Evolution-ation

More BS. No one even truly knows who the authors of the gospels even were.  The names given to them may as well have been plucked out of thin air.

And an empty tomb is evidence only that a tomb was empty. 

Why would anyone need to "roll away the stone"  Mark 16:3  when it is said that Jesus was able to walk through the wall of a locked room? John 20:26. 

 Why were they all shocked and surprised and in fear that he had "risen", when he had been telling them all along that this was going to happen?

 The whole story is contrived and you just can't face it.

More BS. No one even truly knows who the authors of the gospels even were.  The names given to them may as well have been plucked out of thin air.

And an empty tomb is evidence only that a tomb was empty. 

Why would anyone need to "roll away the stone"  Mark 16:3  when it is said that Jesus was able to walk through the wall of a locked room? John 20:26. 

 Why were they all shocked and surprised and in fear that he had "risen", when he had been telling them all along that this was going to happen?

 The whole story is contrived and you just can't face it.

- You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?

Because it is not just impossible. It is implausible and improbable. Apart from that it is unprovable.

And the biblical narrative makes sense and is clearly based upon sound evidence. 

Despite all the promotions, the majority of people outside Europe & East Asia do not believe in mainstream Evolution. 

This is because people are willing to safeguard their sacred religious beliefs, even if it means turning a blind eye to facts.

Like what biologist Sheril Kirshenbaum stated, America is a very religious nation, and if forced to choose between faith and science, vast numbers of  Americans will select the former. 

Unlike Islam or Christianity, science autocorrects itself.

- Autocorrecting implies incorrectness. You've lost the argument before you even started. 

Neo-Darwinism is the last synthesis of Darwinian evolution. They scrap the previous syntheses & invent new stories, because they realize it was all fantasy exposed with new discoveries.

They are at their 5th synthesis now, because of the Genome Project; comparative genealogy do not support the traditional tree of life they concocted.

So far they are still arguing about what this extended synthesis is, because they are not sure what stories to tell before they know the facts. Like politicians.

Science cares about truth and it looks inwards when disputing, while Islam/Christianity care about dominance and they look outwards. 

Science does not relate to truth in the slightest, it relates to accuracy & likelihood.

No scientific theory can ever be true, by design. Science practices an inductive reasoning, where one seeks a universal explanation (an abstract hypothesis) to a particular event (a concrete observable fact), by computation of frequency.

In short: observations, then hypothesis explaining observations, then statistical comparison of results of hypothesis against new observations, then rinse & repeat. A good such hypothesis is a possible, plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable & accurate explanation:

Plausible: intuitive & in harmony with the general scientific narrative.

Simple: as opposed to complex, more complexions mean more assumptions.

Verifiable: fits observable facts.

Falsifiable: predicts new observable facts

Accurate: quantitative postulate with minimal statistical margin of error.

You’re the one fixated on “stories” and “narratives.”

- You have it backwards. You have yet to produce any proof or evidence for the mythos that is the evolutionary narrative you subscribe to. Don't take my word for it, check the theory of evolution against the conditions required by the scientific method.

Is the theory of evolution plausible? No, it isn't. It's a dumb reductionist theory in a quantum world. 

Simple? Absolutely not. It's the most convoluted expansive tale ever produced by Mankind. Verifiable? That's a joke. Falsifiable? Haha. It's the only known so-called theory that predicts Jack Schitt. Accurate? It doesn't predict anything or give us any measure of anything to even have the chance to be inaccurate, let alone accurate.

- I'm ready to provide proof for the Islamic narrative that I'm willing to debate it on this forum. Are you ready to provide evidence for your narrative?

“Maybe in 500 years we'll have a quantum theory of biology.“ 

That’s why. These ideas must be too big for me. Please explain what you mean. 

- Our understanding of biology stems from our understanding of chemistry, which stems from our understanding of physics, which stems from our understanding of quantum theory.

When you move the tip of your finger, it's not a crankshaft mechanism, instead countless quantum chemical reactions are in play, from the muscle tissue down to the cell & down to the molecules & down to the smallest particles involved.

It's impossible to explain biodiversity with imbecilic vacuous tales about similarity in bone structure & common ancestor. We must achieve a bottom-up understanding of biology, by expanding our understanding in physics, maybe even beyond quantum theory, then building up from elementary particles interactions up to the organic compounds (nucleic acids, lipids, proteins & carbohydrates), up to cell structure & so on. Hence, a quantum theory of biology, with actual equations & predictions.

