Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Esquilax]

The responses, which I received for my previous post “Intelligence out of nothing,” had given me an impression that most of the atheists feel humiliation if someone try to challenge Theory of Evolution. As if, undesirable comment against this theory provoke discomfort among its followers. This attitude is somewhat similar to the behaviour that many religious people exhibit at the instance when they find no counter argument to a critique against their religion.

We get irritated when some ill educated nonce like yourself comes along and confidently asserts incorrect things as though they were facts. Don't mistake that for some deep seated panic at your brave truth seeking pulling the rug out from under us.

Interestingly, majority of people do not have proper understanding about evolution, yet they have Blind Faith in it.

Conversely, you don't have a proper understanding of evolution, and you don't accept it. This cuts both ways.

OBSERVATION and EXPERIMENT are the mandatory requirements. If an idea lacks one or both of these aspects, this disqualify the idea for being scientific. Science distinguishes itself using empirical standards, logical arguments, and scepticism.

Evolution has been observed to occur both in the wild and in laboratory conditions. You have been shown this before, and your response has been to dishonestly attempt to recategorize what actual, trained scientists accept to be evolution, as something else, using nothing more than fiat assertions and your own lack of education on the subject.

Your ignorance is not a problem for evolution. Get over it.

Atheism assumes that the existence of God can be disproved by means of Evolution.

Nope. Evolution and atheism are two different things, and one is not reliant on the other. You've been told this before, too. You don't get to tell us what we believe. That's arrogant, ignorant, and dishonest. Gee, I wonder if maybe that's why people get so pissed off with you?

When atheists/evolutionists are exposed to a question “Is Evolution an OBSERVABLE PROCESS,” nearly 95% of responses start with history of life that stretched over billions of years. Almost everyone from professor to layperson bring FOSSIL RECORD to support evolution.

Actually, Francis Collins, who's a scientist and an evangelical christian, would say that the genetic evidence alone is sufficient to confirm evolution. See, there's this kinda cross-confirmatory mountain of evidence here...

But Hay! Does fossil record provide some method that facilitate the process of OBSERVATION of an ONGOING OBSERVABLE EVIDENCE? Fossils are only record of past animals and this record is well preserved by nature. By no scientific method, this record is capable to exhibit OBSERVABLE ONGOING PROCESS of evolution that can be replicated in labs.

If some PHENOMENON is not OBSERVABLE by any scientific means, it is consequently NOT TESTABLE in the Lab environment.

Oh, you're going to natter on about "observational science" like Ken Ham here, are you? Well then, like him you'll be completely ignoring the dna evidence, the live observations, and the consistent, never contradicted predictions that evolution can make regarding the fossil record that confirms that evolution happens. Because it's not just "oh, we found a fossil here and a fossil there..." No, it's also that we can make predictions of where we'd find a certain kind of fossil based on what evolution would show, and lo and behold, when we dig in the right area at the right layer, we find exactly what we'd expect to find, if evolution were true. We've actually done that, with Tiktaalik and other fossils, something you "observational science" nitwits conveniently forget, over and over.

Evolution is not OBSERVABLE and consequently NOT TESTABLE.

Evolution has been observed and tested. Your only argument against this has been to redefine "evolution" as "not evolution" by fiat assertion, and that's just pathetic.

Life appeared abruptly from nowhere almost spontaneously in the Cambrian Stratum and there is no EVIDENCE that these creatures evolved from any simpler creatures. Palaeontologists call this immense problem “the Cambrian Explosion.” This fact totally devastates the basis of evolutionary theory, which explains that life evolved through cumulative changes through many slight successive steps.

"Spontaneously," is it? Not, say, 70 or 80 million years?

As to how, you are aware that fossil formation is exceedingly rare, and would only be more so not only the further back we go, but also once we get back before the point at which hard bodied organisms existed, yes? Oh wait, you aren't, because you're not interested in actually honestly approaching any of this.

