Then go find your mermaid/merman then.... (and for scientific correctness it's not a half fish... mermaids and mermen would have been mammalian...not from a fish. ) while your searching ... look for a half dandelion and half zebra..... half mushroom and half eagle too. you are really conflating some oddity (the mermaid) to prove 'evolution' and it is just not working.
Again, you fail to understand what falsification is.
The
potential for a mermaid is what makes evolution falsifiable. The fact that none have ever been found what what then supports evolution as true.
Actually much of science is proven...and repeatable ..over and over and over.
Why do you bring up "repeatable"? Is that because you know you are wrong about "proven"?
We can demonstrate, suggest, and convince ourselves that a scientific truth is valid. But proof? That's an impossibility for science.
www.forbes.com
Many theories - including evolution - are so well established that they are effectively proven, but technically none are ever actually proven.
If you want to talk about repeatable, then yes, experiments to support evolution are repeatable. You can go dig up fossils and you will see the same trends. You can compare the genetics of different species, and you will see the same trends. You can study inheritence, selection, mutation, etc. The experiments are repeatable.
Tell me how so-called creation science is repeatable.
Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.
Sure - going back to your subjective belief that dogs evolved from wolves. Dogs actually evolved from a dog/wolf like creature that we have not found yet (oddly since you are so adamant that everything is right where it needs to be in the sedimentary record).
More likely from wolves.
The "boy and his dog" tale is a piece of prehistoric fiction, but scientists are uncovering the true origins of our incredible relationship with dogs
www.smithsonianmag.com
You should really read that paper, because it discusses a lot of the science that has been done in this area.
We could compare it to the work creationists have done to support their "dog/wolf like creature" hypothesis. What fossils did they look at? What genetic studies were performed? You brought up repeatable. How is the "science" for the "dog/wolf like creature" hypothesis repeatable?
Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.
Dogs.... show me the fossil record of a transition from wolf-like/dog to just a dog. (please don't use artistic renditions of a subjective mindful thinking of what might / supposed/ could be / possibly happened.
Sorry no pictures, but an in depth discussion here:
In an effort to settle the debate about the origin of dog domestication, a technique that uses 3-D scans of fossils is helping researchers determine the difference between dogs and wolves.
news.cornell.edu
Scientists are racing to solve the enduring mystery of how a large, dangerous carnivore evolved into our best friend
www.scientificamerican.com
The point here is that real science has been done and has determined a lot about the subject.
Shall we compare to what so-called creation scientists have done?
Oh, wait. There is none. All creationism can say is "God did it". No science. No repeatability. Just faith.
Because "creation science" is about hoodwinking the masses, not about science.
But not in the sense that you are hopeful about... as Most Christians believe in God too... therefore placing God as the designer of all life. Heck even non-Christian religions believe a god created life.
Most Christians believe in evolution; that is that all life had a common ancestor, as opposed to creationism that says God created separate "kinds" that are totally unrelated to each other. They may well believe God guided evolution, but they will agree with all I am saying on this thread.
Wrong, Humans would not do too well with fish eyes as I have stated several times.
And yet we have the same type of eyes as fish.
You creationist claim is thus refuted, and your hypothesis disproved.
The point here is that humans, like all land vertebrates, are stuck with the eyes evolution stumbled upon so many hundreds of millions of eyes ago. It has been tweaked for different niches, but the basic "design" is the same for all vertebrates, whether the design works best for that niche or not.
By the way there is a good paper on vertebrate eye evolution here:
Complete vertebrate genome sequencing has revealed a remarkable stability and uniformity in the protein-coding gene set, which at first glance might suggest that gene duplication events are relatively rare. This may be a red herring, or at least a red cichlid, as the Lake Malawi cichlid fishes...
www.cell.com
Humans and chimps and apes and dolphins and kangaroos all share a great deal of commonness when it comes to the building blocks needed for biological life to exist.... just the way it is with the many different buildings you see out there and houses... some look very very different but all have common components of design....after all - there is only , what there is, to build from.
It is gene expression and other chromosomal components that makes us so vastly different.
But why are dolphins so much closer genetically to people than they are to fish? Surely if you were design a sea creature, and you already have all these wonderful fish designs - designs that can actually breath underwater - why scrap all that, and start from land creature for your next fish?
And why are chimps so much closer genetically to people than they are to gorillas? How does creationism explain that one?
Hopefully this answers your question(s) so if you are able to walk and chew gum at the same time , how about answering how evolution can create genes for eyes, wings, legs.... millions of years before any eyes , wings , legs...etc.. ever showed up?
Because they were used for other things, and got co-opted to the new function.