Is Evolution a science or a faith?

[Bad Wolf]

Evolution do not use science but it abuse science by misusing it to support conjectures.

No no no no no fucking no! You can't just assert something like this and expect us to ignore it. How does evolution abuse science? Explain please. Do you know what the scientific method is?

If you mean Evolution is about adaptation and variation in same specie then it is science.

Its these adaptations and variations within the same species that accumulate over millions of years which produce a new species. Here is a little mind exercise for you. Imagine you had a photo of your father, then your fathers father, then your fathers fathers father, keep going for millions of generations. Each son would look almost identical to their father. But when you take a look at your fathers photo and compare it to your ancestor from a few million years ago, they would look completley different. Go back even further and you would see a fish-like creature.

If you are talking about evolution from single embryo to complete human baby then it is science.

That isn't evolution, that is basic biology

If you are talking about evolution that can turn ape into human then it is FAITH

No it is certainly not a faith. There is fast swathes of evidence for that. We share something like 98% of our DNA with chimps. I'm would really appreciate an answer here when I ask: Why do you think that is?

DNA do not and cannot produce new specie out of existing specie. DNA can produce varied specie but in same specie.

Assertion assertion assertion. Guess what! Dismissal dismissal dismissal.

Like children who are little similar and little different to their parents. Mutations rarely occur natural world and when they occur

Once again, you are factually wrong. Where are you gettin your information? Your pastor? There are hundreds of mutations within each individual. Most are neutral and don't affect the organism at all. Some are lethal, like Huntingtons. Others are beneficial.

, 100% of them are injurious.

Really? What about that boy that was born in Japan or China (I can't remember) who had amazing night vision? Would you call that 'injurious'?

Scientist have not found such beneficial mutations that makes them confident to say that new specie has born out of mutation.

If you honestly believe that scientists are looking for one big mutation that causes one species to change into another, then you don't understand the theory of evolution. Fancy that! Another evolution denier that doesn't actually understand what they are denying.

Neutral mutations only give variations in the same specie if not the same property.

Once again, assertion. And once again, you don't understand the theory of evolution.

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.

Really? So who exactly mapped the human and chimp genome then? And apes didn't transform into humans. We are apes. We have a common ape ancestor with chimps.
You really don't know what you are talking about.

If scientist saying something like this then he is saying not for a scientific purpose rather to support some ideology.

Some ideology? Oh please, I really want to hear what ideology you think a scientist would try to promote. Please tell me. I can think of one off the top of my head: Christianity. The entire and only reason evolution is not accepted by a lot of non-qualified, non-scientists, such as yourself, is because of the smear campaign run by christianity.

Fossil record is incomplete not because Palaeontologists have not collected sufficient amount of fossil but because fossil record lacks fossils of transitional animals.

The fossil record is incomplete because it is an incredibly rare event for an organims to be fossilised. The reason we find so many fossils is simply because of the sheer volume of organisms that have ever lived over the hundreds of millions of years before we discovered them. Also finding fossils buried in the earth is incredibly difficult. We can't just dig in a random place and hope to find them.

Out of millions of records, not a single fossil has been declared to be a transitional animal.

Once again, you are factually wrong. I'm not sure what you think a transitional animal is, a crockoduck perchance? But there is indeed a transitional fossil calld Tiktallik (might have spelled it wrong). This fossil captures the time-frame in which fish-like creatures first walked onto land.

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.

Assertion, dismissal.

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.

Just because you don't understand the 'hard scientific facts' doesn't mean they don't exist.

Seriously, have you ever considered that the reason you don't believe the theory of evolution is because you don't understand it? Have you ever even attempted to look at the research and evidence presented? Have you ever even learned about evolution? Did you have biology class in your school? Is that the extent to which you are educated on the subject? High school biology?

[Harris]

Perhaps, he is pointing towards aliens in which Dawkins believe.

