Evolution is a hypothesis - it is neither proven fact nor universally accepted science. Its flaws and holes have been repeatedly pointed out. Rather than address those flaws and holes, proponents of the hypothesis lump their critics in the category of "uneducated fanatics" and go back to spinning fantastic elaborations of the theory.
That's the beauty of evolution theory, none of the hypothesis they dream up needs to be proven,and it doesn't matter if it clashes with all other hypothesis.
Someone caught a wierd looking fish with human-like teeth the other day. Just wait- it's only a matter of time before a "hypothesis" develops of this previously unknown fish species being the missing link.
Evolution is a theory, and as such it has repeatedly made a myriad of successful predictions .
it is neither proven fact nor universally accepted science.
About 99% of biologists accept the theory of evolution - that's about as universal as acceptance of a theory can get. Thousands of scientific papers have been published on the subject, while virtually none have been published regarding any competing hypothesis.
Its flaws and holes have been repeatedly pointed out.
These "flaws and holes" are generally fabrications or exaggerations by those who are ideologically bent on dismantling the theory, and are not grounded in logic or good science. Most such "flaws and holes" have been addressed repeatedly, and aren't flaws at all.
Rather than address those flaws and holes, proponents of the hypothesis lump their critics in the category of "uneducated fanatics" and go back to spinning fantastic elaborations of the theory.
Well, only when the critics repeatedly bring up the same imagined "flaws" without researching why they aren't really "flaws". Someone who refuses to learn from their mistakes quite likely rightfully earns the label of "undeducated fanatic".
Evolution is a fact (undeniable evidences for common descent) and a theory (explanatory mechanisms). It has moved well beyond the hypothesis stage.
Rather than address those flaws and holes, proponents of the hypothesis lump their critics in the category of "uneducated fanatics" and go back to spinning fantastic elaborations of the theory.
The "flaws and holes" have been addressed on every thread for about the last seven years on FR. The same "critics" show up dumb as a stump professing to know nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing of what has been posted in rebuttal to them thus far. What kind of science works this way? What do you learn by knowing nothing, nothing contrary to your cult literature?
1) What is the Theory of Evolution (in your own words)?
2) What are the problems with the Theory of Evolution?
Note, if you do not answer these questions we'll just have to assume you have absolutely no idea of that of which you speak, and can therefore be dismissed as the ignorant troll you probably are.
Sounds like an unproven, non-universally-accepted hypothesis you've got there.
btt
It's more of an index of categories so names of plants and creatures can be given more meaning and appropriate ablatives.