Is biological evolution not a fact?
It's an observable phenomenon that doesn't even come close to explaining where life began or why it struggles to survive and reproduce.
Evolution is not an observable phenomenon. Do not be deceived. The only thing we may know for certain from the physical evidence is that specious of roughly increasing complexity have appeared over time and some have gone extinct. Naturalists/materialists do not observe common ancestry; they presuppose it. There is absolutely nothing in the fossil record or in the science of genetics that falsifies a biological history of common design over time. Hocus Pocus.
To begin with, the actual debates and the supporting data concerning evolutionary theory have been exhaustively detailed. This is among the reasons it remains so strange to see how consistently ID'iot creationists misrepresent the content and the nature of the debate.
Evolution is clearly an observable phenomenon. You might consider a night class at a junior college to become familiar with science terms and definitions. Observable aspects of evolution include heritable genetic change, morphological change as in the influenza virus for just one example, functional change such as the natural selection acting on the peppered moth, all are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent. It is one of the triumphs of evolutionary proof that so many completely independent sources of proof support and reconcile with each other.
The evidence that historical evolution has occurred - that organisms have changed substantially over the course of hundreds of millions of years - comes from a combination of examination of the fossil record and studies of genetics and the geographical distribution of modern organisms. Biologists find this evidence to be overwhelmingly in favor of not only the historical occurrence of biological evolution but the common descent of all known life.
It is fascinating to notice that ID'iot creationists make much of the way our understanding of our own ancestry has been adjusted over time to accommodate new fossil evidence. And yet they never seem to notice that if creationism were true, there
shouldn’t be any of that fossil evidence to require accommodation.
Adaptation within a species is observable. Variations within a species is observable. The fossil record merely shows that there were once a wider variety of animals that have since gone extinct (like the doe doe bird) for one reason or another. The evolutionist insists on believing that such are ancestral. There is no hands-down proof for any of that. Evolutionists love to slander creationists because they are an easy target ----- Creationists don't keep moving from their goal posts. Namely, that each KIND was uniquely created specifically over a period of 6 literal days in the not too distant past. And that man was the last living thing designed and created by GOD ---- the only one created in GOD's own image. Additionally, sin corrupted that creation and a FLOOD of epic proportions completely changed the landscape of this planet (if not that of the entire universe).
I think what you’re missing is that evilutionists don’t need
belief to find progression of change in ancestral species. That data comes from the fossil record.
I have to note that creationers have been unable to specify what the created ''kinds'' are. If kinds were unique, it should be easy to distinguish between them. Instead, we find a nested hierarchy of similarities with kinds within kinds within kinds. Among the more complete fossil records is that of the horse.
Which of the fossil horse ‘kinds’ was the horse that most closely resembled those which Noah put on the Ark? How do you account for the diversity of horse "kinds" in just a few thousand years? Consider the absurdity of the “kinds” argument: the horse could be placed in the horse kind, the mammal kind, the four legged mammal kind, the four legged Zebra horse kind or any of dozens of other kinds of kinds, depending on how inclusive the kind is. No matter where you set the cutoff for how inclusive a kind is, there will be many groups just bordering on that cutoff.
There is yet other, obvious problems. The planet is far older than 6,000 years. There was no global flood 4,000 years ago. The fossil horse record is far older than 4,000 years.
There is another obvious argument that refutes the Biblical account of Arks and floods 4,000 years ago. That is, no matter how any pairs of animals survived the ark (space constraints, total number of animals, etc.) two breeding pairs could never continue after they were released. Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason: inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes; the high incidence of homozygous genes which resolves to high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage.
Now, following that same theme, the Ark fable tells us that Noah and his immediate family were left after the cruise to repopulate the planet. That tells us of familial and incestuous relations to build the human population. See above about homozygous genes.
