eidolon:
"Fruit flies mutated over thousands of generations remain fruit flies."
But a different *type* of fruit fly. One which will not or cannot interbreed with the original. This is speciation. Are you saying that because the scientists didn't breed them into kumquats, evolution is impossible? That would take more time than is possible for an experiment. And even in that case, you could still say something like, "but the nth generation is the same kind as the (n-1)th generation!"
"Minor deleterious mutations concerning wing structure was observed, but when radiation was removed subsequent generations reverted to previous form."
I'm not sure which studies you are referring to, but what about the studies where scientists exposed fruit flies to different types of food, and observed allele changes leading to non-interbreeding variations? No radiation here. And a population reverting to a previous form when a selective pressure is removed is evidence *for* evolution, not against.
"Evolution does NOT past muster as a scientific theory because it cannot be observed or falsified."
Speciation HAS been observed. And if you could come up with a fossil, for example, which was out of place in the fossil record, that would falsify evolution. Evolution does make predictions. Remember the pan/homo chromosome 2 fusion? That would have been a beautiful opportunity for evolution to be falsified.
"Adaptation is a conservative process which results in a loss of genetic information, not a gain."
What exactly is "genetic information"? If there is DNA duplication, there is more "information" in the sequence, right? What do you mean by a conservative process? Why do you say it has to result in a loss? Do you mean that outliers of a population are less likely to survive? That is not always true. One of the cornerstones of evolution is the idea of the necessity for genetic diversity. Important example of this: cheetahs.
"The magical acquisition of genetic traits where there was no precursor has never been observed."
Of course not. Everything came from something. Everything adapted from something. Where did that first something come from? That's abiogenesis, not evolution. And I know you're just being facetious there, but "magical acquisition" is the hallmark of creationism, not evolution.
"Benevolent mutations which advance a species to a more complex one has naver been observed."
What do you mean by complex? All life is complex. How do we compare it, especially with small changes? Benevolent mutations have been observed. Examples: disease resistance, people with unusually strong bones.
The fact is, whether you believe in evolution or creation, neither of them have scientific validity.
There is literally NO way to "disprove" creationism, as you can always say, "oh, God made it look that way," in regards to any contrary evidence. As I mentioned before, evolution is falsifiable.
Evolutionists arrange things and say "They must have happened this way, so they did." Circumstance and interpretation does not constitute fact.
They actually say, "there is no evidence that has been found which contradicts the idea that it happened this way, so we may believe it until contrary evidence comes up." That's the way science works. ALL theories (gravitational, atomic, quantum, germ, cell, and so on) are interpretations of gathered facts.
Religion requires the belief in something without conclusive ovidence[sic] of it, and in that respect though it may have it's[sic] base in science, evolution is very much a religion.
No. It is not. The definition of "religion" is not "the belief in something without conclusive evidence of it." If it were, ALL theories of science would be religions. Nothing in science is ever 100% conclusive, only supported by all available gathered data. Also, "belief" in this context is a loaded word. A much better word would be "acceptance."
The simple scientific fact is this: There is NO viable scientific explanation for origination.
Again, that's abiogenesis, not evolution. And you have somewhat of a point there. There are many current conflicting hypotheses of how life began. We don't know everything. That's science. That's life.
