Creation vs. Evolution

[Touring Mars]

Thanks for taking the time and effort to respond to my last post in such detail, SCJ - and although I still totally disagree, atleast you are willing to defend your point of view and give us an opportunity to reply.

Similarities, in and of itself, does not conclude common lineage. It can only suggest the possibility.

*snip*

Again you are making an assumptive jump to conclusion from a commonality observation. One does not prove the other. It merely suggests the possibility.

*snip*

The evidence, such as it is, only proves similarity of make up. Thats all. It does not prove ancestral interconnection. Thats the assumption you are determined to make, from inconclusive evidence.

The similarities between say humans, chimps, and other primates is deep and undeniable, from the shape, order and relative location of our bones and organs, to the sequence homology of our DNA, RNA and proteins. This depth of similarity does not just "imply" or "suggest the possibility" that we "might" be related to each other. It tells us beyond any reasonable doubt that our "assumption" of relatedness is a very, very, very solid one. I've posted this before in response to your objections against the evidence for evolution, but I think it can stand a repost - this is just one example of the degree of similarity, across four different species, that I am talking about...

Schematic representation of chromosomes of man, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, arranged from left to right.
Adapted from Yunis & Prakash, "The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy", Science, 215, 19 March 1982 Article (Subscription required)​

The same level of similarity can be and is observed in comparisons between similarly related species. On an even more detailed level, the actual sequence of nucleotides in our DNA also speaks unequivocally of a process by which such a massive degree of similarity between species comes about - so much so infact that it is becoming possible - through the developing science of DNA barcoding - to identify a species from its DNA sequence alone, and even identify related species or taxa from a straight comparison between DNA sequences alone.

When you say that this level of similarity across a set of species merely suggests the possibility of relatedness, but doesn't constitute proof, you neglect to point out that the theory of common descent remains unfalsified by any evidence, even though it could have been so easily - there are literally no examples, not even a single solitary individual, let alone an entire species, that does not fit into the framework of the theory of common descent. It is not just the supporting evidence like that I've just reposted, but also the lack of any contradictory evidence that makes the theory so solid. There exists no species of life on Earth that is so chemically different from all others that it disproves the theory of common descent - every species ever discovered has atleast some common feature with another that could not have happened by random chance, but only via a concerted process. Observed patterns of genetic similarity across all kingdoms of life speaks unequivocally in favour of the theory of common ancestry, and no evidence currently available disproves it. The theory of evolution remains the only explanatory framework that can account for the presence of all the available evidence as well as the current absence of all other possibilities, whilst remaining falsifiable by the future discovery of contradictory evidence. In contrast, the design hypothesis - the idea that all species are designed to merely 'look like' they evolved - can never be falsified, and therefore as an explanatory tool it is thoroughly impotent.

--

Here is an illustration of what I mean. Look at the schematic below in which I've used just one chromosome to represent the entire genome of a species, and compare the "genomes" of four different species in a similar way to that shown for the primates above. In this example, assume that we are looking at four species that share many common features, such as body plan, internal organ arrangement and sensory perception. Because they are so similar, we might expect their DNA to be similar too. Evolution theory suggests that this level of similarity is due to the fact that these species are ancestrally related and therefore specifically predicts that their DNA will be extremely similar, well beyond what is possible by random chance. The design hypothesis, on the other hand, states that their DNA might look the same because the species look the same from the outside, but also that it might not. The actual result of a DNA comparison is Set 1 - both "theories" are equally correct and of equal power? Well, no...

Although the actual result - Set 1 - provides some validation for both "predictions", Set 1 is the only possible right answer for evolution theory to be true. If the result had been Set 2 or 3, evolution theory would be in serious trouble. Infact, if the result had been anything other than Set 1, evolution theory would be in trouble. Indeed, in the real world, evolution theory is subjected to this rigorous test every day.

But what of the design hypothesis? It is equally rigorous and falsifiable? The answer is a resounding no. No matter what the result was, the design hypothesis remains intact. The design hypothesis notably does not specifically predict that separate "kinds" should exhibit such massive similarity on the genomic level - it only "predicts" that whatever the genome of a species looks like, that's because it was designed to look that way. And while any other possible result other than the actual result would have falsified evolution theory, the same simply cannot be said for the design hypothesis. This, perhaps above all else, is why evolution qualifies as a scientific theory, and "intelligent design" does not.

