So it IS a theory, and the facts can be incomplete. They can also be faked, as in Piltdown man, and it has occured.
Oh not piltdown man please, the fact that this was faked doesnt discredit the powerful evidence
Also the whole point of piltdown man was that the forgery was brought to light and dismissed by scientists
Theory, and the evidence can be incomplete.
Yes otherwise it would be called a truth. This is what science is about, working it out
Only inferentially and as a theory. Buddha on other hands could clairvoyantly see.
I dont know why you bother with him, I have a book called the Bible, tells you all you need to know
Process happening TODAY. We don't know all the conditions before. Furthermore evolution happens over millions of years. Which scientist has lived that long to observe it?
This is quickly turning into (even more) nonsense
Evolution is the survival of desired characteristics, which come from genes
You cannot have life, at least on earth, without genes since they code for life
Since Genes have been around for billions of years, so has evolution
Change occurs. Where it leads to, who knows. Dhamma doesn't deny change.
Change via natural selection acting upon the genes of an organism
That would be an inference unless one has clairvoyance or has a time machine. The point I am making is that scientists cannot refute what has happened according to the Agganna sutta.
It would requite a fundamental different understanding of what Biology is. It would go against the facts and furthermore, is a theory that cannot be proved at all with not one shred of evidence for it
And yes its an inference but seeing how evolution occurs now its rational to say speciation would occur long ago in the past. This inference is then supported via the evidence of genetics, distribution of animals, Homologies of animals and the fossil record. All consistent with the Scientific theory of evolution via natural selection over time and none of it consistent with the Agganna Sutta, not in a literal reading anyway
I have Dhamma. Evolutionary biology is a load of speculation, with only conventional validity.
I see so you have your "bible" and thats all you need to know. That also gives you arrogance enough to not even understand a subject that you are attacking
Would be as ridiculous as me attacking Quantum Mechanics without actually studying what its about