Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

When mountain gorillas see hunters coming they start breeding like crazy - hoping to 'win' Hippopotamus skin."Faster everyone! We just need a few more hundred thousand generations before we become bullet-proof! *crosses fingers*"
"The hunters are nearly here!"
"What do you mean: you aren't even pregnant yet?!"

Then why did you post quotes related to captive breeding and in-breeding?
And why do none of the documents even mention the word entropy?{abe}
I think you are trying to show us your fantastic new discovery.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

But Aok says it was a global flood not lots of floods!! So it must have happened!!Unless Aok is lying, of course.

His blatant equivocation in his later posts leads me to think he is not debating honestly.
I think he knows when he gets things wrong and lies to cover up his mistakes.I could be wrong, but that is what my instincts are telling me.
*shrug*

Obviously, since you failed to describe even one falsification to evolution.TBH: it wasn't even a good attempt.{abe} Re-Reading your post, I don't think you even know what a falsification is.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as 'cold-blooded' and 'warm blooded' - they are obsolete terms that are only used in a colloquial sense.
How much an animal's body temperature is affected by the outside temperature is different between species.
This difference ranges from one end of the spectrum to the other with many shades of 'warm-bloodedness' inbetween.You argument can only have any weight if animals were only 'completely warm blooded' or 'completely cold blooded'.
But as species evolve, they can slowly increase/decrease their thermoregulation, without detrimentally effecting their diet or behaviour.

Here are 4 links for you:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

No offense meant, but that is off-topic and just a rabbit hole for KM to lure you into.There are more than enough on-topic errors to address first. Edited by Panda, : tyops

Does it take intelligence to address the topic?I take it from your off-topic comments that you think that there are falsifications of the theory of evolution.
But then I am left wondering why you didn't post any.

So, from your silence I take it that you accept that you were completely wrong in regards to warm/cold blooded animals?Care to aknowledge your mistake?We're waiting! "For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace." Charles DarwinEdited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

It does mean that.
But it also means that animals are not completely 'warm-blooded' or 'cold-blooded'.
There are different grades of 'warm-bloodedness'.I had hoped that phrases like

quote:

---

Both the terms "warm-blooded" and "cold-blooded" have fallen out of favour with scientists because of the vagueness of the terms and an increased understanding of the field

---

would have helped you realise that you are going in the wrong direction.You claimed:

quote:

---

Cold-blooded to warm-blooded? Even though a warm-blooded creature requires 10 times as much food as a cold-blooded creature? And in turn the creature needs to be warm-blooded in order to gather 10 times as much food? So in order to become warm-blooded you have to already be warm blooded?

---

which was then shown to be falacious. If different species have different degrees of endothermic and ectothermic metabolisms then it is possible to go from 'full warm-blooded' to 'full cold-blooded' without the large jump you claimed was necessary (but impossible). It proves you are wrong.

This appears to be more of your 'lying for jesus'.
Why are you avoiding the question?
Is it too difficult for you to understand?

Here's an interesting table linked to Shadow71's link.Something seems wrong with that table, but my biology knowledge is insufficient to be certain.
It is just a feeling, so I could easily be wrong.

Thank you.
That gives me something to build more knowledge on.

Can you think of anyone else who says that Evolution is true? So, you agree with 'arrogant' evolutionists.
Good for you.