Stop what? This is getting amusing, with all due respect; the more I respond, the more you sound like a doctrinarian rather than a scientist. Nobody ever taught me about this particular off-topic subject in college in this manner.
I have not “changed” any “evidence”; I merely see the nature of the observations alluded to here in an open-minded way. You OTOH are quite adamant about denying the roots of this off-topic theory—and since you admit not hearing of the “ancient Greeks” I mentioned (how and why?—their names are mentioned on just about all college websites with respect to the off-topic subject rather than “some creationist website”), this undermines your credibility as to your prior claim of being a scientist, again with all due respect.
Furthermore, no “instrumentation” ever “demonstrated” anything that proves any facet of the theory in question. There are no laws related to this theory—only endless hypotheses. Oh yes, and denigrating the philosophers of the past means scrapping the base of a theory—also unscientific.
Right. Names of ancient Greeks may be mentioned on the websites of most colleges, but not likely on their science department websites. It may surprise you to learn that when we study science in college, we only study the history that is directly related to the topic of study, and only briefly. For instance, in one class, we saw a short film about Darwin's voyage to the Galapagos Islands, where he made a lot of observations that were key to his later developing the theory of evolution that is closest to the working theory we use today. We also learned briefly about the competing Lamarkian theory of evolution, which eventually was rejected as a theory because it did not lead to hypotheses that were validated by experimentation.
As a rule, scientists do not spend much time discussing philosophy or ancient history. Some may do so as a personal passion, but in our work, we focus on the here and now in order to make testable predictions (hypotheses). It is a characteristic of creationists--sorry, nothing unique to you at all--that they want to discuss three thousand year old philosophy and use *that* as a basis on which to reject actual observations and theory. I can only surmise this is because the creationism websites like Answers in Genesis, etc. use a lot of space writing diatribes about how ancient history is more relevant to scientific theory than the actual scientific method.
Did you bother going to any of the websites I mentioned, which are specifically written for laypeople to understand, to read up on the latest findings in evolutionary biology? (I'm pretty sure I know the answer.)
BTW, if the theory of evolution is as flimsy as you claim, you should easily be able to bring up any specific evolutionary claim and debunk it. I have not, to date, seen any devout creationist do this--instead, they fall back on debating irrelevant points of ancient philosophy.
Also, you may be truthful when you claim that you have attended college. However, the Bio101 equivalent class you may have taken for your general education requirement was highly unlikely to have covered the topic of evolution in any kind of depth or detail. I recall that evolution took up maybe one or two class sessions when I took Bio101; I can very easily see how someone who wants to reject evolution (and pretty much all of biological science) can do so if that is their entire education on the subject. The thing is, people who actually major in a life science actually see the topic of evolution covered in zoology, in genetics, in molecular biology, in comparative anatomy, etc., etc. (although it is not often mentioned by name). Evolutionary theory is the *core* theory of all biology, and to try to advance biological science without using the theory of evolution is like trying to advance physical science without using the theory of electromagnetism.
I'll give one specific example of how we use evolutionary theory, which I have mentioned before: in microbiology. There are several viruses floating around that cause severe human disease with high fatality rates. However, these viruses are not easily contagious between people. Evolutionary principles tell us a few things. One, since the evolutionary processes are constantly in motion, these viruses can mutate to a form that makes them highly contagious. Two, since the likelihood that a mutation will remain in a population is affected by selective pressures, we need to identify factors that favor mutations that cause the viruses to become contagious so as to mitigate those factors. Three, since we know that viruses mutate all the time, and that not all mutations lead to increased contagiousness, we need to figure out which mutations are important so we can watch for them. Microbiologists who understand evolution are worried. You, on the other hand, may remain blissfully unconcerned, since, in your world view, mutations are a complete fiction invented by evil godless scientists trying to discredit religion.