Theory of Crevolution

[myriverse]

Originally Posted by Daywolf [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Or better said, at least by me now [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.] which evolution?
micro-evolution vs macro-evolution.
One is proven, the other a theory or a guess.

No. Theories are not guesses. Macroevolution is proven.

[Daywolf]

Originally Posted by myriverse [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Macroevolution is proven.

I'm not counted among the faithful, it takes a great deal of religious type faith on the alter of science-ish to believe in macro-evolution. Then it's treated about as holy and exalted as the man made global warming farce. Micro-evolution although is wholly proven, it is a scientific fact of real and actual science, and sadly erroneously confused with macro-evolution by many laymen.

But as proof stands for macro-evolution, it's at a point where even Alien planet seeding or de-evolution has more credibility. Even theories of this being one big digitally simulated existence in a computer has more credibility. It's just a guess, and a poor one at that ...and sometimes even falsified, much like global warming as well.

What you believe, I don't care, it's your freedom and I support that as long as it doesn't harm others. But mankind needs to start practicing a little more honesty within the realm of science, especially as mankind is usually wrong. The new communal group-think consensus taught in schrools is real cute and all, but it doesn't add to science in any way either.