Yes, you can. The problem when it comes to any of these "sciences" is that people, like yourself, believe that it requires extremely honed minds, huge sources of data, and big, well-funded labratories to discover whether this was real or not. However, all it takes is just a sprinkle of critical thought, some basic knowledge of evolution, and some listening into both sides of the topic. All that's left to do is to just follow the evidence. And it says it's not real and that evolution is based more in the realm of religion than it is science. I know, I used religion to describe evolution. Confusing, ain't it? I'll get into that in a bit. You tell me you see no reason to not trust these scientists, but you don't tell me why. I told you that listening and blindly following other individuals you BELIEVE know more about the origins of humanity is no different than a Christian believing whatever his priest says about what God is. We can't be naive to think that every single individual that studies evolution is a person that follows the evidence and only the evidence. If they did, then most individuals in the scientific community would say it does not exist. In other words, you're committing dogma by trusting scientists to tell you what the world is like. You believe that painstaking and thorough research is taking place at all, no differently than how a person believes his priest has a connection with God. Then why the hell would anyone "believe" (I notice a lot of people are saying they believe in evolution. Which is something a religious person would say) in evolution when you yourself have just stated to me that the "theory", NOT A FACT, is still completely possible to being absolutely rejected? Why would you risk being completely mislead? I mean, damn, you're better off accepting evolution as a possible explanation, not THE explanation. Not that you stated you did, this is just a more general statement. Nobody does. This is just a possible explanation. I could tell you right now that I'm not really a person, I'm actually a cyclops baby with fairy wings, lollipops sticking out of my ass, and I eat diapers every year on Easter because it's my own way of celebrating Ishtar. You don't know why I'm lying, but because what I said is so absurd, you'd know I am lying. Despite that, I'll put this aside for now. I want to show you that evolution does NOT exist, not why it's presented to us as fact in the first place. It doesn't take painstaking effort to look into evolution. And I don't deserve a Nobel prize for debunking something that never existed to begin with. I'm not even the first to debunk it. Nor did I debunk it at all. I just followed the evidence and found myself agreeing with the side that is against evolution. Besides, even if I did debunk it for the first time... I wouldn't do it for the prize. ALRIGHTY THEN. Ah, it's been a while since I debated this. This could be fun. Let's start with this: Let me expand on this a bit since he is correct. To start, evolution does not meet the criteria to be called a "scientific theory" because every example I've ever found describes evolution as a change of some kind. Change is not a scientific theory. You changed your clothes. That's not a scientific theory. You cannot prove to me the existence of a hurricane by stating it's the change in the weather. So if evolution is a scientific theory, please post it. And let me show you what I'm looking for since the last time I did this, the guy tried to use a Wikipedia post. Let's use germs as an example: Germ: A living substance capable of developing into an organ, part, or organism as a whole; a primordium. Source: https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/germ Now the important part. Germ Theory: Specific microscopic organisms are the cause of specific diseases. Source: http://ocp.hul.harvard.edu/contagion/germtheory.html Now your turn. For evolution, do the same. Avoid ANYTHING that describes evolution as a "change" or a "gradual process of development" or some other "fancy" way of stating it's a change. If you can't, then evolution is not a scientific theory. If evolution is a change, then evolution is not a scientific theory. Feel me? Like the article you linked. It states the following right at the beginning: "Evolution encompasses changes of vastly different scales" Which means the article is not talking about a scientific theory. We're looking for the mechanism of causation when it comes to evolution, not the changes it makes. I ask this because when you look at evolution, you'll find it's very different from a lot of the other sciences. "With evolution, Darwin introduced historicity into science. Evolutionary biology, in contrast with physics and chemistry, is a historical science. All the evolutionist can do is attempt to explain events and processes that have already taken place. Laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques for the explication of said events and processes. Instead, you can only construct a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." -Ernst Mayr In other words, evolution is a "science" completely without experiments. It's like Rib Eye... WITHOUT COWS. Which means the evolutionist must use circular reasoning to prove evolution exists. Because the following: "Instead, you can only construct a historical narrative, consisting of a tentative reconstruction of the particular scenario that led to the events one is trying to explain." Is literally the definition of circular reasoning. So how can you have a real scientific theory without experiments and tests...??? So yes, you tell me that evolution is the most scrutinized and the most validated theory in the history of science... with no experiments. Which means... evolution is not a science. If experiments are inappropriate for analyzing evolution, then it fails a later step in the Scientific Method, which is to test evolution's independant variables. But of course, I still assert that it fails the first step. That it can be observed at all. Remember, evolution is NOT a process that allows us to predict what will happen in the future. We can see what happened in the past only. So what about its replication? To attempt to accomplish this, it would take a very simple experiment. If there were a basic principle of matter which somehow drove organic systems toward life, its existence should easily be demonstrable in the labratory. One could take a swimming bath to represent the primordial soup that was where life supposedly originated, fill it with any chemicals of a non-biological nature you please, pump any gases over it or through it, and shine any kind of radiation on it that takes your fancy. And then you just wait. You wait for about a year or so and look for enzymes, proteins produced by living cells, etc, that have appeared in the bath. Hint: You will find nothing. Perhaps some sludge composed of amino-acids or other simple organic chemicals would appear, but not a single living cell will appear ever. Not for one year, not for billions of them. To prove evolution, you have to be able to show me a practical example of non-biological materials coming together to form life. You can't. I'll stop there for now since we've a lot to cover. Speciation needs to be discussed still, for example. Although, I want to mention this: We don't live in a society that encourages critical thinking. We live in a society that is taught since the age of children to respect authority. It's not a stretch to think that the same thinking is still rampant in these scientists you trust. Besides, who cares what they think? It's what you think that matters (more), not them. Also, mixing the two world views: Unguided -- Nature or Guided --- Intelligent Agency Is an extremely contradictory worldview. There is no third position. If you refuse one, you agree with the other.