What you think?If the majority agree that the evidence supports the theory then it is foolish for a layperson to disagree.
Consider having an illness and going to 100 doctors. 97 say you have A and this is the treatment for A. 3 say you have B and this is the treatment for B. Which treatment do you take? The rational, reasonable action is to follow the scientific consensus.
The question is a bit silly, the iconoclast, because it suggests that you have forgotten what you have learned in high school about evolution.
Or that you do not know about Google or Wikipedia
. Or that I can read your mid and knoww hat you would find "convincing".
An answer is remember what you read in your high school biology textbooks which should have good evidence about evolution (maybe not in Texas!).
An answer is Google 'evidence for evolution". An answer is evolution.
Scientific theories are built on bodies of evidence. There is occasionally a single item of evidence that makes a scientific theory obviously correct. This is not the case for evolution otherwise Darwin's books would have been a few pages long!
If you are being honest
then 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. The Scientific Case for Common Descent is a good place to start.
My personal "one example" that convinces me is Prediction 4.5: Molecular evidence - Endogenous retroviruses. This is easy to understand. There are viruses that insert their DNA randomly into host DNA. That can happen in germ line cells (sperm or ova) and become part of the genome of a species. Two species that share a set of ERV get that set from a common ancestor.
ETA: You also need to read other replies to your posts and not ask basically the same question again.
You have not done this but there is a rather nasty tactic that I have seen from cranks in other forums of asking every poster in a thread the same question.
It is nasty because they are trying to waste peoples time with questions they probably know the answer to.
They also go on about any trivial differences between the replies in order to further waste time.
Or are you actually capable of having an adult conversation about the topic?
in science we can ask theoretical question too you know.Only in your imagination, which is the only place where such things "exist"
But even if it was valid and sound, it's not saying anything interesting.
Cars with wheels and engines are not alive.
again irrelevant. we are talking about the question of possible small steps, so it doesnt matter if its alive or not since its irrelevant to that question.
That "push back" is a lie is clear from the figure
indeedAn ignorant "problem for evolution" fantasy, xianghua. Basic biology is that there are small steps in evolution - mutations, etc.!
Of course it's relevant. Biological evolution deals with living things. Cars don't evolve (biologically).
since ic systems exist in both living and non-living things- you are wrong.
Ah, OK. It sounds like what you really mean is that you can't see how stepwise evolution could give rise to creatures that need several parts to function. If you'd have asked about this at the start, we could have avoided a lot of wasted time and posts.yes it does. its showing that a living thing cant evolve stepwise since it need at least several parts to be functional.
I write an educational post and get "Hey hey" idiocy and questions.Hey hey ...
since ic systems exist in both living and non-living things- you are wrong.
Then tell us, if the dictionary meaning doesn't apply.I don't think you know what "etymological basis" means.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?