The fact that Set 1 is consistent with the design hypothesis is hardly surprising, since it is actually impossible for the result not to be consistent with it! So while the actual result - Set 1 - might also have come about by design is a moot point - that it supports evolution theory at all is the key point here. Furthermore, this happens to be the case anywhere you care to look in the living world.

 

[Duke]

TM, I applaud your patience and detail, but unfortunately, I suspect he's just going to say something along the lines of "It doesn't matter how similar we are in those diagrams, this does not prove that there was descent from common ancestors. It's just faith in an assumption." As Famine would say, he'll put his fingers in his ears and go LALALALALA.

 

[DK]

Schematic representation of chromosomes of man, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan, arranged from left to right.
Adapted from Yunis & Prakash, "The Origin of Man: A Chromosomal Pictorial Legacy", Science, 215, 19 March 1982 Article (Subscription required)​

Holy crap that looks complicated.

 

[Touring Mars]

It should be, it is a visual comparison of the entire genomes of four whole species - but what is hopefully abundantly clear is that these four different species are very far from "different" on the genetic level, but are infact extraordinarily similar - way beyond what is even remotely plausible by random chance. It also contains another devastating blow to the idea that common descent is merely "assumed" - human chromosome 2... but I talked about that the last time I posted the diagram.

TM, I applaud your patience and detail, but unfortunately, I suspect he's just going to say something along the lines of "It doesn't matter how similar we are in those diagrams, this does not prove that there was descent from common ancestors. It's just faith in an assumption."

That diagram alone doesn't prove common descent theory - it is merely an extremely good piece of evidence that completely supports that theory

 

[Duke]

That diagram alone doesn't prove common descent theory - it is merely an extremely good piece of evidence that completely supports that theory

Which he'll say we take on faith...

 

[Touring Mars]

Only if he were to define accepting the scientific method and accepting the scientific definition of the term theory as articles of faith.

Real scientific theories are stronger for the fact that they are inherently falsifiable and therefore cannot ever be considered irrefutable. While facts may be considered irrefutable, established theories such as evolution theory are as close to facts themselves as they can be whilst also remaining open to new evidence and the possibility of refutation. Intelligent Design is irrefutable - but it also happens to be false (insomuch as its central premises are contradicted by the facts as they are known), which makes its irrefutability a major problem for anyone who believes it.

 

[BobK]

Only if he were to define accepting the scientific method and accepting the scientific definition of the term theory as articles of faith.

And that's exactly what he's been saying. Go back and reread some of his earlier posts and you'll see it.

 

[Dotini]

Who finds it disturbing or counterrevolutionary that modern well-educated persons should reject the edifice or at least the current paradigm of science, it's definitions, methods, institutions and outcomes?

Is it any wiser to take the traditional Christian view of humanity as fallen and depraved, worthy of little more than suffering and seeking salvation in some better world to come?

If the purpose of either is to light the way to a better life of peace and prosperity, then is it remotely reasonable or even conceivable to condemn both as defective models of living?

 

[Touring Mars]

And that's exactly what he's been saying. Go back and reread some of his earlier posts and you'll see it.

I know that - but rereading his posts won't make him any less wrong.

I'd like to hear a proper explanation of how it can be an article of faith to accept a scientific theory as being true and refutable.

Evolution theory is a real scientific theory and is therefore refutable - it hasn't been refuted yet, but the fact remains that it could potentially be falsified by the presence of contradictory evidence. It simply isn't possible to have absolute belief in something (the very definition of an article of faith) and accept that it could be falsified - hence accepting evolution theory as the truth cannot be an article of faith. Creationism is irrefutable and therefore accepting it as true is most definitely an article of faith. No amount of belief makes either thing true, but atleast scientific theories stand to be corrected if and when they are proven wrong.

 

[wfooshee]

. . . . that modern well-educated persons should reject the edifice or at least the current paradigm of science, it's definitions, methods, institutions and outcomes?

