Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[The Grand Nudger]

My argument is that Darwin's theory of evolution cannot be true because there has never been scientific proof of any one species adapting over time to be categorized as another species.

Really? What about the Wolf --> Domestic Dog? What about the European Wildcat --> Domestic Cat? Aurochs --> Cattle?

Those are all scientifically distinct species, and there are plenty of others.

You could add a few dozen plants as well. Many more seem to have undergone a speciation within the range of our experience but what Rob seems to want really doesn't apply to anything before we started looking (and knew where to look). Speciation -has- been observed, with regularity, both in the lab and in the field. On this point there is no debate, no disagreement, no contradictory evidence, no argument, no nothing. There is the observation of evolution, the observation of speciation - and then there are explanations as to the mechanism. On this second part, there is a great deal of debate, disagreement, contradictory evidence, and compelling argument. None of which would cast any shadow over natural selection - which was Darwins contribution to what has become a much larger body of knowledge than he ever could have imagined (a contribution which he rightly ascertained had already been accepted by his audience - which was already plainly in evidence but had not been articulated or had not had it;s implications fully explored, whether they had realized it or not) - hence his tendency to explain evolution (or warm up an audience..if you will..lol) in terms of artificial selection such as the breeding of domestic plants and animals. A very hefty portion of which is to what identified effect contributes what percentage or share or value to the sum total of the process. Natural selection has had the limelight for awhile, but perhaps we -have- overestimated (or underestimated) it's importance. That it is (at least) part of the "apparatus" is, at this point, beyond any reasonable doubt, imo.

@Rob specifically. Try researching Raphinobrassica. Quite possibly it's own genus, not just it's own species ( a hybrid between two genera, no less). You'll find links from there to , literally, hundreds of other well evidenced examples of a great many different means of acheiveing speciation (which, obviously, includes natural selection) that have indeed been observed by botanists alone - and that's just one small corner. Evolution plainly states that fish will evolve into fish, primates into primates, etc. This is not a criticism of the theory - it is an affirmation of it. You are still, from one very narrow point of view - a sort of bony fish. You are also a human being. These two things are not exclusive. Gnathostomata ftw! The differences you see are accumulated. Our lineage went one way, our peers another. I doubt that you would notice any huge changes from one generation to the next in either lineage- and yet here we are, after so many generations - very different from each other indeed. You don't see much of yourself in a shark, I assume.......but it's there, or rather, both you and a shark have something of some common "other" within you. This too...can be observed.