Replies

Go back far enough, and the smartest and most complicated thing around is a simple unicellular, or maybe a slime mold. Then you have sponges and so forth. If you want to call the voyage from then to now "change" rather than "evolution," then OK, but I don't see how it helps you.

Now you've shifted back to the relevant definition of "evolution", I guess. You're saying in effect that (according to the theory) humans had ancestors which were unicellular and/or slime mold (whatever, it's not clear). Yes, I agree, that is a better characterization of the "theory of evolution" - or at least one aspect of it.

And it's a theory. And textbooks will say so. What's your problem?

How about, "Let's try not to tap-dance away from the evidence." There is an incontrovertible convergence of independent lines of evidence that evolution has occurred.

Who are you arguing with? What makes you think I an "tap-danc[ing] away from" any evidence? I am not even arguing with "the theory of evolution" per se. You seem to be carrying an argument with someone else, not me.

Again, you dodge the question of why the perfectly fact-based area of evolution is singled out for a disclaimer and not gravity, electromagnetism, quantum mechanics, relativity ...

I didn't "dodge" this question at all. In fact I addressed it head-on (see Posts #328 (which was TO YOU), #329, #331...). The answer is, essentially, "Who cares if evolution is 'singled out' for this disclaimer if the disclaimer is TRUE?"

I still don't see what objection you could possibly have to a textbook printing a true statement. The only conclusion I can draw is that Truth is not your primary concern here. So what is?

But whether you continue to dodge or not, WE KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON WITH YOU.

Huh? Okay, tell me, what's "going on with" me, mind-reader?

What a weird outburst. Maybe you're not as rational as I'd first thought. Seriously: what the hell are you talking about, here?

(Snort!)

And now you're becoming sub-literate? Please try to elaborate on these outbursts. In English. Or some recognizably human language. I don't have time for a snorting contest.

And it's a theory. And textbooks will say so. What's your problem?

You responded to my post 12, which asked why only evolution is singled out as a subject matter. You wish, I suppose, to create the appearance of dealing with my question. It's an artless artifice.

The answer is, essentially, "Who cares if evolution is 'singled out' for this disclaimer if the disclaimer is TRUE?"

You don't know or care a thing about science. Please keep your religion in church where it belongs. The disclaimer is an obfuscation, attempting to imply that because evolution, only evolution, is "a theory," that it should be regarded as a hypothesis or conjecture rather than a fact.

But we have the fact that life has evolved over the history of the planet. We might as well be able to teach what we understand about that without interference from the witch-doctor crowd.