Evolution is a hoax

[Astargath]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

[1715440902]

1715440902

[1715440902]

1715440902

[1715440902]

1715440902

[1715440902]

1715440902

[Parodium]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Astargath, there is no point using logic to denounce religious nutjobs, they are literally blinded by their faith.

Save your time, and leave him to his ridiculous fairy tales, soon enough they'll be laughed at and humiliated for their beliefs.

[Astargath]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Astargath, there is no point using logic to denounce religious nutjobs, they are literally blinded by their faith.

Save your time, and leave him to his ridiculous fairy tales, soon enough they'll be laughed at and humiliated for their beliefs.

Yeah I see but it's just funny to me because most religious people actually believe in evolution now yet badecker still claims evolution is a hoax, even the fucking pope acknowledges evolution, I don't understand what he wants.

[Vod]

For example, If evolution is true, why there is no evolution of monkey to human from time to time? It should be still happening up until now right

That is not how evolution works.  Read what about what evolution is.

[Astargath]

For example, If evolution is true, why there is no evolution of monkey to human from time to time? It should be still happening up until now right

That is not how evolution works.  Read what about what evolution is.

This myth of ''why are there still monkeys'' is such a cringe myth and sentence to say. I don't think people realize how stupid they sound when they say that. Just like the missing link myth.

[Genovese]

The only suspicion that evolution may be a hoax comes from the fact that people exist which claim it is a hoax and that the world was created in 7 days...

[randal9]

there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?

[bkbirge]

there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?

LOL, no there isn't. Unless you are getting your "evidence" from creationist websites.

[Justin Biebers]

there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?

LOL, no there isn't. Unless you are getting your "evidence" from creationist websites.

Charles Darwin himsalf said humans created dinosaurs so what are you talking about? 

[Astargath]

there is evidence that humanity existed long before the dinosaurs...how can this explain the "evolution"?

LOL, no there isn't. Unless you are getting your "evidence" from creationist websites.

Charles Darwin himsalf said humans created dinosaurs so what are you talking about? 

What the fuck are you talking about, are you drunk? Charles Darwin neglected dinosaurs as a part of his theory but thankfully, paleontologists continued their work and have exhumed absolutely stunning evidence that Darwin was right. Among the fossil riches some of the most precious are those of feathered dinosaurs, and I can only imagine what Darwin might say if he could see the proof that the swallows in the air and pigeons in the street are living dinosaurs.

[Cryptolupus]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

[kylekyle2000]

I personally don't believe on the theory of evolution. While there might be creatures that adapted well in their environment, I am not convinced that something like a one celled organism can evolve into something very complex.

[Cryptostalker59]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

[BADecker]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

[BADecker]

The only suspicion that evolution may be a hoax comes from the fact that people exist which claim it is a hoax and that the world was created in 7 days...

Right! When you look at all the scientific papers that talk about evolution or the age of the earth, they all say limiting words like "if" and "maybe" and "perhaps" and others. This shows that the scientists behind those papers really don't know. And they are admitting it by using those limiting words.

It is only the media and the "weaker" scientists who are taking the papers and twisting them into something they do not say, by calling the scientific theories fact, when they are not known to be factual.

[BADecker]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

[Astargath]

I have posted several times that if evolved means simple change, then, YES, evolution exists. But if evolution means inanimate to life, or changes that took a single cell all the way to mankind, then NO.

Cause and effect shows that everything is programmed. I understand why there is free will. But general science doesn't.

But evolution is not about the first cell or inanimate to life. Evolution is described as ''change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to biodiversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules''

It is change of course, humans evolving from ancestors is a change.

There are many evolutionists who wouldn't agree with you when you say that evolution doesn't include inanimate to life.

Evolutionists describe "change..." that they have never witnessed enough of, to know that what happens therein is evolution in any form that they are talking about. It's all guesswork, and could be described as part of other things, like creation. The simplest of those other ways is cause and effect, which is seen in many things, and is NOT known to NOT exist in anything. C&E suggests programming. And programming needs a programmer, just to exist.

Why do you keep on battling the evident? Are you really trying to make evolution into more of a hoax than it already is?

You haven't yet made a single good argument against evolution, all of them have been refuted yet you still insist. You keep repeating yourself about cause and effect but you don't even understand what it means, I already showed you that cause and effect does not invalidate evolution, no scientific law invalidates evolution. You are a religious nut that thinks evolution has to be a hoax in order to keep believing in your fairy tail of god.

The best argument anyone can make against evolution is that nobody has made any factual argument in favor of evolution. The two closest-to-factual arguments anybody has made are:
1. Semantics;
2. Political Science (a lot of blabber that doesn't really mean anything).

1. Transitional Fossils
2. Matching Traits to Common Ancestors
3. Vestigial Traits
4. Observing Evolution Over Short Timescales (Like the moth example but there are other examples worth pointing out. Our war against bacteria is rapidly producing highly resistant strains, leading to fears of a post-antibiotic era. Similarly, many animals are adapting to pesticides, including fruit flies and even rats. In one striking example, the Colorado potato beetle has evolved to resist 52 different compounds belonging to all major insecticide classes.
5. In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the fact of evolution. The NAS defines a fact as “an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as ‘true.’” The fossil record and abundant other evidence testify that organisms have evolved through time. Although no one observed those transformations, the indirect evidence is clear, unambiguous and compelling.
All sciences frequently rely on indirect evidence. Physicists cannot see subatomic particles directly, for instance, so they verify their existence by watching for telltale tracks that the particles leave in cloud chambers. The absence of direct observation does not make physicists' conclusions less certain.
6. NOT CIRCULAR REASONING AS YOU CLAIM. (“Survival of the fittest” is a conversational way to describe natural selection, but a more technical description speaks of differential rates of survival and reproduction. That is, rather than labeling species as more or less fit, one can describe how many offspring they are likely to leave under given circumstances. Drop a fast-breeding pair of small-beaked finches and a slower-breeding pair of large-beaked finches onto an island full of food seeds. Within a few generations the fast breeders may control more of the food resources. Yet if large beaks more easily crush seeds, the advantage may tip to the slow breeders. In pioneering studies of finches on the Galpagos Islands, Peter Grant and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University observed these kinds of population shifts in the wild.
The key is that adaptive fitness can be defined without reference to survival: large beaks are better adapted for crushing seeds, irrespective of whether that trait has survival value under the circumstances.)
7. Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.


I'm waiting for you to prove the spontaneous generation of complex life, badecker, since you claim god created us.

Actually, most of the things that you talk about in your points, are the exact things that show that there isn't any evolution, when analyzed in detail.

Show us a spontaneous generation of complex life and you will disprove evolution, just like that. Very easy? How come we have thousands of different proofs for evolution yet no single evidence for the spontaneous generation of life that you claim your god did?

[Astargath]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods.

[BADecker]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods.

And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown.

[Astargath]

It's difficult to discuss with people that don't have scientific background...

I agree. When someone has an ideology or a religion to defend, rationality stops

Absolutely good points. When people believe in science theory, especially theory that can't defend itself in the face of stringent analysis - like evolution theory - they have a religion going for themselves. The religion of evolution.

''Believe in science theory'' Why do you need to believe in it? You can study it and see it for yourself that is real unlike religion, no matter how much you study it you will never find evidence for the existence of gods.

And then all you have to do is look at some good science theory that is contradicted by other good science theory, to see that science theory is an unknown.

I have yet to see another scientific theory that contradicts evolution but if you know one tell us, enlighten us please.