Whats amused you (in the news) today ?

Well it is called the theory of evolution not the fact of evolution.

Was reading something earlier someone asked the question if "God only created Adam and Eve, then surely inbreeding of their children and potentially Adam with his daughters would lead to genetic abnormalities within a few generations"

the answer from a creationist was amusing ( not an exact quote ) "Adam and Eve were created by God, anything created by God is perfect, therefore it follows that the genomes of both Adam and Eve were perfect, thus no genetic abnormalities could occur, it is only over the last few generations that genetic abnormalities have occurred as a result of random mutations, but never in true God fearing Americans. So it is only possible for non believers to have genetic abnormalities if they breed with close relatives"

and I thought OK so which is the one true eye colour/ shape, or hair colour/tendency to male baldness or attached non attached ear lobes they are all minor genetic differences. Obviously as God Fearing American they are most likely Republican supporting and white ( OK I may be wrong but ... ) All I can say is if my "vision" of the average Trump supporting guy ( Racist, misogenist, overweight, baseball cap wearing muppet with an IQ around 90 ) is Gods vision of a perfect man, the God needed to get to specsavers, either that or because God created man in the image of himself ...

sorry if this offends anyone with strong religious views

...with "theory" used in a specific, scientific sense. Not just a guesstimate.

sciencenotes.org/scientific-theory-definition-and-examples/

I presume you don't find the concept questionable, and agree that it is by far and away the most comprehensive and accurate explanation we currently possess?

IMHO. Not really correct. Or rather perhaps I should say that as a statement of verifiable fact, it is misleading. 

Firstly, you may be conflating the common usage of "theory" with its use in science. In common parlance, people often refer to something as "it's just a theory" meaning that it is not tested and really is just a proposal or educated guess. This is far more akin to what science would refer to as a "hypothesis".

Whereas a "Theory" (capitalised) is a rigorous and tested explanation substantiated by a body of evidence. A Theory is considered by broad peer consensus to be true because of the evidence supporting it, and equally the absence of evidence contradicting it. But critically, an accepted theory is not considered unimpeachable: it is at the core of science that one constantly pushes the boundaries of a theory and try to break it: either making predictions from the theory and then testing them, or from having made observations that don't initially seemed to be explained and figuring out if they can be or not. 

So in science, A Theory is typically about as close to a fact as you are going to get.

Back to evolution. It perhaps rather depends what you mean by "the theory of evolution". One problem being what set of principles you are attaching that specific label to*. 

The fact that biological evolution is a "thing" is indisputably a fact by however high a bar you want to measure it with. We can see it in action in the lab in real world time. And of course with our ability now to understand and analyse DNA we have a known mechanism for it, are no longer required to infer it in the way Darwin had to, and can trace its effects back over time.

IMHO

*If you are referring to Darwins "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection" and its "basic tenets", then I think they are also as proven as you are likely to get. 

- More individuals are produced each generation than can survive.

- Phenotypic variation exists among individuals and the variation is heritable.

- Those individuals with heritable traits better suited to the environment will survive.

- When reproductive isolation occurs new species will form.

As Huxley said on first reading: "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!"

I was driving around London today. The 15 miles journey took 90 mins, not much have changed with all the improvements from Mayor and the speed is just like what TomTom said.

Yes, I can blame many other things as well.


Lane closures, road traffic cones, temporary traffic lights, pedestrian crossing the road, annoying cyclists zigzagging and changing lanes, sightseeing buses waiting for tourists, camera traps catching motorists entering the wrong lane or area, confusing road signs for car restrictions entering the road / street, unexpected road closures making motorists have to make u-turns in the “temporary cul de sac”

Other measures constantly reduce my speed of driving are speed humps and width restriction in clear roads. Passing through them under 7 mph, width restriction is the worst one, less than 4 mph.

Why on earth would anybody voluntarily drive around the city with the worst traffic and best public transport?

So Starmer has said that "...the working people of Britain “know exactly who they are”,". Which is probably just as well, as no one in the Government seems to know.