The Theory of Evolution is correct

:It is amusing that every time I challenge an evolutionist , they ALWAYS say I don't understand science. Then my advice to you is to learn more about science, in particular, the theory you are trying to debate. The reason people say that you don't understand science is that you betray your ignorance by, for example, asking for proof, or using a term like "evolutionist." I am not an evolutionist, because ToE is not a philosophy. It is a scientific theory. You either accept science or you reject it. I accept it. : IMO, those who accept the TOE as science do not understand science, especially genetics. Those we accept ToE as science are the world's biologists, and I suspect they know everything about genetics that we have figured out so far. :If you can offer just one thing in the TOE that has been proven scientifically, I will accept your statement There is no such thing as proven scientifically. As I explained to you, science is not about proof; it's about evidence, and I will be happy to provide this evidence to you. :>>First, science does not engage in proof. << :Of course it does No. Proof is absolute, like math or formal logic. Science is empirical, and nothing is ever proven. (Although things can be disproven.) :While the phrase "scientific proof" is often used in the popular media,...there is really no such thing. For example, Karl Popper once wrote that "In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory, [wiki] :Unfortunately, there are many ... misconceptions about science. One of the most common misconceptions concerns the so-called "scientific proofs." Contrary to popular belief, there is no such thing as a scientific proof. :Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science. Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists. The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof. All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence. Proofs are not the currency of science. https://www.psychologytoday.com... :Scientists should be wary of using the term "proof". Science does not "prove" things. Science can and does provide evidence in favor of, or against, a particular idea. In science, proofs are possible only in the highly abstract world of mathematics. :What should scientists say instead of "proof"? Scientists should use the term "evidence" instead of the word "proof". When we test our hypotheses, we obtain evidence that supports or rejects the hypotheses. We do not "prove" our hypotheses. http://oregonstate.edu... So we are not looking for proof. Rather, we are going to examine the evidence. >When a theory becomes proven, it is then called a law. Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about science. :some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena National Academies of Science. :Law: A descriptive generalization about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances. Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. National Center for Science Education. :The ToE is not the foundation of biology. Biology is real science whose efforts have proved many things. Evolution is not even pseudo-science. :Like... other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. National Academies of Science Engineering Medicine http://www.nas.edu... :Evolution is the foundation of biology http://www.who.int... :A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin. The theory of evolution postulates that all organisms on the Earth, both living and extinct, have descended from a common ancestor or an ancestral gene pool. This last universal common ancestor of all organisms is believed to have appeared about 3.5 billion years ago.[21] Biologists generally regard the universality and ubiquity of the genetic code as definitive evidence in favor of the theory of universal common descent for all bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes [wiki] :Let's leave God out of this discussion and stilk to science. I agree. Let's agree to leave God out of this debate. :Stick to science. Ijhave not mentioned God and will not. I'm sorry, my mistake. I thought when you said :The best explanation of the diversity of life can be summed up in 3 words; "God did it." that you were mentioning God. But I'm glad to see you will not be doing so again...or will you? :OK, now explain how a group of organism separates from a larger group and becomes separate and distinct species. Wht is the mecanism that causes this? Great question! There are many such events, such as a flood that changes the course of a river, leaving one group isolated on a far bank, or a drought that separates one lake into two. Even a storm that blows a few birds off course--anything that isolates some members of a species from the rest. :According the the Bible God spoke the universe and all it contains into being. I thought you weren't going to mention God. OK, so your hypothesis is a kind of Magical Poofing? That one second there is an empy plain, and then suddenly, out of nowhere, two elephants appear out of thin air? Is that your position? :What is your explanation as to how all the matter in the universe and life came into being? Whatever it is, it has nothing to do with ToE, which, as I said, explains only the diversity of life on earth. Btw, if you want people to stop accusing you of being ignorant of science, this is the kind of question to eliminate. Biology is one science; cosmology quite another. :Modern Biology says diversity is not possible. That's so interesting. Could you provide a source for this strong claim? And would you be so kind as to answer my question? In your view, does the scientific method work? Is it an effective way to learn about the natural world? :If the evolution guess as to the first life form is correct, There is no such guess. ToE is not about the first life form; it's about everything after that. So, the core of ToE is that new species emerge from existing species, as has been observed in the field and the lab. Do you take issue with this part of ToE? Thank you.