I would say that the action described in this statement is self contradictory. Someone who rejects the scientific method outright, chooses to consciously ignore evidence at hand, and favor an untestable concept because Momma said so (or whatever reason,) has something lacking in his education.

 

[Duke]

If the purpose of either is to light the way to a better life of peace and prosperity, then is it remotely reasonable or even conceivable to condemn both as defective models of living?

Yes, it is. It is entirely possible to do the right thing under completely false and incorrect pretenses. That's better than doing the wrong thing, but it's not better than doing the right thing for the right reasons.

It simply isn't possible to have absolute belief in something (the very definition of an article of faith) and accept that it could be falsified - hence accepting evolution theory as the truth cannot be an article of faith.

👍 I'll trade you that for my "eternity" comment above.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

SuberCobraJet, I recommend you read On The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin. Sorry to be a complete jackass, but I find it incredibly hilarious that people are still willing to believe creation theory over evolution. Creationism has never been changed (at least I think it hasn't) for 3,000 or so years or whenever the Book of Genesis was first created by Hebrew scholars or whatever. Evolution has adapted to new evidence, which enables us to get a better picture of where we came from. Some hyper-Conservatives have resorted to slander to make evolution look like the bad guy, blaming it for everything from high school shoot-outs to the Holocaust. The Holocaust was caused by a continuation of Christian anti-Semitism in an uglier new form. High school shoot-outs are often caused by years of isolation and bullying of the person carrying out the shootings, causing him one day to vent out his anger on the school via bullets. But Darwin wasn't bitter towards those who mocked him, nor was he a racist.

He believed that having moral values was part of being human and it was part of human evolution. Unfortunately, biologists are yet to find a gene that enabled us to go against instincts and use free will. So, until they find that gene, creationists will have a strong argument.

Thanks for the suggestion, but contrary to the assumption here, I fully understand the evolutional theory and its displayed evidences. I have no personal animosity toward Darwin.

I don't consider evolution baseless or without evidences. I can see easily how as presented it is accepted by many.

However, as continually pointed out, personally, I don't believe the evidence presented is conclusive or near sufficient enough to prove the claims.

Many blames about evolution as contributary to acts of violence and social problems are made because it has supplanted the spiritual authority of the Bible with a secular account of our exsistance. In turn this acts to remove the spiritual covering or influence that serves as a deterrant to causes and effects of all forms of social problems.

In other words if I'm no more than a higher form of animal, then a moral code is optional, not a law of a higher authority.

 

[Public'sTwin]

In other words if I'm no more than a higher form of animal, then a moral code is optional, not a law of a higher authority.

Do you have a discrepancy with that?

I don't think I need to point out the inherent personal conflict with letting your virtues reside in the presumed governance of a "greater power"'s alleged views on morality.

 

[Famine]

Thanks for the suggestion, but contrary to the assumption here, I fully understand the evolutional theory and its displayed evidences.

No you don't:

At the very least there should be a gross proliferation of transitional species everywhere.

[...]

To the contrary there are no transitional species to species of anything. Much less a proliferation. You know part one species, and parts of others.

[...]

So he started as a monkey and became a man? Again where did the monkey/man come from?

For reference, this is comparable to saying "I fully understand driving. The steering wheel controls the headlights, the clutch makes you fresh coffee and you get where you're going by thinking really hard about it in Russian."

 

[Dotini]

Many blames about evolution as contributary to acts of violence and social problems are made because it has supplanted the spiritual authority of the Bible with a secular account of our exsistance. In turn this acts to remove the spiritual covering or influence that serves as a deterrant to causes and effects of all forms of social problems.

In other words if I'm no more than a higher form of animal, then a moral code is optional, not a law of a higher authority.

As Moliere has said, if you are understood then you are speaking well.

The problem here is that both religious and secular authorities have directly caused rivers of human blood to flow across the scorched Earth, as well as to support all manner of perversion and insanity. Admittedly, it is preferable to defend against an authority armed with a sword and a trebuchet than it is to argue with one equipped with a machine gun, atom bomb and drone. Even so, I am against all forms of dogma, whether springing from the Church of Rome, the Caliphate, or the military-industrial complex and its army of co-opted scientists.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

A Ferrari isn't alive, nor were any of the other cars that existed before it. Nor do they seek to reproduce themselves.

