Jesus Christ

yes as well, but in layman's terms.

I never said it was a failure

the theory is pretty solid and described in detail in scientific literature

and by pretty solid I mean incredibly solid <:pepe_smug:378719408341909506>

Every time an organism is conceived, it can have a mutation. Enough of these build up and it leads to something different than before over many, many, many, many generations.

I said it was enough to prevent it from being a law like other scientific ideas, completely different from failure

no

literally just no

gravity breaks down on the quantum level, and is not described by the "law"

Gravity is a theory.

through and through

Newton's law of universal gravitation

it is a theory

the same way as evolution.

It is still classed as a theory

stop playing semantics games

Then if it breaks down at the quantum level, it too isnt omnesipent.

Its ok to not have all the answers. It doesnt discret it or mean its a failure

much smarter men than I have taken on this discussion before

I think yall are mistaking my point

I was trying to get to your point, by asking about the spiritualism stuff

@Goblin_Slayer_Floki Tell me, what do you think evolution is.

because I've heard this from religious people before

not saying you're necessarily religious, that's just where I usually hear it

and I feel it is a misguided argument, born from not understanding how science really works at the fundamental level, or how our expanding knowledge might lead us closer to explaining some of the things that religion claims to be spiritual or supernatural

I'm not being condescending with this question. I genuinely want to know, in your own words, how you describe evolution.

Well to start im far from the big 3 religions. I just see where some sects of it are coming from.

As for evolution, i believe it is the fact that species over time adapt and change to their enviornment using mutations and survival of the fittest while some lines go extinct others flurish. This causes some anomoloes to become a boon while others do not. I have the understanding we can trace most back, but there are gaps, and the biggest is the progenetor, what started life on earth. Will we some day know that? Probably, but today we dont.

As for spiritualism in this. I believe spiritualism will always have a hold on things materialistic science will never know. After death, conciousness beyond the material, and so on. And that spiritualism is a necessary way for the common man to "fill in the blanks" for these things to sate the innate fear of the unknown they hold.

As a druid, one of the big things is wisdom and knowledge, which means not discrediting science or religion, but exploring the thought processes of both. I have come to the understanding that both sides, materialistic, and spiritual, of the arguement are far to quick to discredit each other.

When in actuality they tend to go hand in hand. While spiritualism answers the why, or what for, materialism explains the how, and what is.

For most common man.

It has been that way for as long as humans have been. And if you look, as man understood more of the material, the spiritual has shrunk.

That's my problem with the whole spiritualism thing. It is, at its core ignorance masquerading as knowledge. And for what, exactly? The hopes of achieving some kind of peace of mind - though it appears you hold a somewhat more benign approach to it, than some people I've had the pleasure of talking to.

Some religions claim to have all the answers, and they claim their say is final. Science doesn't have all the answers, _yet_. The difference is very salient, and I have not seen any evidence to suggest there being such a dichotomy (between the "spiritual" and the material). There is knowledge and there is ignorance - and the more we learn, the more ways we discover how to learn even more.

I see two issues with your description of evolution.
First, evolution makes no claims about bio-genesis because that's what evolution describes. It is only what happens after-the-fact.
Second, evolution doesn't have gaps in this way. There is no single organism that is the defined link between two related species, it is a very gradual process that takes a very long time and you will never find the so called "missing link" because one does not exist. Every organism in history is a "missing link". There is no organism that makes a turn in another direction with just a single generation. Usually this process takes millions of years. The only organisms that can drastically shorten this time are usually certain flies just because their lifespans are so short that they go through generations like a whore goes through dicks. Thus drastically shortening the time it takes for an observable mutation to occur.

I'll just add that @meratrix is accurate in his description.

The virus is capable of making large leaps in a single generation, not that it alters how accurate this description is.

Viruses are a bit different, there not even really "alive" per-say.

The material never explore some aspects the spiritual does. Like conciousness post death, ect. It just discounts it as hubbu jubbu. So there will always be a perview of spiritual tbh.

By missing link, i mean species one over time becomes species 2 then over time species 3. But if we dont know of species 2, that a missing transformation.

True but we study them to understand how some changes occur.

Yes we do, same with the flies.

Otherwise there would be no "species" per say.

Again, you say never - I do not think you understand how strong this word is, and how many times religion has been proven wrong in its absolutist claims about the "true nature" of the world