Evolution, why us?

[Alchemist]

lol

ask him for a scientific journal and he posts talkorigin and wikipedia.

what a buffoon.


so where did bacteria come from?

give a straight answer goat. Ba-aah ...ba-aaah....ba-aaah...saying the same thing over and over. do you have a brain or are you some sort of a bot?

[طالب]

lol

ask him for a scientific journal and he posts talkorigin and wikipedia.

what a buffoon.

Both are referenced with scientific sources. The talkorigins article is written by a scientist.

so where did bacteria come from?

give a straight answer goat. Ba-aah ...ba-aaah....ba-aaah...saying the same thing over and over. do you have a brain or are you some sort of a bot?

Why do you expect a different answer when you keep asking the same question? You asked the same thing in your last post, and you'll get the same answer:

The origin of life (abiogenesis) is irrelevant to the case for the FoE. As quoted before:

The most common objection to the case made for evolution is the question, "But what about the origin of life?" What about it, indeed? As the article itself makes clear, questions about the origin of life, though addressing a related issue, are red herrings, since evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began. So such a question is rather like raising doubts about how steel is made in any argument about how a car engine works. Naturally, the origin of life on earth is a fascinating issue, one which scientists continue to explore. They have come up with a number of hypothetical possibilities, but as yet there is no favourite theory, nothing which has yielded a wealth of predictions which one can easily test to confirm or reject the hypothesis.
Some correspondents seem to think there is a contradiction in claiming that living things must have a living parent and the fact that we don't yet have a scientific theory which explains fully how life on earth began and that until that question can be answered, all scientific thinking about the development of species is invalid. But that is nonsense. We don't know many things about the most basic cell operations of, say, many viruses and bacteria, and in most cases we don't know (and certainly don't need to know) the scientific origin of a particular agent of infection (its first appearance on earth), but we can still understand the way infectious organisms develop and change to affect people for the worse, and, on the basis of this knowledge, we can treat many diseases successfully. Would those who reject evolution on the basis of this faulty objection make the same claim about modern medicine and refuse to see a doctor when they need help to recover from an infection because there is an important "contradiction" in his understanding of the disease if he doesn't know when and how it first appeared?

And by the way spamming is against the forum rules:

Spam

Purposely spamming the Message Board with senseless, irrelevant, vacuous, one-word or empty threads/posts to increase the number of posts is highly frowned upon. This includes such things as party posts, chain letters, two-word "I agree" or "me too" responses, continually posting the same thread in a particular category, posting the same question
across several boards and using the quote feature without contributing anything new to a thread. On a similar note, participating in spam attacks (post riots, etc.) on the PF Message Boards or planning a spam attack is unacceptable. Members found to be involved in any such activities shall be banned permanently with immediate effect.

[Alchemist]

copy paste master lol

well, buffoon, if it is written by a scientist, then surely you can find his writings in a scientific journal.

What makes a scientific journal what it is, is because of the rigerous amount of criticism and confirmation and scrutiny that it goes under. It is also called "peer reviewed" journal.
Any jackass can make a website and claim himself to be a scientist. Any joe can make a wikipedia account and write and edit it however he feels it right.
Plus you are committing the fallacy of "appeal to authority"..oh thats right...ur too much of a buffoon to know what even implies.


So, goat....where did bacteria come from?


Glad you know what the meaning of spam is...so why did you ask a million times ...where did humans come from? why do you keep saying that humans originated from unicellular organism, but won't say where unicellular orgisms came from?

because you are an idiot

thats why


ba-aah...ba-aaah

[Alchemist]

that's not exactly how theories work

Theories can be factual; but what makes a theory a "Law" is the rigorousness of the evidence. for something like Evolution to be a Natural Law, it would require reproducibility experimentally. But there are plenty of experiments which shows that evolution has happened.

substantiate proof, bro

[طالب]

well, buffoon, if it is written by a scientist, then surely you can find his writings in a scientific journal.

Don't worry, he is, indeed, a scientist:
http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/moran/bch.html

What makes a scientific journal what it is, is because of the rigerous amount of criticism and confirmation and scrutiny that it goes under. It is also called "peer reviewed" journal.
Any jackass can make a website and claim himself to be a scientist. Any joe can make a wikipedia account and write and edit it however he feels it right.

What we're discussing is so basic, so self-evident, that nobody is going to make a fool of himself and write a scientific article about it. Now if you've got issues with the talkorigins article state exactly where the reasoning fails. If you don't, begone.

Plus you are committing the fallacy of "appeal to authority"..oh thats right...ur too much of a buffoon to know what even implies.