I'll repeat the last sentence:

Nor do they seek to reproduce themselves.

Granted they do not seek to reproduce, since a Ferrari does not have the dimensional methods of empowerment such as we. Albeit obviously different, they are reproduced everyday. I refer to the principle, not the literal.

When one stops to consider, that everything around us that we produce, and again back as far as reasonably determinable, is a result of this same process that the Ferrari originates from, I cannot ignore this factor, and agree that from what evolution claims and the evidence provided, we, being infinitely more complex and dimensionally empowered than a Ferrari, resulted from some abstract concept apart from "intelligent design" and in direct opposition to how we ourselves operate in our exsistence.

The reproductive process that life pursues is the base mechanism for change, for variation, that over time leads to Natural Selection, and over even greater time, to Evolution.

The process of reproduction is the process of copying genes to offspring. Simple as that. You mix some of your genes with some of those from a partner, and see what you get. You get a slightly varied form of yourselves.

Do that enough times, and those slightly varied forms diverge far enough from the starting point to represent something different. Yes, they do. (I heard you arguing!)

The variations that work, either by having some survival trait, or merely being "desirable" by potential mates, get passed on. I'm a brown mouse living on the sand, and my girlfriend is a brown mouse. Somehow one of the kids is a black mouse. He don't make it. The owl upchucks his bones and some witch doctor reads them. But he doesn't live to make more black mice.

Unless we happened to move into a lava flow, and all our brown kids would become someone's fortune.

Genes get copied, passed, and once in a while, slightly altered. A bad copy, some missing or changed information. Most of those bad copies don't make it. Some do. If it expresses as something useful, it makes it big time.

Eventually, the divergence caused by those changes is something not like what you started with. The selection process of what works and what doesn't forces a "type" onto the carriers of the genome.

You seem to be able to accept that variation occurs. You also seem to be able to accept that some variations are more successful than others. You just can't seem to make the very simple fundamental inevitable step that enough variation over enough time lets you end up with something - different. It's not that different from its parents, who aren't that different from theirs, but it's much different than what was around 20,000 generations ago.

You also seem to accept that the fossil record exists, and that it shows numerous plants and animals that no longer exist. You just can't seem to make the very simple fundamental inevitable step that extinction is evidence of selection.

What you are referring to as a "simple fundamental step" is in reality "a quantum leap assumption".
Changes within and amoung species, similarities and commonalities of species can only suggest the possibilities. They certainly exsist. Plant, livestock, and pet breeding prove this. However even under intense "intelligent design" (ours) results are limited and as previously mentioned result in sterility or return to the original when left to natural means. These factors are unable to prove evolution theory to be factual. As mentioned some are contrary to evidence for it.

I know that - but rereading his posts won't make him any less wrong.

I'd like to hear a proper explanation of how it can be an article of faith to accept a scientific theory as being true and refutable.

My impression is you believe it to be true. If thats the case and you know that the possiblity of refutability is ever present, even though you have determined there is evidence for factuality, then you by faith are believing something to be true, that in fact, is yet conclusively still unestablished as such.
I don't see how under those circumstances your belief can be considered anything but "faith".
You are assuming by faith that evidence will continue to establish the theory as a fact, when actually, at some point it may have the opposite effect.

Evolution theory is a real scientific theory and is therefore refutable - it hasn't been refuted yet, but the fact remains that it could potentially be falsified by the presence of contradictory evidence. It simply isn't possible to have absolute belief in something (the very definition of an article of faith) and accept that it could be falsified - hence accepting evolution theory as the truth cannot be an article of faith. Creationism is irrefutable and therefore accepting it as true is most definitely an article of faith. No amount of belief makes either thing true, but atleast scientific theories stand to be corrected if and when they are proven wrong.

By this statement you appear to be implying, you are not actually employing faith to believe it is a fact. Only that from the evidence presented at the present time you have determined it is possible, feasible, probable or could actually be factual. If thats the case, then I contend you don't, at this point have faith it is true or truly believe it to be a fact.

Possibly, your passion to defend the "Scientifc Method", is just interpreted as such.

 

[niky]

Look! When I misuse the word "faith" to describe the scientific method, it makes my arguments more plausible!