Admit to yourself what you don’t know.

Understand all humans can be wrong, and all humans can be corrected; No human is infallible.

Acknowledge there are smarter people than you or I.

Stay curious.

The device your using is the product of countless hours of the later. 

Truth: the quality or state of being true.

True: in accordance with fact or reality.

Science cares about fact and reality. 

But yes, you’re right.

First, what would you consider sufficient evidence? I guess watching an animal turn into another animal, like a fish turning into a human or something.

They all point to common ancestors.

i.e. modern humans didn’t just show up out of no where.

We can see that in the fossil and genetic record. 

It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.

- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?

I know it’s true.

Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find. 

We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.

He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing. Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years. 

And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes.

- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong. 

Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans. 

So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.

Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.

You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?

- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.

I doubt it.

Not fully understanding something does not mean it doesn’t occur

That was a tangent which turned into projection of internal fears you have as a Muslim.

It wasn’t a direct response to what I asked and said.

So you do reaserch?

Evolution like any other science is only a narrative if you make it one.

Just because it conflicts with your personal Islamic beliefs. 

You don’t need to be a quantum physicist to be a chemist. Seriously!..

You can acknowledge there’s mechanical properties of biology/chemistry/physics, etc while understanding there are quantum aspects.

The scientific fields that fall under evolution have. 

Yassine,

YOUR QUOTE TO STEPHEN IN POST #31: "You seem quite capable of constructing a sound argument. How come you run away when asked to debate?"

The irony is that you continue to ask the members for a debate with no takers, where I have stepped up and want to debate you upon your Satanic Islamic faith, but you have yet to commit by continually running away from me as shown in the links below!!!   Why, SCARED of my reputation upon this forum of easily making pseudo-christians the Bible fools that they are?

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=5&post_number=116

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=6&post_number=136

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=6&post_number=139

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=6&post_number=142

https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/6309-whos-in-for-some-fun-challenges?page=6&post_number=145

Can a fellow Hell-bound Muslim of the Islamic faith help YASSINE find his "big boy pants" to debate me upon his Satanic faith?  Anyone?

YASSINE, the membership is watching you RUN from me debating you, no more lame excuses, understood?!!!

When you said science correcting itself means I’ve already lost the argument, you did not think that through in the slightest.

- Indeed, you have. "autocorrect" is a slogan that doesn't mean anything, & if true then it's self-defeating. If Science is "autocorrecting" then any scientific finding is thereby incorrect. Though, the scientific process is indeed based on trial & error.

It’s essentially like talking to a child. And there you go again.

- More imaginary friends?

- But you know evolution is true? Or you don't know?

I know it’s true.

- Whatever happened to that "science autocorrects itself"? Or does that stop at Evolution?

Does that mean evolution in its entirety is wrong? Yes, with strong enough counter evidence which most likely we’ll never find. 

- LMAO! There is zero evidence for Evolution; fetch those first before you celebrate. 

We must look to different people/sources for our knowledge then.

- Yes, indeed. The evolutionationists do not even allow debate or participate in it. They are afraid to be exposed. When you see physicists & astronomers full of excitement to debate anyone & everyone who questions their findings, the evolutionationists run away with tails between their legs under the pretext of "we don't debate ignorants" LMAO! 

So when it comes to science we shouldn’t be curious? Is science like murdering someone? Perhaps your belief in Allah?

- Red herring. When you can't support your claims, you resort to distractions. Whatever else you say about everything else in the world will not add to the truth of evolutionation narrative one iota. 

He’s been an outspoken atheist and science populariser for the most part in the last decade or so. You’re pretty much just tone policing. Science popularising is not science, though Dawkins has contributed his fair share of science in his earlier years. 

- A fair share in the evolutionation mythology, indeed. He contributed nothing to actual Science, just the opposite. 

And as for vestigial evolutionary remnants, some are obvious such as earlobes.

- What did I say! They made you think like they do. If you don't know the function, then it's "vestigial", as if that means anything at all. Evolution god of the gaps, if you don't know what it is, then it's evolution. Amusing! 

Can you tell me how?

- For instance. Human gene comparisons show closest similarity in RNA sequencing in elephants & farthest in rats; whereas the opposite is regarded in traditional phylogenies. Of course all based on the imaginary assumption: "similar = related". LOL! Since they can't reconcile this & that, they resorted to inventing new names... 'founding ancestor' instead of 'common ancestor'. Isn't this hilarious!

