Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Harris]

Wow! Most ignorant forum member here! Everybody crowd round while we school this idiot.

1) You got one thing right, evolution uses science. From that point on you are wrong about everything.
Intelligent design (as anybody with the smallest amount of skepticism and intellectual honesty knows) is simply a cover for creationism. What they do is not science. They do not apply the scientific method at all. They start with an assumption and then look for evidence for it and ignore the evidence against. The theory of evolution was made by observing nature and following the evidence to where it pointed. IT twists the evidence to get what it wants. Anyone who believes IT uses science is an ignorant dolt.

Evolution do not use science but it abuse science by misusing it to support conjectures. If you want to learn about Intelligent design then start with these documentaries.

http://vimeo.com/71162398

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63awtAyHdU&feature=kp
[/quote]

DNA: The DNA evidence alone would be enough to prove evolution. All species share some DNA, we can tell which species are closely related to each other and which aren't. We can trace back genetic bottlenecks of species. We can tell exactly how we evolved to be more intelligent than our ape ancestors. And you have the arrogance to say that there isn't any evidence?

If you mean Evolution is about adaptation and variation in same specie then it is science. If you are talking about evolution from single embryo to complete human baby then it is science. If you are talking about evolution that can turn ape into human then it is FAITH

DNA do not and cannot produce new specie out of existing specie. DNA can produce varied specie but in same specie. Like children who are little similar and little different to their parents. Mutations rarely occur natural world and when they occur, 100% of them are injurious. Scientist have not found such beneficial mutations that makes them confident to say that new specie has born out of mutation. Neutral mutations only give variations in the same specie if not the same property.

If you see some argument that ape and human have almost similar genes and this is the evidence for ape transformed into human then these argument are not from scientists. If scientist saying something like this then he is saying not for a scientific purpose rather to support some ideology.

Fossil record: We can track the evolution of species through fossils. A snapshot in time, these fossils show us how many species evolved to be how they are today. Like the horse and the even toad undulates. We know that they have evolved to be marine, then terrestrial, then marine, then back to terrestrial. We can accurately predict what fossils we are going to find at different depths.

Fossil record is incomplete not because Palaeontologists have not collected sufficient amount of fossil but because fossil record lacks fossils of transitional animals. Out of millions of records, not a single fossil has been declared to be a transitional animal.

Biology: The composition of many living species all show evolution. One of my favorites is the laryngeal nerve. Its sole purpose is to control the voice box. However, it stretches from the base of the brain, loops around your aorta and then goes all the way back up to the larynx. Why could this be? Oh wait, we know why that is! Because millions and millions of years ago, our ancestors were fish-like creatures. They had no neck, which meant that the larngeal nerve didn't need to travel far at all. But then as our ancestors evolved, their bodies got longer but the laryngeal nerve had to stretch to carry out its function. This is exactly the kind of thing we would expect if a species evolved slowly over millions of years. Other examples include the sloth bear, which has lost its front teeth and the rest are very small as it has evolved to eat termites and ants. The tiger and the lion are very similar creatures to the point that they can actually breed and produce offspring, because they are incredibly closley related and share a common ancestor.

Biology by no mean can prove that one specie is transformed out from another. If you find such a claim then it is purely based on conjecture and would not be able to provide any hard scientific fact on which scientists around the world would be agreed unequivocally. Remember, not anyone who try to prove ape transform into human can run away from using conjectures, postulates and guesswork in his explanation. He cannot give hard scientific facts that can be tested in labs.