Not.

Again, should we do "definitions" for you? Faith: Belief without proof.

Scientific Method: Proof first.

It's not rocket science, you know. It's just science.

For reference, this is comparable to saying "I fully understand driving. The steering wheel controls the headlights, the clutch makes you fresh coffee and you get where you're going by thinking really hard about it in Russian."

Automobiles are obviously not. For one, they don't automatically move by themselves, for another, there's no way to hang them from the ceiling.

 

[Touring Mars]

You are assuming by faith that evidence will continue to establish the theory as a fact, when actually, at some point it may have the opposite effect.

I am adopting a position where I am willing to accept whatever the evidence (past, present and future) might tell me. I am not "assuming" anything, or taking anything on "faith". I will continue to accept that evolution theory is correct until such a time as evidence proves it wrong.

 

[DK]

In other words if I'm no more than a higher form of animal, then a moral code is optional, not a law of a higher authority.

Wikitionary definition of an animal[/URL]]In scientific usage, a multicellular organism that is usually mobile, whose cells are not encased in a rigid cell wall (distinguishing it from plants and fungi) and which derives energy solely from the consumption of other organisms (distinguishing it from plants).
EXAMPLES:
A cat is an animal, not a plant.
Humans are also animals, under the scientific definition, as we are not plants.

According to Wikitionary, we're animals. Live with it.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

I am adopting a position where I am willing to accept whatever the evidence (past, present and future) might tell me. I am not "assuming" anything, or taking anything on "faith". I will continue to accept that evolution theory is correct until such a time as evidence proves it wrong.

If the evidence is still as yet inconclusive, tell me how your acceptance of it to be factual, could be considered anything but faith and assumption?

 

[Exorcet]

If the evidence is still as yet inconclusive, tell me how your acceptance of it to be factual, could be considered anything but faith and assumption?

But the evidence is not inconclusive. If this was a debate about whether or not the Earth was round, you'd be arguing that it can't be proven until someone flew into space and a went around the entire planet. Yet it was known to be round centuries before that happened.

If we were arguing about what material made up the Sun, you'd argue that know one could know because it's impossible to land on and dissect. Yet, we can tell by spectral emissions.

Evolution has been proved by "spectral emissions" too, we don't need to sit and watch one species become another over 5 million years (although, we've seen micro-evolution over human life spans) when we can trace species through genes, fossils, etc.

In other words if I'm no more than a higher form of animal, then a moral code is optional, not a law of a higher authority.

Or, just use reason to figure out that if you treat people bad, they probably won't like you. That's enough reason for a moral code. Atheists don't go around shooting people up just because they're atheists, and the religiously devout have not always been perfect.

 

[Touring Mars]

The evidence is not at all inconclusive and to suggest it is is willful ignorance. Show me one single piece of evidence that falsifies the theory that all present day species are related by descent, and I'll gladly alter my view accordingly. The evidence - if you bothered to look at it - unequivocally supports the view that all species are related by common descent.

If you insist on using the term "assumption" then atleast do us the courtesy of using the term fairly - it may well be an assumption that no contradictory evidence will be found, but it is a fair assumption to make because of what the evidence we have already found tells us. Making assumptions is perfectly valid so long as you have good reason to make them - but it is quite wrong to say that evolution theory itself is an assumption, or that accepting it is true is somehow an "assumption". It is, however, not an assumption at all to say that no contradictory evidence has been found yet - that is a plain fact.

As for "faith", I've addressed that already and I fail to see how it is fair or anywhere near accurate to describe acceptance of evolution theory in terms of "belief" or "faith", when scientific theories are by their very nature falsifiable and continually challenged by new evidence. Having "faith" that it is true means being blind to whatever evidence there might be that says differently. On the contrary, and as I've said several times already, science is the complete opposite of that - it is compelled to consider all evidence, so I wish you would stop insinuating otherwise.

But the evidence is not inconclusive. If this was a debate about whether or not the Earth was round, you'd be arguing that it can't be proven until someone flew into space and a went around the entire planet. Yet it was known to be round centuries before that happened.

If we were arguing about what material made up the Sun, you'd argue that know one could know because it's impossible to land on and dissect. Yet, we can tell by spectral emissions.

