Natural selection - as in survival of the fittest? Darwin stufied for 30 years he proposed that the many differences in individuals of a species their genes etc regarding their suitability to their surroundings made them better able to survive.
He also sent out mixed messages because it was Darwin who suggested 'descent with modification' this is where the idea that species change over a period of time and these changes cause new species to come into existence.
Which is not a mixed message at all.
But the truth is major animals and their species have no been changing and life on this planet only comes from life forms ALREADY here.
Existing life forms have changed over long periods of time. Whicch is what Evolutionary is. It says nothing about how life formed initially.
Man and animals have all adapted or died according to their surroundings. But new life of a brand new species from NOTHING has not happened.
Which is not what evolutionary theory is about - it is about existing life forms changing over long periods to become different species.
In fact science believe evolution has stopped.
Totally wrong. Where have you got that idea from?
Where would that leave the survival of the fittest is no species evolving? We have to think beyond the pail and think about what Darwins writings really mean by making the comparisons here and now.
irrelevant since evolution has not stopped.
Many people use 'theory' where they should use 'law'. For instance a 'scientific law' The world and creation is a scientific law not a theory since there is no experiments or even confirmed observations which would make evolution a theory.
That's wrong.
The reason it should be called a 'law' is that their is no evidence of any kind of how life and the planet earth really came into existence.
That's wrong and has nothing to do with evolution anyway since it is not about how life formed on this planet.
May be if I can reach this conclusion using your words for theories, science, evolution and scientist then why haven't you?
Because your concluusion is wrong based on lack of knowledge on the subject.
The one truth that does come out, is I think for myself and can reason the information before me, without using my religious knowledge.
And come to a wrong conclusion.
Whilst you just accept what you are told.
Nope - because I know what theories are and how science works and can look at and assess the evidence.
I am sure many times you will use the above arguments but you will never be able to give a valid educated reasons for doing so.
See above.
I want to learn and grow like everyone else. But not remain ignorant or unable to reason for myself. Because I don't share your view and others won't does not make us ignorant.
No, but displaying a lack of understanding of the science, of what theory means, what evolution is about and about the scientific method does though - not that I have used the word ignorant.
Especially when we can explain why and what we believe based on having the same knowledge as you but using our own ability to reach a personal conclusion. Thanks for your reply.
You don't have the same knowledge though since you don't seem to understand what evolutionary theory is.
