Social effects of the theory of evolution

That's not what you said. You are trying to weasel over a bit to eliminate ANY necessity

I have yet to see a specific scientific advancement that needed it

name one discovery that needed the theory of evolution for it to be discovered

The use of evolutionary development of forams is critical to oil and gas exploration

You seem to think that the very discovery of common ancestors and the parent species was able to be completely done without considering the evolution of the clades in which the "cat" members reside?

I was curious why you defined evolution up front of your post. Are you afraid that no one but you seems to understand the concept?

but these applications do benefit from knowing the mechanisms defined by nat selection

We are quite fortunate(for one example) in having been able to see the pluralistic "divergence" among several species of anadromous fish that had been "trapped" behind dams built in colonial times along New England Rivers. Macroevolution of daughter species are able to be seen from a single parent population thatwas stuck behind these dams about 300 years ago. (That's short enough to result in the appearance of these new species that are defined by special adaptive mechanisms that have resulted in new phenotypic forms.

Try not to command a discussion

your failings to be scientific than anything . Is it based on the assumption you already know everything and that is not to change in any way ?

why not jut pay attention to your own points

You lost me...you seem to be saying that if you see a lion you are in Africa...

No, I am saying the grouping by similarity is a defect in the Theory of Evolution

You seem to have a chip on your shoulder...I defined evolution so we wouldn't bog down on what I meant by evolution .

Most of the time I think you are guilty of reading with a strong bias . Open your mind just long enough to understand the point being made

Evolution that can be seen in a life time is not a proof of evolution over millions of years

Why not find a book on petroleum geology

Evolution does not do that at all.

Science has attempted, ever since the last century and a half to really define the sources and relationhips among anmials nd plants by fossils, genetics AND embryology. So your point is one of ignorance, not fact.

Are you afraid that no one but you seems to understand the concept?

YOU have an annoying penchant to quickly change your POV

Here are the two things I said...its in English .
Quote: I have yet to see a specific scientific advancement that needed it
Quote: name one discovery that needed the theory of evolution for it to be discovered

You are trying to weasel over a bit to eliminate ANY necessity

I was born, just not yesterday. Try to keep on your message and don't do the -etrick of changing your position with your own brand of quote mining in the hopes that nobodyll notice the errors.

Similarities, or any amount of convergence happens in many animal orders.

I want to know a specific discovery... Like the discovery of x-rays, or penicillin . That sort of thing .

No, I am saying the grouping by similarity is a defect in the Theory of Evolution
Evolution does not do that at all.

Quote:

No, I am saying the grouping by similarity is a defect in the Theory of Evolution
Evolution does not do that at all.

There yu go, changing your original statements. DO YOU EVEN KNOW THAT YOU DO THICRAP?
Please be honest with your discussions or go **** yourself BYE ASSHOLE!!

Governments under the banner of atheistic communism have caused the death of somewhere between 40 million to 260 million human lives.[25][26][27][28][29][30] Dr. R. J. Rummel, professor emeritus of political science at the University of Hawaii, is the scholar who first coined the term democide (death by government). Dr. R. J. Rummel's mid estimate regarding the loss of life due to communism is that communism caused the death of approximately 110,286,000 people between 1917 and 1987.[31]

As noted earlier, evolutionary ideas contributed to the scourge of racism. [32][33] Charles Darwin and Thomas Huxley contributed greatly to the theory of evolution broadly being accepted in the 1900s. [34] Darwin, Huxley, and the 19th century evolutionists were racist in sentiment and believed the white race was superior. [35] For example, Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex the following:
“ At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes...will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest Allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as the baboon, instead of as now between the Negro or Australian and the gorilla.[36] ”

John C. Burnham wrote in the journal Science the following:
“ After 1859, the evolutionary schema raised additional questions, particularly whether or not Afro-Americans could survive competition with their white near-relations. The momentous answer was a resounding no.... The African was inferior — he represented the missing link between ape and Teuton." [37]