Uh, that's a lie, another willful misinterpretation initially promulgated by noted fraud Ben Stein. Dawkins was addressing a hypothetical in which only intelligent design possibilities were present, not discussing his actual views on the subject. That stupid Expelled movie cut Dawkins off mid response in order to make it sound like he said something other than he did, to which Dawkins responded on his blog by making clear his actual position, which is as I've stated.

You really need to question why you keep getting taken in by lies, Harris.

I neither support Ben nor Dawkins. However, I have heard dawkins lying deliberately and purposefully. I do not trust in anything what Dawkins said. For me he is the king of hypocrite. Only follow few of his interviews and you will see how cunning he is in manipulating his words.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's the spirit Harris, shoot the messenger when you can't hit the message. You'll surely convince us of something!

[Bad Wolf]

I neither support Ben nor Dawkins. However, I have heard dawkins lying deliberately and purposefully.

Got any specific ones or are you just lying yourself?

I do not trust in anything what Dawkins said. For me he is the king of hypocrite. Only follow few of his interviews and you will see how cunning he is in manipulating his words.

Examples or shut the fuck up.

[JesusHChrist]

I neither support Ben nor Dawkins. However, I have heard dawkins lying deliberately and purposefully. I do not trust in anything what Dawkins said. For me he is the king of hypocrite. Only follow few of his interviews and you will see how cunning he is in manipulating his words.

Post a link showing Dawkins being caught in a lie. I've read many of his interviews and seen him on video numerous times.

I'm a skeptic of all things. If I thought he was liar, so be it. But I've seen zero evidence this is true.

Since you claim Dawkin's lying is pervasive, it shouldn't be too hard.

[The Grand Nudger]

You do realize that you are asking that question of someone who thinks that everything that comes out of Dawkin's mouth re: evolution, is a lie, correct?

[Mister Agenda]

I don't understand why creationists bother with trying to discredit evolution? Even if they could prove the theory of evolution wrong it gets them no closer to proving creation. I also don't know why they bother posting their objections to evolution on an atheist forum, go post your bad understanding of evolution on a biology forum. Reading the headline of this thread made my blood boil, if you have to ask if evolution is based on faith then you either are completely ignorant of how science works or you are trying to denigrate science in order to bring it down to the level of your unfounded faith based position of creation.

As I stated earlier, I am not trying to prove or disprove existence of God by using science. Science is a wrong address for the question of God. However, you guys are persistent to put evolution in place of God. In other words, you are trying to eliminate the idea of God using science, which is logically a fault. What I am trying here is to convey that Theory of evolution has ridiculous amount of flaws and all these flaws make this theory unscientific. Henceforth, using theory of evolution to eliminate the concept of God is nothing more than an absurd.

In what way is repeatedly telling you that whether evolution is true has nothing to do with whether or not God is real 'persistent to put evolution in place of God'?

I think most people who try to undermine the theory of evolution in the name of their God do more damage to the credibility of the idea of God than evolution ever could.

Thank you. Without people like you, the number of people who choose rational skepticism would likely not be rising so quickly. There's nothing like people illustrating the poverty of one side to help those on the fence realize the other side is the one where the less stupid people are.

Would you start posting on Atheistforums.com as well, please? You're needed in more places. I can never aspire to do as much for skepticism as you do.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

That's the spirit Harris, shoot the messenger when you can't hit the message. You'll surely convince us of something!

He convinced me a long time ago. Convinced me that his religion has addled his brain.

'Logical' in so far as shooting yourself in the face is deemed a good way to live a long and happy life.

[JesusHChrist]

You do realize that you are asking that question of someone who thinks that everything that comes out of Dawkin's mouth re: evolution, is a lie, correct?

Not as though it is needed it, but more rope to hang himself via his own petard. Or to get hoisted....decisions, decisions.

[Mister Agenda]

Cat: 90%
Cow: 80%
Mouse: 75% (do we have anything resembling to mouse?)
Fruit Fly: 60%

Why only chimps are the favourite option for an evolutionist why not a cat?

So now you're claiming that a chimp's DNA being 98% similar to human compared to a cat's DNA being 90% similar and therefore chimps being more closely related to humans genetically than cats is just too mathematically complex for you to grasp?