Evolution is a Real Thing

I agree with all the definition and that evolution is not a fact. However, is it a theory? A theory begins as a hypothesis, if the hypothesis is not disproved it becomes a theory. We have limited knowledge, and as we gain more knowledge the theory may or may not be disproved. Both issue about evolution being labeled a Theory arise due to the definition of "theory" itself. Ask yourself, is the theory still not falsified? Well, as you said, back to the drawing board. But what is the next thing after that? Anything to support the hypothesis? Issue #2 is that evolution isn't a theory, they are theories mixed together. Therefore, there is no definitive theory of evolution due to the sheer amount of theories the term carried. Lets go over the theories one by one. The first one was spontaneous generation, that non-living matter can produce living things. A popular example was maggot appearing spontaneously in rotting meat, but scientists later learned that flies carry the larvas which grow into maggots. Lewis Pastor refuted the theory and said that it may not raise again. Next was Lamarckismtrait since Darwin was inspired by Lamarck, it states that the child gains the traits his parents acquired in their lives. So if a man lost his finger, then his children will have deformed fingers. If a black smith grows muscles, then his children will have a similar muscles tone when they grow up. if a giraffe extends it's neck to eat from a tree, the offspring will have a slightly longer neck. But this was refuted along with natural selection due to genetics. neo-Darwanism was born since a period passed where no one, even Darwin could come up with a theory better than Lamarckism. Darwanism was in a bad shape that brought desperation, that is how Ernst Haeckel's embryology and the Piltdown man we created. One thing I never could understand was the peppered moths. In case it was true, what is the difference from shooting black and white rabbits in snow? Camouflage offer protection, so where is the evolution? Moths stayed moths. But that is not it all, it is pretty much a fraud. Peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, they usually hide in a hard to find place on top of trees and they only fly during the night. This proves that the pictures are glued moths. Furthermore, one of the main predators of moths are bats, and birds see in ultraviolet "Bird vision", which renders the argument useless. After an effort to revive evolution, mutation was incorporated in the equation to counter genetic stability. But there is one problem, mutation is random error. You might as well say that a short circuit can upgrade your graphic card or an earthquake can improve the building's structure. Countless mutation experiments on fruit flies only produced sick and weak ones, mutation is dangerous as radiation is not going to produce an X-Man with cancer, but a high number of birth defects. Just ask the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl. Genuine mutations are extremely rare in nature, So the new backbone of natural selection: 1- Is completely random and almost always causes harm to the creature. 2- Adds no new information, just distorts the genetic code or destroy it. so it may grew extra organs creating freaks of nature, but not a new type of organ. 3- Acquired mutations will not pass to the next generation. One of the most famous evidence of beneficial mutation is the sickle-cell disease/anemia. Basically your blood cells are deformed giving you sickness (thus the disease in the name) The syndromes include making it hard to breathe and shortening your life span to the 40s. So how is it beneficial? Basically, you have protection from malaria because the parasite can't find a healthy blood cell. The argument is similar to telling someone who was born unable to walk: "You have a beautiful trait! Thanks to your condition, you can't cross the street, thus you will never have a pedestrian accident!" As for fossils, well... they are semi theories. Look at this picture here, This is apparently the evolution of whales science have proved(?). http://itsmyocean.org... And yet, a complete whale was found before being formed. http://www.nbcnews.com... Which asks the question: What is the basis of fossil-based proofs? I'd say they are trying to play jigsaw with hundreds of dead species and then act like it is an unquestionable fact rather than possibility. Way to ride the bandwagon. As for vestigial organs. the ignorance of function doesn't prove the lack of it, this list is continuously shrinking down as more discoveries are being made. As you can see, the evolution "theory" is not a good one, and it failed to provide decent thesieses in order to support itself. It makes use of the ideology of wishful thinking. Which makes me wonder, did the theory become more important than the evidence?