First, welcome aboard!
Second, to call evolution a fact is a defendable position. Evolution as a physical process is something we can observe
in the fossil record, in the environment, & in the lab. As an explanation for the evolution we observe, evolution is a
theory which explains things so thoroughly & with such predictive value, that it's reasonable to argue that it rises to
the level of "fact".
I understand that some are enthusiastic about claims of evolutionary theory being a best representative of fact. It may be defendable, but only because of adaptation. Without adaptation there can be evolution. Evolution stands on the back of adaptation. Evolution has declared, tentatively at times,... that it is depending on things to bear itself out. Do you think people pointing out the lack of a fossil record that speaks definitively of evolution as fact are not scientific? You know a well as I there have been hoaxes, based on bones, teeth, etc. It's not like evolution is a hero with no chocolate smudged on its face. I beg to differ, what you say is well founded in findings is not above scrutiny. I don't think evolutionists really want to discuss the issue of fossils. I would say, merely referring to fossil proof, where's the data to give substance to your being convinced as you are. My position is the fossil record is not in support of evolution's claims. It isn't. We can deal with this in detail if you'd like. In that, along with what's being discussed on the organic side of the debate, evolution has no effective means to overcome certain observations. What's real, being fully aware of the implications evolution doesn't fair well when debated scientifically. You would think that would be evolution's strength. It isn't. Notwithstanding, it's bandied about as impeccable in its presentation. There are more holes in the theory than claiming it is the answer can tolerate. Evolutionists discount what the man on the street would shake his head and wonder? Sometimes, the man on the street has a better grasp on things with common sense than scientists who swear up and down this is true, because science says so. It depends whose sitting at the wheel my friend. You ought to know there's politics, positions in educational institutions, etc. with evolution. Evolution has an entire system behind it, yet it doesn't fare well at all under the weight of observation and scrutiny of its claims. We can discuss anything you feel has measure to affirm evolution as a standard to be captivated by.
Mutation, reproduction & survival of the fittest (ie, evolution) is used extensively by engineers in
designing new products & solving problems. Similarly, the theory of gravity is useful & factual, although in some
circumstances it is replaced with the theory of general relativity.
Your thought on what engineers use to design new products, solve problems, etc. are based on the mathematical construct that support the development of their creations. Mutation is tracked to mean transformation on a holistic level of an organism. Mutation is stretched a bit too much in that regard. Mutation is in adaptation, where the environment an organisms interact with affect. You lift weights you gain muscle, etc. You don't become another species by lifting weights for 50 million years. You'll still be what you are today with thick muscle. Your head will not change, etc. Mutation is a matter of adaptation, notwithstanding you can argue if you'd like that its evolution.
What is performed to create products, etc. is counter to evolution's claims. Evolution applies to chance entirely. Engineers know you can't build a jet engine with glass. Engineers know, no matter what there is no way to work glass to endure the pressures a jet engine generates. Evolution stipulates change over vast periods of time. That requires nature to correctly orchestrate outcomes of adaptation to change. The transformations would be all over the place to support the idea. In other words, all of the debris from purported changes of one species to another is absent. And, if organisms of single cell complexity become what we are by chance, whose going to buy the odds the same can be duplicated in 20,000,000 millions years or more. All the time the morphing was purportedly occurring would have to be developing capacities environment could not sponsor. Nature could not sponsor or prepare living creatures for anti-life. Diseases would have to be precisely balanced to maintain evolution's flow. What would you say if I asked, which came first the immune system or the disease? What would be your answer to that? Evolution does not fit the construct required for living creatures to endure the ravages of disease agents. Evolution would have to claim parallel development of enemy micro-organisms and the body's ability to ward them and their effects off. You know what they tell you about babies, "Do not expose them to the outer environment for a few months. Keep them wrapped, etc. It's the "Don't go near the water" dictim that was also true in the ancient ancient times. Evolution would have had to anticipate creating anti-organisms, in coincidence with what you think is the foundation of your existence. You're standing on shaky grounds. What I've just written is a bear to explain from an evolutionary point of view. If you'd like to try to debate what I've written on disease and defense in coincidence with one another. To say that would mean nature could anticipate a scenario beyond the mere generation of life, it would also be the architect of anti-life. That kind of thing is what you have to think about when telling me evolution is factually established. It is factually established in the minds of individuals who don't deal with items that are being presented in this string. I''ve read some of AlterEgo's material. She's writing fact like I'm writing fact. Folks who have problems with the facts come back with all kind of mental screwball antics. Some folks aren't overtaken by what folks in the dark on a matter have to say. Facts speak louder than words. What engineers do is fit together what can be fitted together. Engineers cannot create a product that is in opposition to itself. Disease and life are in opposition to one another. I'm not disposed to be leaning with the crowd who swear evolution was smart enough to create that dynamic. It's funny to me for folks to go that far in a shaky line of arguments.
The numbers have no opinion on the matter. But if you'd like to venture a probabilistic argument, please do.