Evolution has been proved by "spectral emissions" too, we don't need to sit and watch one species become another over 5 million years (although, we've seen micro-evolution over human life spans) when we can trace species through genes, fossils, etc.

QFT

 

[Dotini]

Show me one single piece of evidence that falsifies the theory that all present day species are related by descent, and I'll gladly alter my view accordingly. The evidence - if you bothered to look at it - unequivocally supports the view that all species are related by common descent.

Touring Mars, I accept the theory of evolution as the best current explanation of the descent of species. But I am curious as to what would constitute evidence of a species unrelated by common descent? What might this look like, if it were to pop up?

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

 

[Touring Mars]

Touring Mars, I accept the theory of evolution as the best current explanation of the descent of species. But I am curious as to what would constitute evidence of a species unrelated by common descent? What might this look like, if it were to pop up?

Respectfully yours,
Dotini

There are many ways that the theory of common descent could be falsified, for example if a species were to be found that didn't share any genes with any other organism, contained any "genetic" material that wasn't consistent with the universal genetic code (i.e. it contained a different type of nucleotide than those found elsewhere in the natural world), or a species that possessed an even slightly different biochemical make-up in some other ways.

As to what such an "unrelated" species might look like, I'd hazard a guess and say that it probably wouldn't look unusual at all - given the incredible diversity of the living world that is "related"!

 

[SuperCobraJet]

But the evidence is not inconclusive. If this was a debate about whether or not the Earth was round, you'd be arguing that it can't be proven until someone flew into space and a went around the entire planet. Yet it was known to be round centuries before that happened.

We've already covered all this. The earth being round was proven centuries ago and is conclusively provable at anytime in realtime demonstrably and observably. Evolution cannot be. It is only speculated as being factual in the abstract. All evidence of the same category, regaurding reproduction is contrary to evolution.

If we were arguing about what material made up the Sun, you'd argue that know one could know because it's impossible to land on and dissect. Yet, we can tell by spectral emissions.

Evolution has been proved by "spectral emissions" too, we don't need to sit and watch one species become another over 5 million years (although, we've seen micro-evolution over human life spans) when we can trace species through genes, fossils, etc.

You need to add "speculative emissions" to your repertoire. Thats precisely what they are.

Or, just use reason to figure out that if you treat people bad, they probably won't like you. That's enough reason for a moral code.

For most of us, however in case you haven't noticed, some people are not concerned with whether you like them or not.

Atheists don't go around shooting people up just because they're atheists, and the religiously devout have not always been perfect.

No one regaurdless of affiliation, can legitimately claim absolute moral purity.
Goes without saying.

 

[Touring Mars]

We've already covered all this. The earth being round was proven centuries ago and is conclusively provable at anytime in realtime demonstrably and observably. Evolution cannot be.

You couldn't be more wrong.

 

[SuperCobraJet]

The evidence is not at all inconclusive and to suggest it is is willful ignorance. Show me one single piece of evidence that falsifies the theory that all present day species are related by descent, and I'll gladly alter my view accordingly. The evidence - if you bothered to look at it - unequivocally supports the view that all species are related by common descent.

Just by virtue of the fact evolution is subject to refutability is clear and I would say conclusve of it's inconclusive claims and vulnerabilities of evidence. It can, as pointed out, only be considered factual in the abstract.
This factor is precisely what makes it vulnerable to refutability. In other words its in reality, only one possibility, a far cry from irrefutable fact.

We already covered all this. There is evidence of similarity and commonality of make up. Your view that the evidence unequivocally supports the view that all species are "related by common descent" is only supportive if you assume "common descent" as the only possibility. You may consider that assumption insignificant, I don't. In view of what is demonstrable, and observable as far back as reasonably determinable, I contend there is no legitimate reason to make that assumption. To do so is to declare one inconclusive possiblity as "the only possibility". Sorry, but I don't consider that "science". It certainly isn't "exact science".

If you insist on using the term "assumption" then atleast do us the courtesy of using the term fairly - it may well be an assumption that no contradictory evidence will be found, but it is a fair assumption to make because of what the evidence we have already found tells us. Making assumptions is perfectly valid so long as you have good reason to make them - but it is quite wrong to say that evolution theory itself is an assumption, or that accepting it is true is somehow an "assumption". It is, however, not an assumption at all to say that no contradictory evidence has been found yet - that is a plain fact.

