Why is evolution still not considered pseudoscience like the flat Earth given that both these theories deny reality/science?
The theory of the flat Earth claims that the Earth is flat, while in reality the Earth is round. The theory of evolution claims that change of organisms can lead to rapid functional transformations or de novo creations, while in reality this doesn't happen.
For e.g., the theory claims that dog-like mammals evolved into whales in about 10 million years. So, a rapid functional transformation happened (limbs into fins, ears into biosonar...). It also claims that in about 15 million years (Cambrian), a simple tubular and frond-shaped organisms evolved into many of the major modern phyla. So, a rapid functional de novo creation happened (new organs and organ systems).
However in reality, change of organisms literally never leads to such transformations or creations. Namely, from the time of splitting off from the most recent common ancestor until today, all the existing species have undergone a lot of change. Humans and chimps have been changing form more than 5 million years. Lemurs for more than 40 million years. Rats for 100 million years. Crocodiles 200 million years. Yet, no organism has been observed that has functional transformations, let alone organs, not present in another organism of the same species.
So, in reality, no matter how long a species changes, zero functional transformations or de novo creations happen. The theory however claims the opposite — that this can happen in an evolutionary blink of an eye. That's reality denial and thus, pseudoscientific.
- CowboyLv 62 months ago
You have no idea what evolution is and what it is not.
- vorenhutzLv 72 months ago
So do you deny that (for example) the Cambrian explosion happened, and how do you account for it? Why is your theory, whatever it is, a better fit than evolution? Why exactly is it that evolution, you seem to be arguing, can't account for those kinds of changes?
- Bulldog reduxLv 72 months ago
You falsely claim that the theory of evolution "claims that in about 15 million years (Cambrian), a simple tubular and frond-shaped organisms evolved into many of the major modern phyla." I don't know of any scientist who claims that the Ediacaran fauna evolved into many of the major modern phyla. Cite your sources if you want to be believed. I'm sure that you can find quotations from experts in the Seventh-Day Adventist Church (that's irony, in case you don't recognize it).
You seem to think that saltation is the major, or even the sole, mechanism of evolution. You're talking through your hat. Read. Study. Educate yourself.
- SmegheadLv 72 months ago
Keep ******' that chicken, Mario! Maybe if you get an even bigger thesaurus, you'll find the right magic words to make all that nasty evidence disappear to match your imaginary world!
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- DixonLv 72 months ago
Argument by analogy is not science
- megalomaniacLv 72 months ago
Wow, you used an awful lot of words to reveal your ignorance on evolution. Fewer words would have sufficed. Evolution is as true as anything in science. There is plenty of evidence for it. Oh, and by the way, it happens slowly.
- MarkLv 72 months ago
Because ALL science points to evolution. Sorry for you the "man and dinosaur walked together".