The Theory of Evolution is correct

>>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.<< If you believe evolution is based on science, it is you who does not understand science. I accept real science, that is why I reject the theory o evolution. Whne they is change to"laws of evolution," get back to me. 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 it was real scince all biologist would accept it as they do other theories that have been proven :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.<< Of course there is. It has been scientifically proven that there is more than one blood type. real science can tell you what your type and they can tell you which type will kill you if you have a transfusion. Real science has proved that all known life forms have DNA. They don't award Nobel prizes for guess work. Check them out, they all proved something remamrkable. >>No. Proof is absolute, like math or formal logic. Science is empirical, and nothing is ever proven. (Although things can be disproven.)< I just proved that statement wrong. -:) :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] Teh thins I just mention make you and Karl wrong, unless there is only one blood type. >>: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.<< There is more evidence that there is more than one blood type than there is for proofs in logic. Our logic will differ about evolution. You believe evolution is logical, I believe it is not. Only science can settle the differences and it must do this by proving/disproving what we believe. >>: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.<< When there is indisputable evidence for, something it has been proven. My example of more than one blood type should convince anyone with an open mind. That is a no-brainer. To say it it has not been proven is illogical. Can you falsify it? >>Again you demonstrate your lack of knowledge about science.<< No, I demonstrate a disagreement with you. >>some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them.<< Even if they discover 100ew blood types it will not change that there is more than one. Thatg is a proven tuth that science can never change. >> The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation.<< Hunches and speculation are not science. 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.<< TGhere predicdtion cannot be verified scientifically. They remain hunches and sspecujlation. >>: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.<< Something that is well substantiated by facts has been proven. :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<< Wonderful. Name one, just one, that has been proven. :Evolution is the foundation of biology :A central organizing concept in biology is that life changes and develops through evolution, and that all life-forms known have a common origin. << That is the foundation of the ToE, not of biology. >>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]<< When they can tell us what the first life form was and it source, get back to me. Until they can you are just whistleing in the dark :Let's leave God out of this discussion and stilk to science. >>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."<< I'm sorry I did bring God into this discussion. I am going to give myself 50 lashes with a wet noodle. >>that you were mentioning God. But I'm glad to see you will not be doing so again...or will you?<< I will try but I can't guarantee it. :OK, now explain how a group of organism separates from a larger group and becomes separate and distinct species. What is the mechanism 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.<< Let's get real. The events you mention do not operate on scientific principles. Also species being separated does not mean they can mate and produce offspring. Biology does not all such a thing. If there are not some of their own "kind" available, they become extinct.