An understandable conclusion, until one realises that we don't know everything about the past yet. So evolution predicts what we will find in the past. Successfully.Just my opinion but I think a lot of people have a problem with evolution for several reasons.
To name a few that they don't/won't understand or accept;
1. prediction- science uses prediction to predict the past(upper fossils to lower fossils). think about that, "predict what has already happened". it almost sounds like an oxymoron statement.
False, speciation has been observed in the lab and in the wild.2. evidence- we have not seen speciation occur physically, only in fossils used to predict the past species. It is told how it all works based upon mutations and natural selection which again we have never seen either create a new species.
Then those who criticize science must first learn the lingo. But they don't think they have to.3.words- what a word means in science many times means something different to the rest of the world. prediction for example mainly refers to the future, not past.
Actually it does make future predictions - such as the fact that any changes will be modifications of what already exists, and the effects of natural selection. However it can't predict what specific morphological changes will take place, this is true.4. take physics for example, it does make predictions of the future as in what time the sun will rise, what time a eclipse will happen etc. evolution biology cannot be used to make future predictions or outcomes though it can see how things of work today.
Again, false. The other problem is that those who don't understand the concept expect things like dog giving birth to a cat, because they hold to the erroneous idea that evolution requires violations of nested hierarchies.5. variety- variety starts at conception/birth for we are not clones of either parent. variety is seen daily in just about every species but has never been seen to produce a new species.
And they do try to educate the public, which is why science classes exist.There are more but I think you all get an ideal of what I am talking about. Science is not made for the public to understand but yet want the public to swallow it so to speak.
Which is kind of a silly claim really, since for science to continue there must always be new scientists to take the place of the old ones. It's generally not scientists who hide data from the public, but rather capitalistic organisations who would stand to lose profit from open knowledge.I also think there is more that science knows but won't disclose do to what-ever reasons.
Yes, your opinions are, and always have been irrelevant. Same with everyone else's. So no change there.Anyways just my opinion and thought I would throw it out there. Now I know a certain little troll from the UK will come on and say my opinion is irrelevant, but that is expected lol.
And you're welcome, troll.