Is evolution proven science or theory

[GratefulCitizen]

Would have to disagree there. There are thousands of fossils that have been found to verify macroevolution.


Where is the smooth continuum of fossils showing the link between:
-invertebrates and vertebrates?
-fish and amphibians?
-amphibians and reptiles?
-reptiles and birds?
-among insects?

It isn't there.
There are only artists' renditions and other imaginations.


IMO, I do not know if the consequent as regards evolution is falsifiable.


That was kinda my point.


The problem here is if one believes there is a scientific alternative to evolution. I do not personally see the alternative argued (i.e. intelligent design) as being a scientific alternative. If there are scientific alternatives, then sure, finding fossils does not mean evolution is true, but what is the scientific alternative?


If evolution is true, then all of the alternatives are false.
There are no alternatives (alternatives are false), therefore evolution is true.

A implies B.
B, therefore A.

Affirming the consequent.
When evolution gets pinned down, the subject always changes to alternatives.

[GratefulCitizen]

Entire post.


Theories have to be falsifiable to be science.
Otherwise, they're just faith.

Evolutionists constantly point at the problems with religion.
Guess I'll take a page out of their playbook.

Many people present all sorts of evidence WRT the existence of Noah's Ark.
A great many people support the idea.

I'll assume it exists.
Go ahead and try to disprove that it exists.

If you can't disprove that it exists would it be logical to conclude that it exists?
This is where faith and science part ways.

It's ok to make an assumption that evolution happened.
But, the theory must then go on to predict what evidence will be found and will not be found for it to be scientifically useful.

This is where evolution runs into problems.
Evidence is explained after it is found.

Any child can make up a backstory.
That isn't science.

[GratefulCitizen]

Entire post.


We are really going in circles here.
I'll be simple about it.

Where is the smooth continuum of fossil evidence connecting reptiles and birds?

[MR2]

Funny how there doesn't need to be a smooth continuum of one thing but two of something is too many.

[GratefulCitizen]

A continuum question has been addressed.
People can infer what they wish.


My understanding of evolution would indicate that the number of animal phyla should be few early in the fossil record and expand into more with the passage of time.

What early phyla transitioned into what later phyla?
Can a "root" phylum be found?