@Signore1911Mike@9er4Life33@NotEvolution1 I know it doesn't make fucking sense... To YOU. It is obvious that you do not understand biological evolution at even the most basic level. It is obvious that you have never tried. It is obvious you don't WANT to understand it.
@Signore1911Mike@9er4Life33@NotEvolution1 Here are almost 2 million examples of evolution being observed, empirically tested, verified, then peer reviewed and published.
https://t.co/gypapfLZqp
Doing this ππ will never make these observations false.
@Signore1911Mike@9er4Life33@NotEvolution1 Because evolution does not happen in individuals, and all organisms would have to be "fully evolved" else they wouldn't live long enough to produce viable offspring. Your inability and unwillingness to understand basic biology does not overturn the observation that life changes.
@Signore1911Mike@9er4Life33@NotEvolution1 Evolution is the empircally tested observation that life changes over time. It's not impossible. It's been witnessed, tested, and verified; it's applications drive agriculture and medicine. Your inability and unwillingness to understand these facts do not falsify them
@Signore1911Mike@NotEvolution1 No. Hence the word "NATURAL" which means no intervention is happening. Otherwise it would be artificial selection which is how we get most of our food--plants and animals both.
@Signore1911Mike@NotEvolution1 No, and your unwillingness and inability to understand evolution does not overturn the empircally tested observation that life changes over time.
@Signore1911Mike@NotEvolution1 This is the "historical science" argument. The mechanism is testable. It works. There would be no medicine, no vaccines, no agriculture, and no fossil fuels if evolution were false. These industries bet all their money on evolution. And they profit, because evolution works.
@Signore1911Mike@NotEvolution1 Natural selection is observed, tested, and empircally verified. Your inability to understand the concept does not invalidate it. The mechanism is well understood, well tested, and have practical applications THAT WORK in agriculture and medicine.
@Signore1911Mike@NotEvolution1 No. Hence the word "NATURAL" which means no intervention is happening. Otherwise it would be artificial selection which is how we get most of our food--plants and animals both.
@Signore1911Mike@NotEvolution1 The opposite of random in this context is predictable. Natural selection produces highly predictable results. The entirety of agriculture and animal breeding (including for pets and for food) is based on evolutionary biology being predictable.
@ICRscience Congrats then. You agree with evolutionary biologists, who accurately predict the same thing, and demonstrate it nested hierarchies in phylogeny and use these hierarchies to explain the Law of Monophyly
@NotEvolution1 Correct. That's how evolution works. Nested hierarchies. Observable and empirically tested. This is a prediction made by evolutionary biology, it doesn't overturn it.
Your inability and unwillingness to understand this fact will never overturn evolution.
Iβm a right column kinda guy.
I address the actual argument first, then I roast.
Conspiracists typically operate in the left column - because they donβt have a good argument to defend, so they attack the person instead.
This graphic shows the difference perfectly.