- Huh? Outside the serious sciences (Physics are the gang), the overwhelming majority of publications are erroneous & irreproducible. In Evolutionary biology, the rate is close to 100%.

Can you link me some things so I have a better understanding?

- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis

- (You're*). Of engineering*. Biology had nothing to do with it, neither did evolutionation. It's called Physics. The most infuriating & comical thing about Science today is that the dumbest "findings" in phycology & biology (such as evolution) live under the same umbrella of 'Science' as things like Gravitation Theory & Quantum Theory, leeching off their reputation. In the traditional Islamic classification of knowledge, physical sciences such as astronomy(hay'a), mechanics (hayl), gravitation (thaqala), or engineering (mimar) were classified alongside arithmetics (hisab) algebra (jabr), & geometry (handasa), under Mathematics (Ryadyat); whereas biological sciences & medicine were classified under Natural Sciences (Tabi'yat). If we take out Physics & put it back in the Mathematics department, we'll finally have Natural Sciences right where they belong. 

Just in physics/astronomy the world doesn’t revolve around Earth, in biology the world doesn’t revolve around humans. 

- What does this have to do with anything?!

So now you’ve moved the focus to “care” too. Childish.

Care: serious attention or consideration applied to doing something correctly or to avoid damage or risk.

You ask why the convolutions. I’m just giving you definitions. What are you doing?

- Another red herring. 

I agree. I don’t know how that disputes what I said. 

- I did my part. The rest is up to you.

- I'm all ears. Why are you wasting your time arguing concepts, when you can instead provide much needed proof for Evolution here & now. Bring me proof that confirms the scientific rigorousness of this theory, & I will cede your case.

I doubt it.

- You doubt your ability to bring proof? Or is that a concession that you can't bring proof?

Evolution is a framework using the most recent evidence to explain the development of organisms on Earth. The most verified, most accurate, and theory which has best predicted outcomes for decades - is Evolution.

Those who typically reject Evolution are classified, scientifically speaking, as science deniers. 

As a scientific theory, however, which facts does evolutionary theory explain? One pivotal example is the succession in the fossil record. This evolution, namely, macroevolution, explains the larger evolutionary picture that is the appearance of the greater groups, such as the evolution of mammals, insects, and plants. Fossilized mammals are easily recognized, as they have distinct types of teeth, such as molars, canines, and incisors. These vertebrates are also very likely to fossilize on account of their rigid teeth and hard cranium. If mammals are so easily fossilized, how can we explain a rich fossil record full of vertebrates and invertebrates with no mammalian fossil before 300 million years ago?

Similarly, if we dig deeper still, disclosing 500 million years old layers, we find no hard skeleton vertebrates but plenty of fossilized invertebrates in a boost of diversity that we call the Cambrian Explosion. There are no vertebrates in this explosion because vertebrates appear in a much later explosion. Digging even deeper, to 600 million years old records, we find strata with soft-bodied Ediacaran animals but no hard-shelled invertebrates and no vertebrates. In one billion years old strata, we find only single-celled organisms.

How can we find, in old strata, many single celled organisms but not a single mammalian tooth? The only reasonable explanation for these facts is that 400 million years ago, mammals had not yet evolved; 500 million years ago, vertebrates had not yet evolved; 600 million years ago, hard-shelled invertebrates had not yet evolved; and one billion years ago,

multicellular life had not yet evolved. Smaller local successions are also observable in the fossil record; such as the beautiful strings of intermediate fossils that include amphibians (Kustchera and Elliot, 2013), birds, whales (Thewissen, 2009), horses, and humans. These successions in the fossil record are the most obvious evidence to macroevolution (Figure 2). In fact, the entire fossil record is a set of millions of intermediate fossils that provide solid evidence of how macroevolution worked in the past billion years.

Scientists also have gained an understanding of the processes by which new species originate. A new species is one in which the individuals cannot mate and produce viable descendants with individuals of a preexisting species. The split of one species into two often starts because a group of individuals becomes geographically separated from the rest. This is particularly apparent in distant remote islands, such as the Galápagos and the Hawaiian archipelago, whose great distance from the Americas and Asia means that arriving colonizers will have little or no opportunity to mate with individuals remaining on those continents. Mountains, rivers, lakes, and other natural barriers also account for geographic separation between populations that once belonged to the same species.

