3 ms·
An actual reply instead of a no-op downvote, thanks. Ok then, why does it not? I've not read it but this from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wi
by tempguy9999 7y ago
An actual reply instead of a no-op downvote, thanks.
Ok then, why does it not? I've not read it but this from wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org https://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species )
"It presented a body of evidence that the diversity of life arose by common descent through a branching pattern of evolution. Darwin included evidence that he had gathered on the Beagle expedition in the 1830s and his subsequent findings from research, correspondence, and experimentation."
There is a further section that presents facts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Summary_of_Darwin%27s_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Species#Summa...) which is a bit long to quote here.
So, are you saying OTOOTS presents evidence but not the necessary reproducability, in which case I may agree, and the book is not scientific theory but a precursor to one? Or something else?