Just a minute ago you were complaining that the material provided wasn't "scientific" enough and then you have the audacity to state that I'm making an appeal to authority?

You're having a laugh.

So, goat....where did bacteria come from?

This thread is for the discussion of evolution, not abiogenesis. I don't care to discuss abiogenesis with you, only evolution.

Glad you know what the meaning of spam is...so why did you ask a million times ...where did humans come from?

Because you never answered the question. You said once that vertebrates were created by a creator. But that's not science.

I want a scientific explanation. If you don't have one then admit it and be done with it.

why do you keep saying that humans originated from unicellular organism, but won't say where unicellular orgisms came from?

Because humans came from other living organisms which is what the FoE deals with, but where unicellular organisms came from is a question of abiogenesis, which is unrelated to evolution.

[Alchemist]

oh abiogensis?

does that mean that living things do come from rocks?

HAHAH

you are such a decietful and sly goat.

50 times you you scoffed at just the mere thought of this being true and now you admit that this is what is being espoused. But according to your theory, it should be disregarded. You have the mentality of a five year old. This is why you can't play chess with a 5 year old. Because if you tell him that the roc moves this way only, and the king only like that and the knight like so, it won't understand. It will make them move as he pleases it.

Then if he is a scientist, why can't you find foe being mentioned in even ONE journal article? Find me the term! Damn you goat. Just admit defeat. Stop fooling your self like this.

You make me laugh.

Where is your logic?

Why is that human origin is covered under your theory and unicellulars not? explain that to me... please ...explain it ...for Allah's sake...explain it! Damn you goat.. stop running in circles and stop and think...why..why...why?

[طالب]

oh abiogensis?

does that mean that living things do come from rocks?

It relates to the origin of life.

50 times you you scoffed at just the mere thought of this being true and now you admit that this is what is being espoused. But according to your theory, it should be disregarded.

I have no idea what you're talking about. "My" theory doesn't even mention abiogenesis so why would I scoff at it? You're the one who keeps talking about it, it really doesn't matter to me.

Then if he is a scientist, why can't you find foe being mentioned in even ONE journal article?

His publications are provided in this link:
http://biochemistry.utoronto.ca/moran/bch.html

Here is a mention of the FoE: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...0&searchtype=a

Also: What we're discussing is so basic, so self-evident, that nobody is going to make a fool of himself and write a scientific article about it. Now if you've got issues with the talkorigins article state exactly where the reasoning fails. If you don't, begone.

Why is that human origin is covered under your theory and unicellulars not? explain that to me... please ...explain it ...for Allah's sake...explain it! Damn you goat.. stop running in circles and stop and think...why..why...why?

Because I initially defined the FoE simply as "the development of forms of animal and plant life out of forms significantly different from them". As you can read the definition does not say anything about the origin of life.

evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began

[Alchemist]

goat, you failed again

I said, SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!

do it ... or shut up.


you define what you want to do? Well then, you are delusional my son.

Science is based on concensus, its not what one person thinks, but what everyone agrees on, hence we have developed peer reviewed journals, and only people who know what they are talking about, can publish in it. Your scientist friend can't publish any ridiculous claim like foe on a scientific journal, only the internet.


Still, where is your logic?

you say that humans MUST have come from single celled organisms, why? because life only comes from life...this was your statement, now when this statement is being questioned, in light of what the theory of evolution it self espouses, you shy away?

Come on goat, even on talk origin abiogensis is covered...you pretty much copied and pasted the whole freakin website, so why filter that part out? Is it causing you cognitive dissonance?

Come to grips with reality and explain where bacteria came from, or why you won't include it in your definition?

otherwise SHUT UP.

[طالب]

goat, you failed again

I said, SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL!

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...1&searchtype=a

you define what you want to do? Well then, you are delusional my son.

I've defined my original proposition and argued the case for it. You disagree with it and still haven't disproved it.

Science is based on concensus, its not what one person thinks, but what everyone agrees on, hence we have developed peer reviewed journals, and only people who know what they are talking about, can publish in it. Your scientist friend can't publish any ridiculous claim like foe on a scientific journal, only the internet.

The following scientific sources talk about the FoE:

Stephen J. Gould, " Evolution as Fact and Theory"; Discover, May 1981

- Theodosius Dobzhansky "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution",American Biology Teacher vol. 35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J. Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983

- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434

- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology 5th ed. 1989, Worth Publishers, p. 972

There are more.

