I jumped into this thread at post #416. We are now on post #553 (almost five pages)….and still NOT A SINGLE PERSON has been able to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of producing soup-to-humans evolution. The pro-evolutionist claims that micro+micro=macro happens because….well….because they say it happened….not because they have the necessary science to back it up.
As has been stated before, evolution is both a fact and a theory.
Here is the definition of evolution and the way we use it when we refer to evolution as a fact.
Evolution is the change in the inherited characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.
Short story... species change over time. This is absolutely beyond any reasonable doubt, true. Species DO change over time. It is fact. For thousands of years, people have been cultivating plants and selectively breeding animals for specific traits. You, yourself, could use the scientific method to verify it by breeding dogs, cats, tomato plants, etc with specific traits that you want to see. You could start with 1000 dogs with floppy ears, and selectively breed a group of dogs that has pointy ears within just a few generations. Its beyond stupid to say this doesn't happen. It is as factual as saying the sky is blue.
The theory of evolution, which you seem to have such a hard time with, describes HOW this happens. In order to have a biological process that accounts for everything we see, you would need a few things. 1. Some method of heredity. 2. Some sort of process that gives us variations. 3. A method by which those variations would stay with a species or be deleted.
We have those 3 things. 1. We inherit genetic material from our parents. 2. There are random mutations that occur sometimes during the DNA copying process and 3. Death. Literally, death.
Now, if we can show that those 3 pieces were discovered using the scientific method, we can say that the ToE is scientific. Regarding point 1, Gregor Mendel was probably one of the first people to put the scientific method to work on proving that we inherit traits from our parents. He used peas first and found, using the scientific method, that there was a relationship between the characteristics of offspring and the parent plants that was relatively predictable. He discovered, using the scientific method, that there was a BIOLOGICAL PROCESS at work that allowed for the passing on of specific information between parent and offspring. Later on, DNA was discovered as the vehicle by which this information was transferred from parent to offspring. The scientific method was brought to bear heavily on that to determine how it worked. Through the scientific method, we were able to determine that additions, deletions and changes within the ACGT codes caused variations in the offspring.
Regarding point 2, There are literally dozens of conditions that have been discovered (using the scientific method) that are the result of single changes within specific gene sequences which is absolute proof that changes occur in the process. Sometimes, as little as one allele change such as is the case with the most famous example, sickle cell anemia, can have huge impacts on the organism. This genetic change, found using the scientific method occurs in the HBB gene. We have also discovered, using the scientific method, that DNA similarities exist between multiple different species of animal, plant, bacteria, fungus, etc. where long, long stretches of DNA are identical, while other stretches are quite different.
Regarding point 3, This is nothing more than simple logic. Some traits are better than others in a given environment. A pure white rabbit in the jungle is not going to live long, whereas a pure white rabbit will live a long time in the arctic. You do not need to employ the scientific method to understand this. It's an observable feature of nature. If you wanted to do a study on it, just put 1000 white rabbits in the jungle and 1000 in the arctic, come back in a year and see what you've got.
It seems to me that your biggest hangup is that you just can't understand how it got from single celled life forms all the way to the complexity of life that we have today. You have to stop thinking of it in those terms, because it just makes it difficult. Take a look at the individual steps, add them up, and you can understand it. Like imagine the first organism that had a random mutation that gave it a single cell with the capability to detect light. Is this beneficial to the organism? Sure it is for many reasons. So that organism has an advantage over others of it's kind. Can you see how it would then be able to live longer to pass on that genetic piece to it's kin? Ok, great. Now, would 2 cells be better? Sure it would. Next random mutation provides 2 cells that can detect light. Organism lives longer than others of its kind. Then 3, then 5, then 100, then 1000 light sensitive cells, just keep going with it and you get a million different variations of light sensitive organs in all sorts of animal species. That is how MICRO becomes MACRO. It was the same with livers, arms, legs, brains, hearts. Don't look at the big picture and be so confused. Look at the little picture and add up the little pictures over millions of years.
Its easier to understand if you think in the following terms... You started out as 2 cells in your mothers body and look at you now. How did that happen? Lots and lots of micro changes leading to macro changes. What you are doing to us is tantamount to me saying, "you need to demonstrate how the scientific method was employed to verify that a biological process exists (or existed) that is capable of taking you from 2 cells in your mothers body to where you are today." You'd likely tell me that it was a lot of little changes over a long period of time, right? Well, what if I said it just doesn't seem possible given how different you are now from when you were just 2 cells in your mothers womb? This is where we are with you.