Science versus religion

[justifier]

Evolution was and is a scientific theory based on facts.

That is not a fact, it is a blatantly fallacious argument based on a fact. If humans once had the same number of chromosones as apes it would not mean that we evolved from them, it would only mean that we are genetically similar to them. There is no evidence that the fusing of those two chromosones via a mutation is what changed us from apes to humans. All it means is that they became fused at some point early in our human ancestry.

You can make indirect observations of evolution occurring in the past and direct observations of evolution occurring in the present. Micro-organism that have a very short lifespan like bacteria evolve constantly.

Indirect observations are not observations. You are talking about reasoning or supposition based on direct observations or other things. Evolution has never been observed. You are talking about either mutation, cellular adaption or natural selection

Here is a video that will explain what is evolution:

Then why don't you know what it is?

Unlike religion that does not believe in evolution science itself evolves. Old theories always "mutate" and when a new "mutant" theory turns out to be better than the old dominant theory, it replaces it with time. The old theory either dies or finds a narrow niche where it can be used. This is the power of science it always evolves.

In science, hypotheses are made based on observations and if they are confirmed by further observation they become models and then theories. To be valid, theories must successfully predict future observations. If they don't, they are modified or discarded, depending on how badly they conflict with the observations.

That is not "mutation". Mutation in genetics is a random error, not a deliberate and constructive modification. Scientific theories evolve due to deliberate and intelligent reasoning. They aren't independent organisms, they are the products of intelligent and rational minds.

Evolution was never a theory. It was never even a valid hypothesis. Darwin admitted at the start that there were observations it could not explain or which flatly contradicted it. Every observation since has contradicted evolution. That is why it keeps "mutating": because it keeps being proven wrong and has to switch to some other hypothesis to avoid being scrapped. None of it's modifications have been in response to actual observations or been confirmed by observations.

And here is why creationism is not correct:

Dawkins is wrong that organisms all fit into a neat tree structure based on genetic similarities. He is also wrong about "vestigial/relic" features. Many of what were once assumed to be vestigial features have been shown to have important present-day functions. In fact, they were only assumed to be vestigial because of the influence of evolutionary assumptions on purely scientific reasoning.

Dawkins criticism of Kurt Wise is unfair. Wise said that he would admit that the evidence pointed toward "old earth" but would retain his belief in "young earth" out of faith in Scripture. That is not the same thing as refusing to acknowledge scientific evidence. It is merely a faith that further evidence will present the opposite picture. A number of leading evolutionists and atheists (including Isaac Asimov) have made similar statements in reverse, i.e., that even with a huge lack of evidence for evolution or enormous evidence against it, they would still have faith that an evolutionary explanation exists. Many atheists have proclaimed that their belief in evolution is a faith and not purely based on science.

Dawkins is an effete ignoramus.

---

Here is a video that will explain what is evolution:

Evolution is not natural selection, it is based on natural selection. Natural selection is the adaption of populations to their environment due to it's favoring of some genetic features over others. That is not evolution. Natural selection had been known about before Darwin's trip to the Galapogs Islands. Darwin did not discover natural selection. What Darwin proposed was that natural selection, over a great length of time, leads to evolution into different species. Natural selection alone occurs within species, it does not produce new species. Darwin speculated that over a longer time it would produce new species.

But the mechanism of heredity, genes, had not been publicised in Darwin's lifetime. Mendel's discoveries were not published until after Darwin's death. Now it is known that natural selection filters out genetic information, it does not add more information. It merely makes a population more specialised. However, the results of natural selection can be reversed if the environment changes to favor the original genetic features within the population.

For example, those peppered moths did not evolve into another species. All that happened was that the moths which inherited darker colouring survived better than the ones with lighter colouring. There was no new species of moth. They were the same moth. All you got was a predominance of descendents of darker moths. When their habitat became lighter, the population of moths got lighter again.

Heredity doesn't work the way Darwin theorised that it does. Genetics proved him wrong. That is why evolutionists abandoned normal genetic variation as the mechanism of evolution and changed it to genetic mutations, which occur when the original DNA passed on is wrongly copied. Mutations are genetic errors. Today, evolutionists say that evolution occurs when the environment favours a mutation, not an inherited genetic feature. This is a different kind of "natural selection" to the normal kind, which Darwin originally based his theory on.