Still, where is your logic?

you say that humans MUST have come from single celled organisms, why? because life only comes from life...this was your statement, now when this statement is being questioned, in light of what the theory of evolution it self espouses, you shy away?

Because the FoE deals with life once it has been established. It doesn't deal with the origin of life.

Come on goat, even on talk origin abiogensis is covered...you pretty much copied and pasted the whole freakin website, so why filter that part out? Is it causing you cognitive dissonance?

Lots of things are covered on talkorigins, it talks about the ToE. I'm only defending the FoE so I only need a small amount of material from it.

Come to grips with reality and explain where bacteria came from, or why you won't include it in your definition?

The reason why I won't include it in my definition is because evolution doesn't relate to the origins of life. Evolution talks about life once it has already been established. Why would I try to prove something that is not evolution, when we're talking about evolution?

The knowledge of the origin of life is not required for the FoE to be correct.

[Alchemist]

Yeah,

lets play the quote game

I am quoting scientists who are saying evolution is not fact.


"Since natural selection, survival of the fittest, and micro-evolution are true, many people assume that macro-evolution is also true (Mason, Keith: 1996)."




Wilkins’ flips Dobzhansky’s quote upside down, concluding that

evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one (2000, p. 1051, emphasis mine).

O’Leary adds that the reason why

evolution is “highly superfluous” is that, in reality, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences. Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject (2004, p. 100).

that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is demonstrably false. A person can be a first-rate biologist without being a Darwinist. In fact, a person who rejects Dobzhansky’s claim can be a better biologist than one who accepts it uncritically. The distinctive feature and greatest virtue of natural science, we are told, is its reliance on evidence. Someone who starts with a preconceived idea and distorts the evidence to fit it is doing the exact opposite of science. Yet this is precisely what Dobzhansky’s maxim encourages people to do (Wells, 2000, p. 247).

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.



"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.


