Too Many Flaws with Evolution

it's a shame YOU see it this way. It's not the same as a murder inquiry for a crucial reason - you have a murdered body.With evolution, the problem is that weak evidence is promoted to conclude that it is a "fact", but evolution is not a fact, logically speaking. (I promise you)Logically, to make evolution a fact, and proven, you have to find the logical equivalent in nature, and PROVE that evolution MUST follow.There are no examples of mutations producing any new morphology. Natural selection only removes information from a gene pool.If I have bananas on a plate, bread, beans, chips, burger, I have a diverse meal - yes? A lot of variation. But now if I take bananas and bread I have something quite unique - a banana sandwhich. Something very unique, "new" and different, but essentially, something which was always on my plate.Until a speciation shows anything other than a reduction of information, it is a safe bet to state that THE ACTUAL FACTS show an APPEARANCE of evolution, but a process which is infact the opposite.THESE ARE THE "FACTS".Until it can be logically shown that evolution certainly followed - you only have a weak "picture" made from weak evidences, which usually depend on a belief in other theories with weak evidences. (Such as uniformatarianism backing up cladistics).Sorry but evolution is far from proven or "fact".If our very existanece proves evolution then our very exitence proves that existence is because of a giant ant regurgitating matter.

You've never heard of nylon eating bacteria?Honestly?Then what makes you think you can contribute to this discussion if you don't know this?The rest of your post is drivel.

In case you have not heard of the nylon bacteria, here is a post of mine lining out the details. It also links to the original study and to the youtube movie I got it all from.Please educate yourself.Edited by Huntard, : subtitles

---

I hunt for the truth

That's a nice promise you got there, I'll do you one better though. Instead of some lazy promise, I'll actually show you that evolution is a fact. No, this doesn't make any sense.Logically, to make evolution a fact, and proven, all we have to do is find the logical equivalent in nature (which has been done) and SHOW that evolution agrees with ALL observations (which it does). Add in the fact that evolution can also be used to PREDICT future observations (which has also successfully happened) and you got yourself a tightly packed, extremely well validated, proven fact.All without relying on any promises. It is not required to show that evolution logically, certainly follows from the observations. It is only required to show that evolution agrees with ALL observations. Like any other science... it is not required to show that gravity logically, certainly follows from the observations. It is only required to show that gravity agrees with ALL observations.The only thing that would weaken evolution, is finding observations in nature that do not agree with it. This hasn't happened yet, after 200 years of intense searching. All we find is confirmation after confirmation. But who knows? Maybe you'll be the first. But I won't accept your promise, you'll actually have to show how evolution doesn't agree with the observations. Our very existence is not required to prove evolution as a fact. We, however, are "an" observation; which includes us in ALL observations; which then goes to show that our existence is indeed a part of the proof for evolution being a fact of reality. But it is not required by any means.However, if we're going to use a methodology such as your promises... then a giant ant regurgitating matter could quite possibly be your next "logical" step.

In other words, empirical evidence, and evidence which can be replicated.And on the other hand we have religious belief based on "divine revelations" and other "trust me's" from the ancient past.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This has been done. The fact that you are not telling the truth vitiates your argument. And if someone adds a kumquat, you have something different. What an interesting lie. You should study evolution some time. It's really quite interesting. Are you feeling quite well?

This "devolution" concept which you are clinging to is a religious belief, apparently based on belief in "the fall" and both are totally unsubstantiated by science.These beliefs apparently are tied in with the belief in "original sin" which to me is one of the vilest ideas ever proposed.And in no case do those beliefs have anything to do with science or the theory of evolution. Science is based on empirical evidence.You seem to be confusing the two.

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.