Yep, evolution is a theory, just like gravity.
I bet you don't believe in that one either? I suggest you check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
Maybe you should re-examine what you know about the concept of a theory: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory#List_of_notable_theories
Except he isn't. Evolution has been verified countless times, macro-evolution included. You simply choose to stick your fingers in your ears and pretend like it isn't the case.
First, none of what you just said did anything to disprove what I was saying. You showed me that Evolution has a lot of support and is a notable theory, neither of which proves that it is true.
Second, gravity can be and has been proven while evolution cannot. The issue here is not gravity, it is evolution though. You can sit here and tell me all day that it has been proven and I can sit here and tell you how it has been proven and mine will carry significantly more weight. You cannot simply argue by saying it has been proven simply by saying it has been proven. Give me evidence of its proof, not that is has support and that it is a notable theory.
Another argument that I did not previous mention in disproving evolution is irreducible complexity. The idea that there exists forms that cannot be reduced. One such example is the flagelar motor on bacteria. This motor has 23 parts to make it work. If you take any of these parts away it will not work. Evolution teaches that for a new additi
on to any being the addition must benefit it for it to remain and that only one thing is added at a time. if any one of those parts is added it will in no way benefit the life form and therefore will be discarded. All 23 must be present which in the theory of evolution cannot happen.
You have no interest in the truth, you just want to muddy the waters with doubt where there is none. Any/all sane minded people accept evolution as truth. You just want to attack a very justified and well reasoned theory in order to promote your own ridiculous idea (creationism, where there is zero evidence).
Second, gravity can be and has been proven while evolution cannot.
Really? Can you please explain to me why gravity happens? I'd be very interested in what your explanation as to WHY (not "how") it happens.
Give me evidence of its proof, not that is has support and that it is a notable theory.
Only in math can you have proofs. Everything else is through deduction and evidence.
I bet you'd make a great lawyer. You'd tell the jury, "Suuure, the murderer was found at the scene covered in th
e victim's blood, holding the dagger, and was shouting "WHY DID I KILL HER?!!!"... but..! did anyone see him do it?! I THINK NOT! THEREFORE! HE'S CLEARLY INNOCENT!!"
Here's the funny thing though, evolution HAS been observed. It's been verified and reproduced time and again.
Another argument that I did not previous mention in disproving evolution is irreducible complexity.
Irreducible complexity is non-sense invented by Michael Behe, a creationist pretending to be a scientist. It has no support in the scientific community, and only gets parroted by religious people with an agenda.
I must ask you this why do insist on giving me none of the evidence that you claim exists? You have done nothing but attack me. I am still waiting to here the evidence. If you can provide any I will be more than willing to listen to what you have to say. What I mean by evidence, is not that it is a well accepted theory.
How can you say I have no interest in truth? If that were the case, I would have simply stopped debating this. But I must ask that you stop attacking me and focus solely on the topic at hand being evolution.
No, I cannot explain WHY gravity happens, neither can you explain WHY evolution happens. You continue arguing that it is true because it is true. This is a logical fallacy which holds no water.
No, that is not the sort of Lawyer I would be. you say ignore the evidence, yet you fail to provide me with any. If this analogy, I do not know that the murderer was found at the scene covered in to victim's blood holding the dagger, because you have failed to provide me with
an such information. Whenever you provide me that information I will look at it.
You tell me that irreducible complexity is non-sense, but you do not tell me how. For me to believe you, I must know how it is non-sense before I can believe it. Telling me that he is a creationist pretending to be a scientist is no such evidence. The fact that it gets no recognition in the scientific community also not evidence enough to prove it is non-sense.
I must repeat my earlier question and ask that you stop using logical fallacies to win this debate. Also, I ask that you answer the questions in my first post of how you explain how something can come from nothing? and the questions that follow.
I had another thought sticking with your completely fallacious and off topic Lawyer analogy. From what you have given me this is the type of lawyer you would be
Giving no evidence, "He did it, I know he did!" - you
"Ah, but where is the evidence?" - me
"Oh, there is evidence." - you
"Yes, but where is it?" - me
"He did it." - you
"How do you know?" - me
"I know because he did it." - you
If you don't believe this is accurate take a look at the evidence you have shown me. None. Well, none that matters at all.
Dude. Google called.
You have done an excellent job in giving me proof that micro-evolution exists. Which I will agree with you there, changes within a species over time to adapt to environment is true. It is provable that that does happen. However, you show me common descent. Is it not also plausible that they are some similarities between different species because of they all have the same creator in common? One of the examples your wikipedia site showed me was a fish that over time changed to a completely different fish. Is there no chance there was a lot of cross breeding there mixed with micro-evolution? You cannot say that a mule is a mutation of a donkey or a horse. It isn't it is the result of breeding the two together. Yet, the mule has a lot of similarities with both of them. You still cannot logically conclude that it evolved to that because it hasn't. Micro-evolution, yes. Macro-evolution, no.
You have yet to answer a huge foundational question of evolution and that is of the big bang. How can
something be created from nothing?
As another request to this argument, I would prefer that you either provide me with evidence yourself or that you choose scholarly sources, not wikipedia. instead of going to google. go to http://scholar.google.com. Please of course.
And where, MATEY, is the crossover from ''macro'' to ''micro''? Evolution is the scientific explanation of how we have come to be. It explains. Creationism explains nothing. You can't say why creationism happened. You can say why evolution happened. Why? Because the fittest animal will survive. Evolution takes place over a huge timescale you obviously can't get to grips with so you just dismiss it and continue to uphold your dogmatic beliefs.
Oh, now you will say ''Dogmatic? You're being dogmatic about evolution.'' No. That's not what dogma is. Dogma is irrational. The observation of evolution is not.
Oh yeah, and also, a mule cannot breed, a mule is not a species, it lacks the correct chromosomes to breed :/ (You probably won't grasp that either, you'll be saying ''Chromosomes don't exist, the aliens make us!''