LOL...Evolution is such cheap junky science. No respectable scientist believes in evolution as anything but a fairy tale.

It’s proven by science because we have those 54 million years documented.

I’ll bite. What do the respectable scientists believe in as an alternative explanation?

They don't know. But it's embarrassing to not know, so they just go with the popular theory. It keeps the grants coming in. They shouldn't be embarrassed, because it's impossible to know with any certainty what happened 54 million years ago.

What a fascinating concept.

One day, an Ancient Hippo™ asked,
“I love swimming so much.
Why can’t I just swim forever?”

And Evolution® really said, “let. him. cook.”

I think you are dumb.

And?

And as a peer, I have reviewed their findings and come to the same conclusion.

The thing you don't seem to understand is that we're not talking about my intelligence, but of the intelligence of so-called "scientists" who advocate such a ridiculous "science" as evolution. Not to mention the intelligence (or lack thereof) of their followers.

you can go to Chicago or NYC museums and see bones of animals that resemble and pre-date modern animals. if not for evolution, why are there sloth and armadillo bones the size of a Volkswagen? they just... got smaller. but that's not evolving I guess

This man is the reason that legal writing has to be done at an eighth grade level

If you can posit an actual explanation besides evolution on your own using science and evidence, I'll read it.

And I'll give you bonus points if you do it without saying God did it

[deleted]

I can't. Because it's impossible to know with certainty. I admit I don't know, and don't make up fake crap about it.

Legal writing is very complicated. I should know, being a retired attorney.

In the fossil record? Yes we do. In DNA comparisons of related creatures? In a roundabout way also yes.

It's impossible to know anything with certainty. Therefore you might as well not exist at all to me.

I'm going to try to avoid treating you like an idiot like most people here have and instead try to explain some things.

Evolution is based in reality and our long study and observation of the world.

We can start by saying that we do not have to rely solely on ancient fossils for determination.

There has been a long running study of evolution in bacteria that has run since 1988 and over 70 thousand generation where we have watched genetic adaptation in real time.

This has been replicated by other studies which have been running for shorter times.

We can stay modern and go outside of the lab environment though. Frog species around chernobyl have turned pitch black in an adaptation to protect from radiation evolving pigmentation and protection.

Then there is a classic of science that we can confirm things from seperate independant sources. We can roughly catagorize species based on similar traits and did so for a long time before being able to confirm these lineages through DNA and genetic evidence.

Then there is simply the fossil record. We can look back at fossils throughout history and see plain evidence of evolution and adaptation over time.

I encourage you to challenge your belief and look further into evolution and you will find that there is a vast amount of evidence for it.

I give you points for honesty. However, I think it's worth giving weight to the general agreement of so many scientists. You admit you don't know, and that's okay. You didn't focus your life on that. But some people have.

You say you are or were an attorney, so you understand records, surely? Documentation? Historians work with records and context to fill in where records fail. Detectives and crime scene investigators do the same.

Archeologists do the same on a much larger time table. We don't know the exact time and date that things happened, we know they happened a long time ago. We can estimate how old dirt is. We can use that to guess when this water horse lived and died. We see that the fossilized water horse was NOT the same creature as the ones we have, but that the creatures have similarities. We can look at how the bones of a whale match the bones of a horse with some modification. We can see the same sort of bone shape changing in different breeds of dog.

I will say this: I offer my apologies for calling you dumb.

I will ask: simply consider?

You know, one simple word would resolve this whole controversy with me and I would shut my mouth. That word is "theory". When scientists dropped that word when speaking of evolution, they lost my respect as fact-based scientists.

I'd argue that it is at least partially proven, but I will cede that it is technically still theory.

And the earth is flat right.

The creationist you're discussing with doesn't understand what a theory is in science. It's a confirmed scientific model, confirmed by hypothesis testing. He thinks that his ignorance somehow constitutes an argument, but all it does is tell us how uneducated he is.

Science works by studying evidence, both direct and indirect, and hypothesis testing. The fact that you don't know this does not help your case any.

All evidence supports the theory of evolution. No evidence disputes the theory. It's therefore considered confirmed in science, and is the framework theory for all biological sciences.

Your ignorance is not an argument. It's just you telling us how little you understand science and biology.

No, you’re right about some of that and yes I do believe in forensic evidence. Still, almost all of it is based on extrapolation and assumptions. I wish you hadn’t have gotten personal by making assumptions. But I suppose that supports my argument too. Peace

Ah so you’re old and senile, that explains a lot

>Frog species around chernobyl have turned pitch black in an adaptation to protect from radiation evolving pigmentation and protection.

This is natural selection rather than evolution, although it certainly does play a part in evolution. It might be a fine point, but it's an important one.

Wow! Is the why hippos are always so angry?! They don't get to be whales?

Natural selection is evolution though. Helpful adaptations over millions of years causes different species.

Are hippos not marine mammals because they can go on land? Are seals, walrus, etc, marine mammals?

Hippos can't swim. They are not buoyant, so they get around by bouncing off the bottom of rivers.

It's one mechanism of evolution. If the situation to which the organism is adapting is temporary, natural selection will favor those that survive and reproduce best under those conditions that existed before.

That's still natural selection.

https://www.britannica.com/science/natural-selection

It is evolution through natural selection but it is still most definitely evolution. It's a net directional change in the population. There isn't an arbitrary point where it turns from natural selection to evolution as the two aren't so simply separated.

Ron Swanson would be disappointed in your denial of reality.

Suddenly orca and hippos have a lot more in common.

I didn't say they should be. I said natural selection is part of evolution, as are phenomena such as founder effect.

How do you feel about the theories regarding gravity?