Once isolated, geographically separated groups of individuals become genetically differentiated as a consequence of mutation and other processes, including natural selection. The origin of a species is often a gradual process, so that at first the reproductive isolation between separated groups of organisms is only partial, but it eventually becomes complete. Scientists pay special attention to these intermediate situations, because they help to reconstruct the details of the process and to identify particular genes or sets of genes that account for the reproductive isolation between species.

A particularly compelling example of speciation involves the 13 species of finches studied by Darwin on the Galápagos Islands, now known as Darwin's finches. The ancestors of these finches appear to have immigrated from the South American mainland to the Galápagos. Today the different species of finches on the island have distinct habitats, diets, and behaviors, but the mechanisms involved in speciation continue to operate. A research group led by Peter and Rosemary Grant of Princeton University has shown that a single year of drought on the islands can drive evolutionary changes in the finches. Drought diminishes supplies of easily cracked nuts but permits the survival of plants that produce larger, tougher nuts. Droughts thus favor birds with strong, wide beaks that can break these tougher seeds, producing populations of birds with these traits. The Grants have estimated that if droughts occur about once every 10 years on the islands, a new species of finch might arise in only about 200 years.

The historical nature of macroevolutionary study involves inference from fossils and DNA rather than direct observation. Yet in the historical sciences (which include astronomy, geology and archaeology, as well as evolutionary biology), hypotheses can still be tested by checking whether they accord with physical evidence and whether they lead to verifiable predictions about future discoveries. For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago). Evolutionary biology routinely makes predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly.

Evolution could be disproved in other ways, too. If we could document the spontaneous generation of just one complex life-form from inanimate matter, then at least a few creatures seen in the fossil record might have originated this way. If superintelligent aliens appeared and claimed credit for creating life on Earth (or even particular species), the purely evolutionary explanation would be cast in doubt. But no one has yet produced such evidence.

The evolutionary, structural, and biochemical information implicates segment 85-119 as of special functional significance. The physicochemical properties and finer structural details of its conserved residues now point to a more specific function for this segment. Fourteen of its 15 conserved positions are fixed for charged and strongly hydrophobic residues (Figure 3). This mix of charged and hydrophobic residues, with their outwardly projecting side chains, predicts a second binding site for Leptin-protein interactions, which is separate from that for its receptor (Figure 2; Benner and Gerloff 1991). At least some of the six positions with NS substitutions in the stem hominoid, which are directly or indirectly related to segment 85-119, may then contribute new hydrophobic, charged, and smaller residues that may alter the secondary structure and specific binding properties of this second interaction site. For example, the conserved G118 of hominoids permits a more pronounced turn at the N terminus of this segment relative to that predicted for L118 of the other mammals. In these ways, segment 85-119 may underlie the functional differences between human and other nonhominoid Leptins (e.g., why this hormone is central to energy expenditure in mice, but apparently not in us; Mantzoros 1999; Hofbauer and Huppertz 2002).

Well no - cuz' first of all - you are the one to have intially made the claim

furthermore - I am just describing you - you are denying science, therefore you are a science denier - pretty easy. 

Even though you do have the Burden of Proof,

I'll leave you with just a couple examples of some evidence.

By autocorrect I meant science has internal mechanisms that corrects itself; It doesn’t require corrections from the outside. 

But you would probably disagree with you being a strident Muslim. 

- Dunning-Kruger at its best.

You keep bringing up imaginary friends. Is that some sort of preemptive defence mechanism? 

- I'm not your therapist...

You’re assuming it’s wrong.

- No, actually, you are, & then aren't. A world of contradiction...

 

I keep on telling you we’re genetically related to our ancestors. All animals today have a common ancestor. 

- No we are not. You can't be serious... LMAO!

When you have a blood test and it shows you’re related to your family, do you just say that’s a scientific narrative?

- So you did a DNA sampling with a monkey & got a match?

It’s always good to challenge yourself. Willful ignorance is like a puzzle you have to try to work out. 

- That's a great advice you should take. Still does not save the evolutionationists from their cowardice. I feel so much excitement every time I argue with a flat-earther or any of the types challenging Physics because I'm confident I will destroy their fantasies. Evolutionationists are simply not confident they could do the same, that's why they run away.

Alright alright, calm down.

- Still won't help your case.

What do you consider a contribution to scientific understanding? 

- A scientific discovery that fulfills a society's needs, improve a person's wellbeing, drive a company's profits, or increase our understanding of the world. What evolutionationists do is advance their biases & leech off other's works.

- Anything that conforms to your Islamic beliefs?