As for "faith", I've addressed that already and I fail to see how it is fair or anywhere near accurate to describe acceptance of evolution theory in terms of "belief" or "faith", when scientific theories are by their very nature falsifiable and continually challenged by new evidence. Having "faith" that it is true means being blind to whatever evidence there might be that says differently. On the contrary, and as I've said several times already, science is the complete opposite of that - it is compelled to consider all evidence, so I wish you would stop insinuating otherwise.

Obviously we don't agree on many things. An assumption is an assumption. It proves, validates and/or substantiates nothing.

As already stated, evidences for evolution suggest the possibilities, but like assumption are incapable of conclusively proving, validating, or substantiating the claim.

 

[Famine]

Just by virtue of the fact evolution is subject to refutability is clear and I would say conclusve of it's inconclusive claims and vulnerabilities of evidence. It can, as pointed out, only be considered factual in the abstract.
This factor is precisely what makes it vulnerable to refutability. In other words its in reality, only one possibility, a far cry from irrefutable fact.

We already covered all this. There is evidence of similarity and commonality of make up. Your view that the evidence unequivocally supports the view that all species are "related by common descent" is only supportive if you assume "common descent" as the only possibility. You may consider that assumption insignificant, I don't. In view of what is demonstrable, and observable as far back as reasonably determinable, I contend there is no legitimate reason to make that assumption. To do so is to declare one inconclusive possiblity as "the only possibility". Sorry, but I don't consider that "science". It certainly isn't "exact science".

[...]

Obviously we don't agree on many things. An assumption is an assumption. It proves, validates and/or substantiates nothing.

As already stated, evidences for evolution suggest the possibilities, but like assumption are incapable of conclusively proving, validating, or substantiating the claim.

All of which fundamentally misunderstands the way science works. Science only ever makes one assumption - that the observed is completely independent of the mechanism proposed to explain it. It then works to prove that assumption - yes, you read that right, science works to prove that what we see isn't caused by what we think it is. It doesn't make a claim and seek to prove, validate and/or substantiate the claim.

As I said many posts ago:

So long as you're redefining "belief", "science", "evidence" and "evolution" in your head to suit your own requirements and desires you will never see that you're wrong.

I note with some chagrin that you have attempted to redefine "belief", "evidence" and "evolution" and been rebutted and are now attempting to redefine "science".

 

[Touring Mars]

Just by virtue of the fact evolution is subject to refutability is clear and I would say conclusve of it's inconclusive claims and vulnerabilities of evidence. It can, as pointed out, only be considered factual in the abstract. This factor is precisely what makes it vulnerable to refutability. In other words its in reality, only one possibility, a far cry from irrefutable fact.

Evolution theory is refutable because it is a scientific theory, but the fact that it hasn't been refuted is a simple one that you are consistently ignoring.

When you say it is far from "irrefutable fact", you are once again demonstrating your confusion over what a scientific theory is. Evolution theory is not irrefutable, but it hasn't been successfully refuted. Refutable does not equal refuted.

Your view that the evidence unequivocally supports the view that all species are "related by common descent" is only supportive if you assume "common descent" as the only possibility. You may consider that assumption insignificant, I don't. In view of what is demonstrable, and observable as far back as reasonably determinable, I contend there is no legitimate reason to make that assumption. To do so is to declare one inconclusive possiblity as "the only possibility".

I don't know where you are getting some of these ideas from, but you are so far off the mark it's incredible... The scientific community has never considered common descent as the only possibility. To suggest otherwise is as factually incorrect as you can possibly be (do you see a pattern forming here?). The common descent hypothesis arose long before the hereditary material was even identified, but it was just one of many ideas. And as the hypothesis gained evidential support, more questions arose - such as how many 'seats' or 'roots' the tree of life has etc. Today, with the evidence that we now have available, the common descent hypothesis remains the single best explanation for the evidence. But you are simply wrong to think that the idea of universal common descent was ever considered by anyone (let alone me) as "the only possibility".