But again, this is an argument from ignorance: "I can't figure out how this would happen, and therefore evolution can't either." Fallacies are fallacies, even if they were functioning ones.

Finding that so-called “natural selection” accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into Neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life forms on Planet Earth.

Given that Darwin proposed his mechanism before the field of genetics was established, it isn't terribly strange that mutations wouldn't have figured in his work, really.

All these life forms might be good examples of ADAPTATION and VARIATIONS IN SIMILAR SPECIES but by no scientific means are they the examples of CHANGE IN KINDS like APES INTO HUMANS. No matter, through what mutational process they had gone by but they still be bacteria, fish, fly, moth, lizards etc. just as each fossil was a complete distinct creature that had no transitional properties in it.

And here it is: the statement that demonstrates that, for all your bluster, you don't actually know what evolution is! It's always there, with idiots like you.

First of all, "kind" is not a real term: you will restrict yourself to actually well defined scientific terms, or you will be ignored. I'm not going to have a debate with your fantasy of what evolution is: educate yourself.

Second of all, adaptation and variation, as I've explained to you before, is all that evolution describes. Small changes, over time. But those small changes don't just vanish from one generation to the next, they persist. And so you've got change A in one generation, and in the next generation change A persists and is joined by change B, then change C in the next generation, and so on and so on. By the time we get to a species with change Z, that organism has lots and lots of differences between itself and the organism that just had change A, doesn't it? And those changes keep adding, accumulating with each new generation, until eventually the organism that results can't rightly be called a member of the initial species anymore, as it's too different.

I know you'll just shrug this off because you don't want evolution to be true, but you no longer have the excuse of not understanding how wrong what you've just said is. From this point on, every word you say against evolution is a lie.

On the other side in laboratory, Mutation only revealed injurious results. After tedious efforts and thousands of experiments over fruit flies, scientists critically failed to obtain even one beneficial trait. Mutation does not add beneficial information to the genome.

Wrong. Here's a strain of bacteria, cultivated in a lab, that evolved the ability to digest nylon, an entire new food supply, based on mutations. That's a beneficial mutation, and I've showed it to you before. You're literally lying, right now.

If the mutations themselves were truly random—that is, if they were neither directed by an intelligence nor influenced by the functional needs of the organism (as Neo-Darwinism stipulates) then the probability of the mutation and selection mechanism ever producing a new gene or protein could well be vanishingly small. Why? The mutations would have to generate, or “search” by trial and error, an enormous number of possibilities—far more than were realistic in the time available to the evolutionary process.

Except that mutations work via transcription errors in the replication of existing genes. They aren't just flying blind by scratch, it's building on what already exists.

Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same time in the same organism!

Also untrue: a mutation that has a particular use for an organism now exists as part of the framework of that organism to be used for future generations. Something might have one use, and is put to a different use later by succeeding mutations.

But all those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.

Human beings are all born with at least 60 neutral or beneficial mutations. Again, you are flat wrong, and again, you've been told this already. Another lie. Why should we bother with someone as dishonest as you?

(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise, it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)

Also untrue. You can't compare mutation with hybridization, they're two different processes. Organisms mutate all the time while still being able to reproduce together.

Another important factor not to be overruled is the process of cell division. The human body has about 100 trillion cells. In the nucleus of each cell are 46 chromosomes. In the chromosomes of each cell are about 10 billion DNA helix. Cell division can occur at the amazing rate of 1000 base pairs per second! If DNA did not divide this quickly, it could take 10,000 years for a human to grow from that first cell to a new-born infant.

What's your point?

If evolution does not serve any scientific assistance then what is its purpose? Is evolution merely a system that pushes people away from the concept of God? If so then who is winning by having individuals who detest God and defy moral principles?

Well, given that literally every one of your premises was factually incorrect, your ridiculous conclusion is also incorrect. So, I can tell you to fuck off with this conspiracy nonsense without guilt.

It's always nice when I get to do that.