veracity of evolution

There most definitely is an 'origin to our human species" of which we truly do not have a clue, IMO and perhaps never will for it will all come about very naturally or not at all as we become to realize what life is all about. It may take a while; so what's the rush? The universe has a way of cleaning it's own house and to assume we that alter that is folly, IMO.
William

There seems to be a evolution/eugenic mindset that is egotistically 'out of control' as they desperately try to put a square peg into a round hole that doesn't even exist "naturally"; referring to that "un-disturbed" bottle of coke pathfinder so brilliantly made in that analogy. Perhaps Mary Shelley was a bit more of a prophet than than a writer, huh?

I get what you're saying, but be careful you don't accidentally argue Popper's recanted position here.

Are you saying, as a general principle, that no amount of evidence is ever sufficient to confirm a theory beyond reasonable doubt? Or are you confining this principle to evolutionary theory? Do you think there is significant doubt about such things as the theory of gravity, the Earth's revolution about the Sun, the idea that stars are composed of incandescent gas, or the existence of the Roman Empire?

I just want to be clear where you draw the line between theories that you can confidently accept (gravity?) and those that you consider at serious risk of falsification (e.g. evolution). Surely any belief at all is suspect if you are prepared to consider sufficiently far-fetched scenarios. For example, heavy objects might start to float upwards tomorrow, or the Earth's revolution about the Sun might turn out to have been an illusion!

But we cannot seriously doubt everything, can we? So why single out evolution for disbelief? Yes, it deals with past events that we did not observe directly, but so do cosmology (e.g. the Big Bang, or the formation of stars) and human history (e.g. the Roman Empire). I am all for healthy skepticism where it is justified, but one must be consistent. One must either take the view that:

(a) no theory is on solid ground, since it can always be falsified; or

(b) any theory that is backed by a large weight of evidence (as biological evolution undoubtedly is), and is the best available theory (ditto), is probably true.

I take the latter view. The fact that falsification is possible does not imply that it is likely.

This does not mean that the science should be discarded, just that it must remain in the realm of possibility like anything else that cannot be proven.

This is the time to be open-minded.

the differnce between gravity and the other things that you use, is that I believe that the tie between the mystery of life and evolution cannot be separated and that without knowing where liofe actually comes from that all evolution will ever be is speculation.

fortunately you are not in charge of developing pharmaceuticals or programming methods

If I had been there would not be the thousands of thalidomide victims there are today.

There is a strange and erroneous notion circulating that anything that comes from nature is "good for you"

everything is a poison under the right circumstances

Thalidomide is back in use for various things like leprosy-induced neuropathy and for severe aphthous ulcers. It's a useful drug for some things. DDT is back in use as an indoor residual spray for malaria prevention. It takes research to learn how to use things safely -- but sounds like you would just throw these things out rather than figure out how to safely use them.

But you know darned well it should not have been mass marketed when it was as a safe drug, THAt is the issue

Cmon u know better than that Aedes.