Another "possibility" is that species don't change over time, and that all present day species have always been around for the entire history of the planet. But this hypothesis is inconsistent with the evidence - notably the total lack of modern day animal skeleton fossils in rocks over a certain age, and the presence of fossils of species that no longer exist in those same rocks. These hypotheses are still popular with creationists, despite the evidence that contradicts them. But once upon a time, this hypothesis was a legitimate one and science considered it just as seriously as anything else. But the question has been answered and the verdict is in - this hypothesis has been refuted by evidence. Common descent, on the other hand, has not - and of all the "possibilities" that science has considered, it has emerged as by far and away the most robust.

But, I suspect that it will remain beyond the interest of those who are determined to see the world the way they want to see it.

 

[Exorcet]

We've already covered all this. The earth being round was proven centuries ago and is conclusively provable at anytime in realtime demonstrably and observably. Evolution cannot be. It is only speculated as being factual in the abstract. All evidence of the same category, regaurding reproduction is contrary to evolution.

There is no evidence contrary to evolution that has been found. There is only supporting evidence, like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peppered_moth_evolution

I also found this fitting (even if it's already been said)

Similar confusion is involved in objections that evolution is "unproven"; strict proof is possible only in formal sciences such as logic and mathematics, not natural sciences (where the proper term is "validated"), so this is trivially true, and no more an indictment of evolution than calling it a "theory". The confusion arises, however, in that the colloquial meaning of proof is simply "compelling evidence", in which case scientists would indeed consider evolution "proven". The distinction is an important one in philosophy of science, as it relates to the lack of absolute certainty in all empirical claims, not just evolution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_just_a_theory.2C_not_a_fact



And here's another anti Evolution argument that has been swatted in the same manner as in this thread.

Evolution is a religion
Further information: Relationship between religion and science, Scientism
Creationists commonly argue against evolution on the grounds that "evolution is a religion; it is not a science". The purpose of this criticism is to undermine the higher ground biologists claim in debating creationists, and to reframe the debate from being between science (evolution) and religion (creationism) to being between two equally religious beliefs – or even to argue that evolution is religious while intelligent design is not. Those that oppose evolution frequently refer to supporters of evolution as "Evolutionists" or "Darwinists".

The arguments for evolution being a religion generally amount to arguments by analogy: it is argued that evolution and religion have one or more things in common, and that therefore evolution is a religion. Examples of claims made in such arguments are statements that evolution is based on faith, that supporters of evolution revere Darwin as a prophet, and that supporters of evolution dogmatically reject alternative suggestions out-of-hand. These claims have become more popular in recent years as the neocreationist movement has sought to distance itself from religion, thus giving it more reason to make use of a seemingly anti-religious analogy.

In response, supporters of evolution have argued that no scientist's claims, including Darwin's, are treated as sacrosanct, as shown by the aspects of Darwin's theory that have been rejected or revised by scientists over the years, to form first Neo-Darwinism and later the modern evolutionary synthesis. The claim that evolution relies on faith, often based on the idea that evolution has never been observed, is likewise rejected on the grounds that evolution has strong supporting evidence, and therefore does not require faith.

In general, the argument that evolution is religious has been rejected on the grounds that religion is not defined by how dogmatic or zealous its adherents are, but by its spiritual or supernatural beliefs. Evolutionary supporters point out evolution is neither dogmatic nor based on faith, and they accuse creationists of equivocating between the strict definition of religion and its colloquial usage to refer to anything that is enthusiastically or dogmatically engaged in. U.S. courts have also rejected this objection:

Assuming for the purposes of argument, however, that evolution is a religion or religious tenet, the remedy is to stop the teaching of evolution, not establish another religion in opposition to it. Yet it is clearly established in the case law, and perhaps also in common sense, that evolution is not a religion and that teaching evolution does not violate the Establishment Clause.[43]

A related claim is that evolution is atheistic; creationists sometimes merge the two claims and describe evolution as an "atheistic religion" (cf. humanism).[39] This argument against evolution is also frequently generalized into a criticism of all science; it is argued that "science is an atheistic religion", on the grounds that its methodological naturalism is as unproven, and thus as "faith-based", as the supernatural and theistic beliefs of creationism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution#Evolution_is_a_religion