2) Another cop out. "Human beings have been wrong about stuff, therefore this is wrong." While science does evolve over time, things like this don't change radically. For example, gravity being both a theory and a law proposed by Isaac Newton. You might say that Isaac Newton was wrong. After all, he hadn't accounted for relativity, which Einstein would figure out later. But Newton was still able to calculate motion and gravity pretty darn accurately at human levels. He had most of the picture, was just missing a piece. As a result, there were small discrepancies when he was calculating orbits of planets. So then relativity came along and solved the problem. Our understanding of gravity improved, but the underlying concept did not change radically.
Well, we'll certainly learn more about evolution as time goes on, improve our understanding of it. But the underlying concept isn't going anywhere.
3) Darwin had enough to know that evolution was happening and he didn't even know DNA existed. The discovery of DNA has added more evidence to evolution. The more we learn about DNA, the more we learn about evolution. But this is not a point that leads to the idea that evolution is wrong. I think you've moved the goalposts from "evolution is bull****" to "we don't know everything about evolution." Well, of course we don't. We don't know everything about... anything. Should we shut down nuclear reactors because we don't fully understand nuclear physics yet?
One of you will end up here next!
You included this hypothesis in the group of so-called theories that have been debunked. If I misunderstood, it is because you seem to think theories like gravity and evolution are hypothesis.Originally Posted by Peter Grimm
I reject evolution. I think it's crap.
Also, did you know that there was once a debate between two guys named Wilberforce and Huxley, and Wilberforce asked Huxley "Was it through your grandmother or your grandfather that you're descended from a monkey?"