Theist ➤ Why ☠ Evolution is not Scientific ✔

[I_am_not_mafia]

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. You can't show that they are not. Yet you are the one claiming that it isn't.

Your argument about 'kinds' shows that you do not understand the theory of evolution. Only creationists refer to 'kinds'. No scientist ever does and scientists are the ones who have researched evolution. You can't breed a fox and a donkey, but both species have a common ancestor. Evolution works in very small steps (or variation if you will) and these small steps accumulate over time. Speciation occurs when a population finds a separate evolutionary niche that can be filled and the subsequent generations become adapted to it instead.

You're the one using the term 'kinds'. How do you define a kind of animal? Do you define it as two species that cannot breed? In which case all you are doing is stating a tautology.

Try learning what evolution actually is before you try arguing against it otherwise all you do is perform a strawman argument.

I gave you examples of the theory of evolution is testable, repeatable, observable and falsifiable. 

If that is the case then I would have been convinced by your examples but I am not, why am I not convinced yet?

First hit on google for "evolution observed in nature"

Observable:

8 Examples of Evolution in Action


Testable and repeatable:

Silver Foxes Change Rapidly… and in Surprising Ways

Also see 1. Evolution in the Lab in the previous link for another experiment. Anyone can repeat these experiments.


Falsifiable:

What would falsify evolution

• If it could be shown that organisms with identical DNA have different genetic traits.
  
• If it could be shown that mutations do not occur.
  
• If it could be shown that when mutations do occur, they are not passed down through the generations.
  
• If it could be shown that although mutations are passed down, no mutation could produce the sort of phenotypic changes that drive natural selection.
  
• If it could be shown that selection or environmental pressures do not favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals.
  
• If it could be shown that even though selection or environmental pressures favor the reproductive success of better adapted individuals, "better adapted individuals" (at any one time) are not shown to change into other species.
  

I'm not entirely convinced by this last list which is why I said (and which you ignored) "It is falsifiable in that you could demonstrate that what we are observing works by means other than inherited traits, mutation of genetic information and natural selection." But I'm not going to put too much effort into it because I know you're not going to accept anything I say, and will either ignore it or come up with a load of bullshit about kinds and microevolution. But this is just from two minutes with google. If you were genuinely interested in whether you were correct or not you could find out a lot more yourself, or ask genuine questions.