What is the evidence Darwin used?
Evidence of Evolution:
Natural Selection is A Logical Deduction Based on What We Can Demonstrate, But Is That Evidence For Evolution?
Modern science is more of a religious faith than most realize. Real education requires learning how to think, not what to think. What is the exact mechanism of Darwin's Evolution? Natural selection makes sense in the context of logic and common sense. Environmental factors matter but that does not means evolution is a real phenomena, does it? In other words it's one thing to claim that giraffes have longer necks due to environmental selection, it's an entirely other thing to claim one kind of animal change into another. Science is like a religion in that the basic underlying assumptions are never questioned and then all the evidence is filtered through this obvious bias. This is how and why these people really believe the claims they make. They really think this is "settled science". It's funny how closed minded the scientifically inclined can be. Please keep in mind I am not claiming evolution wrong or right. I am merely pointing out that there are underlying assumptions that go unquestioned and these assumptions might just be on shakier ground than most know. Since most people really do rely on a version of the telephone game for their so-called educations, so many of us really believe the nonsense we parrot is real and demonstrable "science", when it clearly is not.
Selective Breeding is Proof of Nothing
Different colored and sized pigeons can still breed and eventually their offspring would go back to looking like the pre human genetically manipulated natural pigeon stock. The pigeons do not turn into chickens. The pigeons are still pigeons. Darwin had no real evidence for his ideas at all. Evolution is a metaphysical concept and like with all metaphysics, it is not demonstrable science. Some of his ideas seem to have validity and some are clearly flights of assumptive fantasy, which seems to be the modus operandi for the exalted work of such "genius".
"We" is a Marketing Slogan. "Science" is a magic word.
Modern genetics relies on the same kind of circular reasoned illogic. Other ideas are simply not considered. They cannot be. After watching that video can anyone really say what the actual evidence for Darwin's claims actually is?
What might make more sense is if all life forms slowly change over time if we assume an ever changing environment. Do we really have any true evidence for that assumption? We do have more circular reasoned "settled" science to look to. This just more unquestioned assumptions. Scientism is a religion, Modern science is a faith, a house of cards built on a shaky foundation.
I do not agree with the Thunderbolts NASA Damage Control But This Video Is Interesting In The Context of This Article
Thunderbolts exists to do damage control for modern science. The Electric Universe of magical plasma and NASA space probes is just another layer of onion skin lies. I do agree with the basic concept of the electric universe. I would call it electrochemical. I think the electrical universe model a good one, if it replicates the natural world and not the science fantasy day dream multiverse of worlds that Einstein, Newton and the rest dreamt up for us to believe in. The Newtonian model of the clock work world is one that is used to promote the social order more so than being a factual representation of reality. If you haven't read Newton's biography, I suggest you do so, he was a mystic who believed in many strange things and who ended up working for the Royal Mint.
Catastrophism: A New History for Planet Earth | Space News
The environment itself has to change in order for their to be a Natural Selection process. The entire body of scientific knowledge is all circularly reasoned and sourced. All of it built on one assumption after another. Please keep in mind I am not claiming any one theory or idea correct. I am simply pointing out the flaws with modern scientific reasoning. This is religious catechism and not real demonstrable science, despite any valid concepts this so-called "theory" contains. We simply cannot prove the environment changes in any drastic kind of way. The evidence for global cataclysms is also circularly reasoned. Some fossils turn out to be little more than shapes found in rocks that people claim are some kind of impressions of former life. Not everything is what it is claimed to be. Science is a bit more like a PT Barnum side show than most might know.
The University Trained Mind Can't Question Underlying Assumptions Without Fear of Peer Reviewed Social Pressure & Mockery
I think Steven Pinker's work in the field of linguistics worth looking into. When it comes to evolution, however, he is a true believer. Please notice how these two never actually discuss real demonstrable evidence to support the work and musings of their idol, Darwin. Instead they offer circularly reasoned catechisms as words of wisdom and insight. The university conditioned mind and persona is a role player's dream. Parroting is promoted over individual critical thinking. University education teaches people what to think not how to think. Any real demonstrable natural principle is always interpreted in terms of one set of ideas and "theories". This mental screen filters out any other possibilities and explanations and this is what religions do.
Bait & Switch Darwinism: These Two Never Offer Any Demonstrable Evidence To Support Evolution
This is what circular reasoned logical fallacy looks like.
Steven Pinker - The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews
"Empirical" Is Not A Mircale