>>14174346>Source?ROFL talk about being out of the loop. This has been well known for years. Maybe get caught up to speed? You can dig up actual peer review yourself, there's plenty and you need the practice, but here is a quick primer.
https://www.biomedcentral.com/about/press-centre/science-press-releases/24-08-17>LOL, so Darwin knew about genes? Never said he did. I just said why he was wrong. Mendel published his gene work just a few years after the Fake Origins of Species. Darwin being so ignorant renders the claim "He was the first one to understand the mechanisms behind it sufficiently" completely wrong though so I'm glad we agree.
>But they did. Genetic analysis confirms it:Yawn, your link is about cross breeding and "hybridization", it's not showing phenotype variation resulted due to evolution. Try again.
>You're in denial of basic scientific observations. Why?Amazing cope. You can't even read your own link. It says "and possibly played a critical role during the evolution of finches"
This has been proven wrong, hybridization and cross breeding didn't play a role which is why they said "possibly" bc they were being honest for once. I bet that article was written before 2017.
>It's unfalsifiable yet you think you proved him 100% wrong. That doesn't make sense. Pick one and stick with it. We proved his finch example was 100% wrong. The idea of evolution being falsifiable wasn't falsified, duh, just Darwin's "example".. can you not read?
>Oh so now it's not a wild unsupported assumption, it's based on valid dataWOW. The data has nothing to do with the assumption so no, you are wrong, the assumption was still wild and unsupported.
If I wear blue shoes and you create the wild and baseless assumption that a murderer was wearing blue shoes so I'm the murderer then your wild assumption is not based on valid data. It's based on nothing and you are too ignorant to see why valid data of me wearing blue shoes is unrelated.
