|
:More to the point, those refutations of creationist poppycock come from reliable sources, and your [[WP:OR|original research]] trying to find fault with them is 100% irrelevant. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
::Regarding transitional fossils, the concept of [[Precambrian Rabbit|Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian]] is relevant. [[User:Kauri0.o|Kauri0.o]] ([[User talk:Kauri0.o|talk]]) 00:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
== Objection to calling "Evolution " proven science. ==
To prove that an otter slipped into the water and became a dolphin who then had a sexual desire for his similar mate has been proven scientifically? How would you design a double blind experiment that would prove such an hypothesis? Would it not involve radioactive tracers observed over thousands of years? I object to "scientists " trying to pass off "ologies" for science. [[User:Tormarquis|Tormarquis]] ([[User talk:Tormarquis|talk]]) 06:26, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
:A starting point may be [[evidence of common descent]]. The above sounds like a voluntarily unrealistic parody, not a representation of what happened or how. Animals don't evolve in a lifetime, it's more complex than that. —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 06:38, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
::Also, nobody says dolphins are decended from otters. Creationists probably hold the record for cramming most falsities per sentence into a text. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 09:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
::Dolphins are [[even-toed ungulate]]s, so pretty distant from [[Mustelidae]] including otters. Unsurprisingly. Sounds like the [[crocoduck]] fallacy, think it's a tie? Oh, and proof is for whisky and maths, not so much science. . . [[User:Dave souza|dave souza]], [[User talk:Dave souza|talk]] 10:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
:[[User:Tormarquis]] - is this about something in the article ? This article has a section on the Status as theory, which seems the only place where ‘proven’ is discussed. That says evolution is unproven, as any theory is ‘just a theory’, but that in colloquial meaning ‘proven’ of having compelling evidence it has been ‘proven’. (p.s. Evidence being what has been found so far — there were fossil duckocrocs found but so far no crocoducks found.) Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 22:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::A [[scientific theory]] is not "just a theory" and also not a hypothesis, you may want to read the linked article... —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 03:18, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
:::[[User:PaleoNeonate]] The article has a section that says evolution is unproven, as any theory is ‘just a theory’, but that in colloquial meaning ‘proven’ of having compelling evidence it has been ‘proven’. If you don’t feel what the article states is correctly phrasing the cite, feel free to make your proposals for rewording it; if you don’t feel the OP was referring to that then feel free to make your own proposal or question subthread. Cheers [[User:Markbassett|Markbassett]] ([[User talk:Markbassett|talk]]) 13:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
::::Evolution itself is a proven fact, there are multiple examples of evolution. Obviously the theory isn't a fact. [[User:Doug Weller|<span style="color:#070">Doug Weller</span>]] [[User talk:Doug Weller|talk]] 15:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
== Rampant Censorship problems ==
| 