- It's so funny how abysmal your attempts of evasion are. Quite typical. Is this what they taught you? When in trouble, use religion... This is not going to save your claims any one bit.

Okay, Allah designed it so you can put earrings through it. Happy?

- I'm happy alright, about your absolute inability to defend your case. If they made you the apostle for Evolution, even Dawkins will abandon it. LMAO!

As far as I can see ‘founding ancestor’ is a non-evolutionary term that refers to human lineages.

- You have absolutely no freaking clue what I'm talking about or what you yourself are talking about. It's becoming increasingly obvious that your understanding of Evolutionary theory is of quantum proportions! Go educate yourself at least a little bit on a subject before you attempt an argument.

Did you even read it? And yes, I already knew about the replication crises, but come on, either you know squat, or you’re purposefully being disingenuous.

- What is your expertise? You don't seem to be the least bit familiar with research culture.

The Abrahamic God gives value to humans above the environment which humans are the centre of. It’s hard when you’re a devout person of faith and a biologist crushes your world view.

- If this is your best defense for the evolutionary mythology you so fanatically believe in, then even I feel like a bully now. Pathetic!

I doubt you would cede your case.

- Error 404 evidence not found...

Okay I’ll tell you in common sense talk. YOU. ARE. GENETICALLY. RELATED. TO. YOUR. ANCESTORS. WHICH. GO. BACK. MILLIONS. OF. YEARS. DNA can last up to 6.8 million years FYI. Far longer than modern humans have been around.

- HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA!!!!!! You cracked me up so hard! Yeah, NO. YOU. ARE. NOT... First of all, you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence for the claims of evolutionary theory. I'm still waiting. Second of all, I hate to break it to you, but your ideas about Evolution are... how to say it... fictitious. I don't know what you been reading, but they be lyin to ya. There is no such thing, like not at all. 

If it helps you cope; Allah did evolution. 

- In the imaginations of evolutionationists, of course.

I’m just trying to understand you.

- 'Evade' is the word you're looking for.

Has any of your work been peer reviewed. May I see?

- I tell you I did not do research & you ask for publications!? I want to eventually go back to university & finish some work I started. I have some math related projects in mind I want to publish. For now, it's freelance.

Because we don’t see fish turning into humans?

- If that, then it's an observation. Observation =/= theory. An observable fact is not Science. It's just a fact.

You can say Allah did evolution can’t you?

- I just noticed, you speak about this 'evolution' as if it is an observable fact, it's not. It's a theory, the Evolutionary Theory, albeit unscientific.

Which various chemists will know to one degree or another. 

- Case in point.  

It’s not a narrative. We have genetic data today and genetic data going back millions of years. 

- What does this have to do with Evolution?! Genetics =/= Evolution. Clearly, you don't know anything about this. Evolution is just a story, a parasite story. You have yet to show me one single useful thing thanks to Evolution. 

Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.

- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?

Maybe if you genetically test them.

- I don't blame you, I blame the education system. You are saying ludicrous things that are not even nonsense.

Do you mean by giving links? Because I don’t have bones/genetic samples with papers on hand to send you.

- Have at it. I'm waiting. Do your best. & I promise, if you bring me proof, I'm your believer.

Why do you conveniently miss out on responding to being related to other animals?

- Dude, what the f are you even talking about!! So embarrassing! They have so easy, people are indeed amazingly gullible.

No, I can’t show you an animal turning into another animal. 

- Reminder, the Evolutionary Theory postulates the following: ""Life emerged from spontaneous & compounded chemical reactions, to form a self-sustaining & self-reproducing single-cell organism, capable of gradual changes in inherited traits over successive generations in populations of organisms of increasing complexity, giving rise to all biodiversity on Earth through descent of varying species from a common ancestor via undirected mechanisms, such as natural selection, random mutations, genetic drift, migration & gene flow". Request: provide a single evidence which makes this aforementioned postulate a scientific one, particularly, show that it is: verifiable (fits all the facts), falsifiable (predicts new facts), & accurate (with low margin of error). Good luck!

So you have... .a bunch of claims? Most of which are refuted by the exact data your trying to argue against? I see I don't need to waste my time - you are a liar - no need to spend more time on you. 

This is basic knowledge. This should be an axiomatic concept in the modern world. 

It’s like talking to a Flat Earther.

We’re more closely related to other apes than monkeys but yeah modern monkeys are distant cousins in the primate family.

It’s not worth the try.

’others’ work who also know evolution has and does occur.

They’re claims to you.

