The theory of evolution that is, the part that says, "All life descended from one universal common ancestor", is based entirely on an idea, which is based on the presupposition that it must be true, based entirely on assumptions, guesswork, and made up stories designed as evidence to support observed facts.
Their best example for evolution from one LUCA is purely conjecture
These are both incorrect. We have mountains of supporting evidence for those claims.
But I wouldn't expect you to know what supports those conclusions, so for you, of course it's all guessing just you're guessing that a god is responsible.
There is no evidence for the theory of evolution, regarding all life arising from one common ancestor.
None for you, but there is for the educated.
You offer yourself as a standard or someone whose opinion should be taken seriously, but that's not going to happen as long as you keep making mistakes like these.
the Bible is not a science journal.
Yet that is where your "science" comes from.
The farmer doesn't select characteristics within a species. He selects species - with desirable characteristics. Sheesh.
Sheesh is right. You don't know enough about the science to be expressing opinions about it. Artificial selection is done by selecting individual organisms, not species. The rose or puppy that that is closer to one's goal is selected to breed is selected to breed with the previous closest. In this way, the gene pool is modified to include a greater frequency of desired alleles in a breeding subpopulation.
You don't know enough science for your opinions to be taken seriously. Man is unique among the apes for standing upright, not living in jungles or swinging through trees, being relatively hairless, intelligent enough to have language and technology, and being an omnivore, but none of that makes him not an ape from a biological perspective.
most evolution believers are just happy to believe in ridiculous claims
You believe ridiculous things, but the scientists don't. As I said, I wouldn't expect you to be able to distinguish between a sound, evidenced argument and a ridiculous claim. They look the same absent the necessary education.
One thing I disagree with, in this video, is that while humans select, which "species" they will allow to reproduce, while selectively removing those less desirable.
Does natural selection do the same?
Nature doesn't select according to desire. It selects for fecundity
If "natural selection is the simple result of variation, differential reproduction, and heredity that is mindless and mechanistic", how does selection acts on that variation in a very non-random way?
Genetic variation is random, but selection is a non-random process acting on the results of a random process.
There is also the argument that the DNA evidence, comparative anatomy, the fossil record, the geographic column, etc, is solid evidence for the theory.
And it's a very strong claim. Evolution is considered the best evidenced of the scientific theories.
Consilience - "agreement between the approaches to a topic of different academic subjects."
The theory is correct beyond reasonable doubt, meaning that your doubt, which is faith-based, is unreasoned. This is the scientific consensus, and it's considered settled science within the community of evolutionary scientists. That creationists disagree is irrelevant. They aren't part of the discussion.
But don't feel picked on or that that is because you disagree with them. They also don't care about the opinions of the scientifically literate who happen to agree with them.
I find when evolution believers are confronted with their own data, the easiest thing they seem to do, is hide their eyes, and make statements that are basically... strawman..
The data is why the theory is considered correct beyond reasonable doubt.
According to scientists, "Previous studies were unable to explain the early evolution of these insects. This has now changed with the new and much more extensive dataset that can even reconstruct the origin of the oldest lineages," Thus... The age estimation of the phylogenetic tree suggests that most of the old lineages emerged after the dinosaurs became extinct 66 million years ago. Thus, the remarkable camouflage of stick and leaf insects most probably evolved afterwards as adaptation against predatory mammals and birds. Seems there is a conflict with the data, but this is only one of many examples.
You don't seem to understand how science works, probably because unlike your faith, it is tethered to evidence. We accumulate new evidence. At any given stage, the narrative is the simplest account that unifies all relevant evidence at that time. When new evidence arises not adequately explained by the old narrative, it is modified to fit the new data set.
You seem to see that as a flaw of science.
I find it interesting that whenever someone points out to evolution believers that scientists make assumptions, and guesses, they try to deny it. They never admit that it is true. Yet, whenever there is a new study, and finding, the scientists themselves are quick to say, the previous thought, or accepted conclusion was an assumption. Take for example...
Beetles' bright colors used for camouflage instead of warning off predators
You have a very confused concept of what is going on in science and how critical thinkers think. You want them to "admit" to your wrong ideas about what each is doing. Until you get it right, of course people will reject your words.
From your link:
"NUS College Postdoctoral Fellow Eunice Tan has discovered that the bright colour patterns of beetles are not a warning signal to predators as previously believed, but actually a form of camouflage, turning an old assumption on its head. Dr Tan, along with four collaborators from Australia and Spain, examined 51 species of Australian leaf beetles in their natural habitats, and discovered that each beetle's colour pattern is similar to the host plants that the beetle lives on, suggesting that those conspicuous colours help the beetle blend in with the plants it inhabits."
That's how science works. With new evidence comes a new leading hypothesis. Before scientists were aware that the colors were camouflage, it was most likely that they were warnings to potential predators as is the case in much of the animal kingdom as with poisonous frogs. With new data, a new interpretation was called for. Hypotheses are always tentative.
Assumptions are not facts. That is my point.
You didn't need to make that point here, but you might tell your pastor that.
And assumption isn't really the correct word if it means believed as fact. Leading hypothesis is more correct. When there is more than one logically possible hypothesis and none can be ruled in or out, we keep them all although we order them according to likelihood and according to Occam's parsimony principle.
Are you not suggesting basically, that the OP is attacking the ToE, as though it will somehow make an argument for a creator God? I'm saying, no, that is not the case. What did I miss?
Your denial isn't credible. Nor is it accompanied by an alternative motive.
Of course the reason creationists attack the science is because it contradicts their faith-based beliefs, and since they have no argument in support of those beliefs, the hope is to undermine the science. If you weren't a creationist, you wouldn't have started this thread.