Is evolution a hypothesis or a confirmed science?

Hypothesis. Because the theory of relativity, although plausible, has not yet been fully proven, the theory of evolution is a hypothesis proposed by Darwin.

Confirmed science. Because the principles of evolution have been proven to exist, they are not fake, but real science.

Many people mistakenly think that evolution is a scientific theory that has been demonstrated, but in fact evolution is only a hypothesis, and it is a hypothesis that the whole world is looking for fault with. The theory of evolution is so flawed that even the evidence that underpins the hypothesis has been disproved. The dismantling of the three major evidences of evolution makes this hypothesis possible to become a permanent hypothesis, and it is too difficult to prove the origin of species.

There are three classical evidences for evolution: comparative anatomy, paleontology, and the law of repetition of embryonic development.

Darwinian evolution found a reversal.

Comparative Anatomy: Exposing the logical errors of evolutionary theory.

Scientifically, if the proof of a theory violates logic, the theory cannot be established, but people do not deeply correct the logical errors of the theory of evolution, and it is also because of the deep correction that there is no evidence to speak of. For example, to argue evolution with comparative anatomy, figuratively speaking, "If man had evolved from ape, man and ape would have many similar characteristics; Because there are many similarities between man and ape, man evolved from ape.

Anyone who understands logic knows that this kind of circular argument is meaningless, for example, "If A is B's younger brother, A is smaller than B; Because A is smaller than B, A is B's younger brother. Of these two propositions, the first is true and the second is false. This specious "proof" runs through all the evidence for evolution.

People followed suit, and people blindly accepted it.

It's a science that's been recognized. Because many scientists have discovered that organisms are constantly evolving, and they are changing their bodies because of their environment.

I think it's confirmed that science is because everything in the world has evolved, especially us humans have evolved from animals.

The essence of the theory of evolution is genetics, and the appearance of genetics is the theory of evolution.

The Origin of Humanity Episode 1.

Yes. I don't think there's any basis for this, and according to some excavations, human existence is very peculiar.

The theory of evolution is not a lie of the scientific community, I think the theory of evolution has a certain meaning, and there are some natural laws. I think the theory of evolution has advanced the biological field and has helped people in scientific research, so I can't think of it that way.

After the theory of evolution was proposed, why did some people think that it was a lie from the scientific community?

It has been argued that the evolution from single-celled organisms to humans is a process from "lower" organisms to "higher" organisms. Humans are more "advanced" than single-celled organisms, but although the human body is structurally more complex than single-celled organisms, and human intelligence is higher than single-celled organisms, this is not necessarily the direction of evolution. Darwinian evolution is survival of the fittest.

However, neutral evolution has found that many genetic changes caused by base pair changes are neutral: codons do not change the corresponding protein coding after substituting a base, or changes in amino acid coding affect the biological function of the protein. In general, it's a non-profit, harmless change.

Most negative evolutionists put forward some so-called counterexamples and gaps, such as "origin of life", "excessive species", "anatomical complexity", etc. In fact, they are not unexplainable theories, but they do not know or understand. Most of these people have never studied chemistry and math as long as they don't understand, are wrong, or don't exist.

They want evolution to embody some rigorous logic, always choosing the ideal solution (although the ideal calling solution is often the result of a hollow brain in their mind). The reality is that evolution is not perfect, and evolution itself is full of contingencies. Contrary to their expectations, the question of whether evolution is wrong and those parts of evolution that seem irrational will be questioned.

First, anti-evolutionist groups are usually religious or extreme. The theory of evolution is different from other scientific theories. Other scientific theories may be citizen science, anti-intellectual intellectuals, or various anomalies (e.g., theories have changed over time, but I don't know when I'll still understand what I've learned, what I've taught, and what I've been tricked into scrolling paper).

I thought it was strange at the time, because a lot of the timelines matched. And the way the pyramids were built is also very close to what I know.

But there are a few places where the whole article is completely reflected in the form of a ** description. And there's a key point, which is evolution. Although earthlings were not entirely evolutionary, the predecessors of earthlings were indeed apes.

Also, the souls on earth are separated into two parts, and I don't know if I mentioned it or not, because I didn't look closely. Mainly, what is described in the book is that people of all colors have immigrated from various planets. In this way, the process of evolution is completely denied.

But there are a lot of things that really match, for example, topics like the crystals of Atlantis.

The most important thing is that the book was published in 1993, and at that time, many of the messages conveyed in the book had already begun to circulate in the world.

Therefore, it cannot be denied that this book was written by the author by sorting out the information and then writing it in the form of **.

However, if the information brought by the non-conscious consciousness is brought back to the conscious consciousness, it will usually form a more or less misinterpretation, and it cannot be ruled out that the author may have also misinterpreted it.

In short, some of the information in the book fits well, but some of it is also very.