Here is a list of scientists who don't accept evolution as fact:
Henry F. Schaefer, Nobel Nominee, Director of Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Fred Sigworth, Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology, Yale Grad.
School• Philip S. Skell, Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry, NAS member • Frank Tipler, Prof. of Mathematical Physics, Tulane U. • Robert Kaita, Plasma Physics Lab, Princeton • Michael
Behe, Prof. of Biological Science, Lehigh U. • Walter Hearn, PhD Biochemistry-U. of Illinois • Tony Mega, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, Whitworth College • Dean Kenyon, Prof. Emeritus
of Biology, San Francisco State • Marko Horb, Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry, U. of Bath • Daniel Kuebler, Asst. Prof. of Biology, Franciscan U. of Steubenville • David
Keller, Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • James Keesling, Prof. of Mathematics, U. of Florida • Roland F. Hirsch, PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan • Robert
Newman, PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U. • Carl Koval, Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry, U. of Colorado • Tony Jelsma, Prof. of Biology, Dordt College • William A. Dembski, PhD
Mathematics-U. of Chicago • George Lebo, Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy, U. of Florida • Timothy G. Standish, PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U. • James Keener, Prof. of
Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering, U. of Utah • Robert J. Marks, Prof. of Signal & Image Processing, U. of Washington • Carl Poppe, Senior Fellow, Lawrence Livermore
Laboratories • Siegfried Scherer, Prof. of Microbial Ecology, Technische Universität München • Gregory Shearer, Postdoc. Researcher Internal Medicine, U. C. Davis • Joseph Atkinson,
William P. Purcell, PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton
• Wesley Allen, Prof. of Computational Quantum
Chemistry, U. of Georgia • Jeanne Drisko, Asst. Prof.,
Kansas Medical Center, U. of Kansas • Chris Grace,
Assoc. Prof. of Psychology, Biola U. • Wolfgang Smith,
Prof. Emeritus of Mathematics-Oregon State •
Rosalind Picard, Assoc. Prof. Computer Science,
M.I.T. • Garrick Little, Senior Scientist, Li-Cor • John
L. Omdahl, Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular
Biology, U. of New Mexico • Martin Poenie, Assoc.
Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Biology, U.
of Texas, Austin • Russell W. Carlson, Prof. of
Biochemistry & Molecular Biology, U. of Georgia •
Hugh Nutley, Prof. Emeritus of Physics &
Engineering, Seattle Pacific U. • David Berlinski, PhD
Philosophy-Princeton, Mathematician, Author • Neil
Broom, Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials
Engineering, U. of Auckland • John Bloom, Assoc.
Prof., Physics, Biola U. • James Graham, Professional
Geologist, Sr. Program Manager, National
Environmental Consulting Firm • John Baumgardner,
Technical Staff, Theoretical Division, Los Alamos
National Laboratory • Fred Skiff, Prof. of Physics, U.
of Iowa • Paul Kuld, Assoc. Prof., Biological Science,
Biola U. • Yongsoon Park, Senior Research Scientist,
St. Luke’s Hospital, Kansas City • Moorad Alexanian, Prof. of Physics, U. of North Carolina, Wilmington • Donald Ewert, Director of Research Administration, Wistar Institute • Joseph
W. Francis, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Cedarville U. • Thomas Saleska, Prof. of Biology, Concordia U. • Ralph W. Seelke, Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences, U. of Wisconsin,
Superior • James G. Harman, Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry, Texas Tech U. • Lennart Moller, Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Inst., U. of Stockholm •
Raymond G. Bohlin, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas • Fazale R. Rana, PhD Chemistry-Ohio U. • Michael Atchison, Prof. of Biochemistry, U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School •
William S. Harris, Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences, U. of Missouri • Rebecca W. Keller, Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry, U. of New Mexico • Terry Morrison, PhD Chemistry-Syracuse
U. • Robert F. DeHaan, PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago • Matti Leisola, Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering, Helsinki U. of Technology • Bruce Evans, Assoc. Prof.
of Biology, Huntington College • Jim Gibson, PhD Biology-Loma Linda U. • David Ness, PhD Anthropology-Temple U. • Bijan Nemati, PhD Physics, Senior Engineer, Jet Propulsion
Lab (NASA) • Edward T. Peltzer, Senior Research Specialist, Monterey Bay Research Institute • Stan E. Lennard, Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery, U. of Washington • Rafe Payne, Prof.
& Chair, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Biola U. • Phillip Savage, Prof. of Chemical Engineering, U. of Michigan • Pattle Pun, Prof. of Biology, Wheaton College • Jed Macosko, Postdoc.
Researcher Molecular Biology, U.C. Berkeley • Daniel Dix, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, U. of South Carolina • Ed Karlow, Chair, Dept. of Physics, LaSierra U. • James Harbrecht,
Clinical Assoc. Prof., U. of Kansas Medical Center • Robert W. Smith, Prof. of Chemistry, U. of Nebraska • Robert DiSilvestro, PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M • David Prentice, Prof.,
Dept. of Life Sciences, Indiana State U. • Walt Stangl, Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics, Biola U. • Jonathan Wells, PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U.C. Berkeley • James Tour, Chao Prof.
of Chemistry, Rice U. • Todd Watson, Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry, Texas A & M • Robert Waltzer, Assoc. Prof. of Biology, Belhaven College • Vincente Villa, Prof. of
Biology, Southwestern U. • James Tumlin, Assoc. Prof. of Medicine, Emory U. • Charles Thaxton, PhD Physical Chemistry-Iowa State U. • Stephen C. Meyer, PhD Philosophy of
Science-Cambridge • Paul Nelson, PhD Philosophy of Biology-U. of Chicago • Richard Sternberg, Invertebrate Zoology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute

A Critique of PBS's Evolution
Myth of Evolution

Is the theory of evolution falsified by fossil evidence?


see its not fact, just because the title says its fact... and I can quote too just like you ...you have to prove that it is fact by showing evidence of speciation...but there is no evidence..so it's based on faith. you are a religious follower of evolution.

[طالب]

Yeah,

lets play the quote game

I am quoting scientists who are saying evolution is not fact.


"Since natural selection, survival of the fittest, and micro-evolution are true, many people assume that macro-evolution is also true (Mason, Keith: 1996)."




Wilkins’ flips Dobzhansky’s quote upside down, concluding that

evolution occupies a special, and paradoxical, place within biology as a whole. While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that ‘nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution’, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. ‘Evolution’ would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superfluous one (2000, p. 1051, emphasis mine).

O’Leary adds that the reason why

evolution is “highly superfluous” is that, in reality, nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of biochemistry, which is what gives biology its place in the linked chain of sciences. Evolution is a form of history, a history that may or may not have happened as described in any current work on the subject (2004, p. 100).

that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution” is demonstrably false. A person can be a first-rate biologist without being a Darwinist. In fact, a person who rejects Dobzhansky’s claim can be a better biologist than one who accepts it uncritically. The distinctive feature and greatest virtue of natural science, we are told, is its reliance on evidence. Someone who starts with a preconceived idea and distorts the evidence to fit it is doing the exact opposite of science. Yet this is precisely what Dobzhansky’s maxim encourages people to do (Wells, 2000, p. 247).

