(August 19, 2016 at 4:26 pm)Rhythm Wrote:(August 19, 2016 at 2:57 pm)SteveII Wrote: I didn't use the term 'Theory of Evolution' to argue that it was just a theory. The word 'theory' has multiple meanings. Since I used the words 'fact' and 'theory' in the same sentence, I thought my meaning would be clear. I apologize for the confusion and resulting tangent.
Are you really objecting yourself out of and away from a conclusion that was almost miraculously accurate, for a change....regarding evolution?
Jesus fucking christ man...I don't know what to say.......
If you think that something which calls into question common ancestry (no point in quibbling, even if I could) calls into question -evolution-...then you've just lost your shit is all. Common descent, and evolution...are not the same thing. We can imagine, if we like, that all forms of life had separate origins. They have still and demonstrably -do- evolve, regardless.
Are you suggesting that Common Ancestry theory is not a component (from the beginning with Darwin) of the overall Theory of Evolution? And hypothetically if Common Ancestry is found to be incorrect, it would not call into question the larger theory? You seem to be intentionally mixing definitions of evolution to preserve 'fact' status.
