So 99.99% proven doesn't make the grade for you. I am not trying to change your mind or alter your opinions, but Evolution is decided science by practically everyone in the scientific community. Evolution is light years ahead of any other possible explanation of human existence.SF Band dad wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 11:32 pmYou think the different races of humans evolved from different species? (And somehow, randomly, ended up similar enough to interbreed.)![]()
![]()
Didn't say that. I said that all humans did not necessarily evolve simultaneously, or from the same individual predecessor.
That's the problem, there's no evidence of those transitions and the species didn't appear slowly over time. Darwin was able to explain why we're not surrounded by living transitional species due to natural selection, but he had no explanation for their absence in the fossil record. ....and to this day no one else does either. They also have no explanation for the abruptness of their appearance.
I think that I was very clear on that issue as well. We currently do not have all of the answers. And that does not mean that it didn't happen that way, and certainly does not mean that it MUST have happened any other particular way.
Evolution doesn't prove anything, it is a theory that attempted to explain our observations of nature.
Evolution is decided science. The "Walking Whale" discovery in the 1990s ended all questions about that.
It is odd that you question that all races of human could have differentiated from a single pair of humans. Yet in the next paragraph you state that all forms of life are related if traced back far enough. Somehow humans from Sweden and Angola are too different to have a pair of common ancestors but a cow, oak tree, mullet and bacteria are all practically cousins who evolved from lumps of simple proteins that randomly formed in the primordial soup.
I certainly did not say that all humans evolved from a single pair of anything.
Logical fallacy: Correlation is not causation. Lots of things have the same specific gravity, it is just a measure of density.
..... and again, I'm not a creationist, I'm not religious at all. I don't claim to have the answers, but I see lots of gaps and holes in the theory of evolution.
Other than seawater name 1 thing that has a specific gravity of 1.23
Wrong. A single positive example does not prove a theory. The theory is not holding up. The transitional gaps remain. The time lines are wrong. Most species suddenly appeared in the Cambrian period and remain largely unchanged to this day.Penguin wrote: ↑Wed Aug 05, 2020 2:26 pmDarwin did indeed have a theory, as did Einstein. If I can stand and reach to approximately 8 feet high, and you lie flat underneath my hands, and I drop a 16 pound bowling ball onto your head, you would come to realize that although Gravity started as a Theory, it is all too real. The same applies to evolution. I do not claim to have the answers to the universe, but evolution is real, proven, even though, as you stated, it did start as a theory. Science works that way. Theories are brought forth, and evidence is sought to disprove them. So far, evolution has only been confirmed. And yes, Darwin did not fully understand the science of genetics, but he was smart enough to understand the changes that he witnessed. The discovery of the fossils of the "Walking Whale" put all doubts about evolution to bed.
I do appreciate your responses, it allows me post mine without fear of reprisal. But..........I am a very patient man, and we have a myriad of really intelligent people on this website, and not a single one has been able to answer my question. You are doing a magnificent job of deflecting and trying to disprove something, but always remember that disproving "Theory A" is not the same thing as proving "Theory B".