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact." (Dr. T.N. Tahmisian. Atomic Energy Commission, The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959.



"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

None of those sources discuss evolution as a fact and a theory. They all have issues with the ToE but none of them discuss what we're discussing: Whether evolution is a fact and a theory in the scientific sense.

Here is a statement from the National Academy of Science (U.S.):

Scientists most often use the word "fact" to describe an observation. But scientists can also use fact to mean something that has been tested or observed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing or looking for examples. The occurrence of evolution in this sense is fact. Scientists no longer question whether descent with modification occurred because the evidence is so strong.

Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition

Now if the National Academy of Science isn't scientific enough for you, then nothing will ever be.

You're unable to comprehend the difference between the FoE and the ToE. The FoE is defined as "the development of forms of animal and plant life out of forms significantly different from them" and the ToE is an explanation of the process with which it occurs.

I've quoted numerous scientific books and even a few journals in which this is described but still you refuse to acknowledge it.

It seems to me that the problem you have is that I call it the Fact of Evolution, as if fact is somehow a personal insult to you? We can call it something else if you want, my case still stands. The reason why I call it the FoE is because that's what the scientific community does.

Would you be happy if I called it the CfE (Case for Evolution)? Now what? Everything is still the same.

You keep complaining that what I'm saying isn't scientific enough, but on the other hand you refuse to accept what the scientific community has agreed upon, i.e. that evolution is a fact. This is evidenced by the mere fact that evolution is mentioned in every biology book. If I were to ask you why that is, you would probably respond that the scientific community is brainwashed by the propaganda of evolutionists.

See, nothing is good enough for you. Now people can either believe you, who state that the FoE doesn't exist, even though there is a detailed Wikipedia article written about it, or they can believe the National Academy of Science and Laurence Moran, a professor who has written numerous scientific articles and even a book, Principles of Biochemistry, which is in its fourth edition.

see its not fact, just because the title says its fact...

It is a fact in the scientific sense, and a theory.

and I can quote too just like you ...you have to prove that it is fact by showing evidence of speciation...

No, I really don't. Speciation relates to the ToE, how the process occurred, I'm talking about the FoE.

The FoE is very straightforward. We know some kinds of living organisms existed before others (e.g. unicellular organisms existed before vertebrates), and we know that living things come from living things, therefore the latter living organisms must have come from the former.

This is all the FoE states: "the development of forms of animal and plant life out of forms significantly different from them".

That is my proposition. I've defended it throughout the last 10 pages and you haven't been able to disprove it. Because you can't disprove it, you start talking about other things, unrelated to this simple proposition.

[khashayar]

I'll be honest I don't know much about evolution...but I have one question if someone that is well versed in the subject can answer...why humans evolved to to an extent to develop such intelligence and sophistication? Where are the fish or reptilian people?

Does that make sense...? lulz

[Alchemist]

goat


where is the proof for speciation? if there is no proof, then it's not fact, its just theory. just by saying over and over and over that its fact, it won't become fact. show the proof.

your talkorigin prof has articles on microevolution since he is a biochemist..so there is no proof of speciation presented by him. and wikipedia has no proof either.


yeah, we can do this till the end of time.

[طالب]

where is the proof for speciation?

I don't need to provide evidence for speciation in order to argue the case for the FoE, because the FoE simply means the development of forms of animal and plant life out of forms significantly different from them. It does not make any claims about how the process occurs. Speciation relates to process, which is explained in the ToE. Even if we didn't have any evidence for speciation it would have no bearing on the FoE.

If there are problems with that theory or even if it is discredited, that does not disprove the existence of evolution. Just because we have problems agreeing how something works, that does not entitle us to claim that the phenomenon does not exist.

[طالب]

"i don't need to provide evidence" ... so how can you call it fact if there is no evidence.

Because there is evidence for the FoE. But you're talking about speciation which is part of how evolution occurred. The process of evolution is explained by the ToE, not the FoE.

Thus the evidence for speciation is irrelevant to the case for the FoE. This is not the same as saying that the FoE doesn't have any evidence though. The evidence for the FoE is that living things come from living things, living things are different from each other and finally that some kinds of living things came before other kinds (as evidenced by the fossil record).

do you know the meaning of the word fact?

Yes.

what does development mean?

it means process.

No it doesn't, I've repeatedly stated that the definition of the FoE does not concern how evolution occured, i.e. how the process occurred. You're just ignoring me.

Stop using the word development then...rephrase your statement.

Nope, development is a great word. Organisms developed into other organisms. How? That is another issue.

I'm not going to change the definition just because you feel like it.