Yes, because you’re the arbiter of what’s true. Get off your over-inflated high horse.

Like I said, this isn’t an argument.

I don’t have expertise in anything. Go back, read what you said, and then read the link.

Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand.

No, you’re a human.

You keep on denying fact and you say “they” are lying to me. Who exactly? The Jews?

Yeah, Muslim ones.

Well best of luck.

“An observable fact is not Science.” So you don’t believe science?

You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics.

Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years. Do the math. 

- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?

For wilfully ignorant Muslims.

hmmmm nah, I still doubt it.

Just imagine them as distant cousins and that Allah did it.

Good luck with what?

This is basic knowledge. This should be an axiomatic concept in the modern world. 

It’s like talking to a Flat Earther.

- Huh... it's axiomatic, I didn't even know! You're very funny... Who told you that? Or did you invent this on your own?

We’re more closely related to other apes than monkeys but yeah modern monkeys are distant cousins in the primate family.

- Blahblahblah... you got proof?

I’m treating you how I would treat a Flat Earther. You’re not special.

- Wow! Smoking gun argument right here boys! This is merely a display of your absolute inability to produce any proof or evidence whatsoever.

It’s not worth the try.

- Because you're unable to.

’others’ work who also know evolution has and does occur.

- Wishful thinking much!

They’re claims to you.

- & doctrines to you, yes.

Yes, because you’re the arbiter of what’s true. Get off your over-inflated high horse.

- You get off your high unicorn. Do you expect others to believe you just because you say so?! You claim Evolution to be a fact when you can't even produce proof for the case, then you get offended because people don't believe you!!!  

Like I said, this isn’t an argument.

- You're right it isn't. Still waiting for one though.

I don’t have expertise in anything. Go back, read what you said, and then read the link.

- Case in point.

Like I said, willful ignorance is a challenge. And I’m trying to better understand.

- Why are you wasting your time dodging & eluding, when you can just provide a single proof for evolution & be done with it.

You keep on denying fact and you say “they” are lying to me. Who exactly? The Jews?

- I assume you got this false information you imagine to be fact from somewhere, 'they' = your sources. Unless you invented this yourself. 

Evade what?

- Actually providing proof. Why don't we have a debate about this? You can show everyone all the axiomatic facts.

“An observable fact is not Science.” So you don’t believe science?

- An observable fact is not Science. Science is the study of observable facts to reveal explanations thereof.

How is it unscientific? Are you saying it’s factual?

- Clever! Unscientific as in, not the following: 'plausible, simple, verifiable, falsifiable, consistent & accurate', which it obviously isn't.

You had no case. It isn’t a strict rule for chemists to understand quantum physics.

- No. But the field of Chemistry rests on Quantum foundations. 

Modern humans have only been around for about 300,000 years. Do the math. 

- I don't see the part where the Theory of Evolution made useful contributions? So much back & forth & you can't find one useful thing the theory of Evolution brought us!

Again, it would probably help if you say Allah did it.

- Is this your new 'get out of evidence free' card trick?

For wilfully ignorant Muslims.

- Glad you're admitting that.

“Ludicrous” things that contradict your Islamic beliefs? Why are they ludicrous but also not nonsense?

- Not even nonsense = when you can't qualify the nonsensicalness of something for being too senseless. You seem to imagine that they take DNA samples from jellyfish & elephants & monkeys & conduct genealogical DNA tests to figure out the ancestry like 23andMe right? Yeah, that's not a thing! 

hmmmm nah, I still doubt it.

- Your inability to produce proof is because of your fear that I may not believe in Evolution...? Isn't that just so convenient!

Just imagine them as distant cousins and that Allah did it.

- I leave the imagination part to the evolutionationists. I'll stick with real science.

Good luck with what?

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about this.

Doctrine is belief, while evolution is fact.

I just need to understand your positions first. 

What would be the point?

That inheritable mutations are only limited by whether an organism reproduces its genotype?

How so?

Alright so you’ve moved from the profession(s) of chemistry to the field of chemistry in general.

How do they do it?

- Showing that the postulate of the Evolutionary Theory is actually scientific. In fact, let's have a debate about

The postulate of any scientific theory is not science on its own. What other ones do you have?

If you're a naturalist, what makes you believe in the truth of this story knowing that it's unscientific?

In terms of beliefs, there are really three types of people:

Those that have concluded that evolution is the best explanation of life as we see it, those who don’t understand evolution, and those who refuse to be honest about evolution.