he achieves his goal; using what appears to be hyperbole then proving that there is no real taxonomical reason why we wouldn't be great apes other than vanity. but let's not go there. you've already asked why monkeys and humans coexist. thats too advanced. you've already gone backwards in the matter of minutes. this is why i used the word fruitless.
My entire argument from the start was "discussions like this are a waste of time."
I forbid you from hijacking my centerpiece.
The conversation we are having now is no exception, I fully agree it is a waste of time.
if that is the case, you'll now accept that evolution has been observed.
You seem to rank the value of observing a car wreckage the same as observing the actual accident taking place.
In contrast, I believe there are varying degrees of observation. For example, seeing someone's picture is not the same as actually seeing that individual with your own eyes. Pictures can often be misleading as you may have learned from using dating applications. In the same way fossils can be quite misleading indeed.
I would prefer to see directly observable, measurable, testable, repeatable, facts developed through controlled experiment like the scientific method heavily emphasizes.
In the case of believing that one animal can indeed become another, it is not subject to the scientific method as you yourself admitted, in that it happens over millions of years.
And yet, you believe in it based on dating application pictures. Interesting. Hope you don't find out she is a total hog later man...
the fossil record is indisputable scientific proof of evolution.
I completely agree that the fossil record is indisputable proof that the genes of animal change.
However, the fossil record is not even close to being indisputable proof that pond-scum can become a hyper-intelligent human-like animal.
i have not. i'll copy/paste because i'm nearing my limit.
evolution is the change of allele frequency within a population over time.
Now if you accept this definition, i can cite things like pesticide resistant insects, drug immune bacteria, the peppered moth...dogs...and we can see that evolution (changes in a gene pool within a population over time) is an observed and indisputable fact.
why wouldn't i believe this
My bad, I am not used to using your definitions.
Allow me to re-iterate my original intention:
1) You conceded that I was correct the whole time that the changing of one animal into an entirely new one has not been observed directly.
This was my original statement. One of truth. One that was always correct.
And let the record show that you refuted it numerous times based on the definition of the word "observe". How tiresome.
Simultaneously you complain about these discussions being "fruitless."
Perhaps if you had more sincere intentions towards actual productive discussion and took time to understand the opposing parties actual views, such discussions would not be quite so fruitless.
Your interests seem to lie in labeling people "retards" as quickly as possible and it does not seem very healthy towards productive discussion.
In a similar fashion, if I went to a restaurant and took a massive steaming crap in the dish I ordered, I wouldn't complain about it tasting poorly.
it's not just about having fossils; evolution makes predictions about what we'd expect to find in the fossil record. it makes predictions about anatomy, geographical distribution of populations and lets not forget modern genetics. fossils are good enough. but we have much, much more.
Nobody would ever disagree with the fact that fossils are enough to prove that changes in the gene pool are occurring. The fact that you would place that erroneous stance on another person in order to argue against them with a 100% success rating is daunting. Nobody in the world holds that stance. At least I've never met one. If you have, I'd love to hear about it. I've never actually met a flat-earther either. I half wonder if it is just an internet meme.
Perhaps the confusion is that we had two different definitions of evolution? Mine being the process of one animal becoming another, and yours being simply "changes in a gene pool"?
Fossils are not good enough evidence to "prove" that one animal can change into a completely new and different type of animal. It's nowhere near enough.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental truth about the tendency towards disorder in the absence of intelligent intervention.
Since you claim that animals improve over time and develop new intelligence that was previously non existent in the form of entirely new traits and cognizance, are you then admitting that intelligent intervention is occurring, as to not defy this natural law?
If not, why do you believe in supernatural things that defy the natural laws of science?
If yes, what source of intelligence is helping these creatures along?
If new positive changes in the code of the DNA are constantly occurring, meaning things that were previously non-existent are moving into existence and being created, what source of intelligence are they coming from?
Surely pond-scum has no interest in Russian super models. How did this new coding in the DNA appear without intelligent assistance?
The scientific method seeks for testable reproduceable results. It also seeks for measurements.
Does it not trouble you that your asserted truth cannot be measured, directly observed, or reproduced in a controlled environment?
If this does not bother you, which seems to be the case, why does it not bother you that you are making a major statement towards scientific fact without applying the scientific method in its viable form?
Sure dude. It was nice chatting.
Thanks for engaging with me.
