Evolution is a theory.The basic definition of evolution is: the change in a population's allele frequencies over time.
There are actual scenarios where it is mathematically impossible for evolution not to occur.
Take eye color, for example. If your mother has the alleles for blue eyes in both chromosomes, and your father has one blue set and one brown set, and you have two siblings with the same parents, there is no means by which genetic drift cannot have occurred
. You can't have a 1/4th ratio in a sample of six without resorting to fractions - which in the case of an allele would imply a mutation of some sort and would mean that a novel allele was formed.
That aspect of evolution is a fact. Eye color is of course not covered by a single gene, but hopefully the idea gets across.
Mutations, as they are observed readily, are also facts. As are chromosome fusion and division, and other individual incidents that drive the creation and destruction of alleles.
An allele, if you have not guessed, is a specific expression of a gene. There are at least a half dozen that govern skin color, for example (melanin content, to be more precise).
You can babble all the pseudo-science
The onus is on you to point out a part of evolution - or any theory - that is pseudo-scientific in nature. If you believe all of it is, begin with one piece.
that you want at it but that doesn't change the "detail" that it's still a theory.
This has been demonstrated to be false.
If you wish to focus your argument on common descent, which obviously is a part of evolution but cannot be directly observed on Earth for obvious reasons, you may do so.
But I expect you to either somehow disprove what I said above, ask questions if you are confused or uncertain about a point, or concede the point and explain why you know you were wrong.
You can't reproduce it (doing so would require creating another universe),
You appear to be confusing evolutionary theory and the Big Bang. If you wish to argue about the Big Bang, which has no need to draw on evolution or vice-versa, you may start a new thread.
you simply can't do more than a WAG (wild ass guess). For all we know, aliens put us here. Or the moon is really a spacecraft and we're the decendants of it.
A scientific theory requires that it be able to successfully make predictions. Claiming the Universe was created in situ last Thursday is a perfectly complete explanation. However, it provides no framework for prediction and thus is useless.
I do expect you to acknowledge or refute this point, as it is an important one. It is what distinguishes science from solipsism and other such nonsense.
You think evolution is "the explanation", okay. Don't insult the intelligence of otherwise educated people who don't have the same faith as you.
You have insulted many members of this forum by ignoring their points.
Regardless, you have demonstrated that you are not educated in this subject matter. You have your own areas of expertise, and would not appreciate it if people uneducated in your field lectured you on your own field. I expect you to show the same courtesy and respect that you would expect in that situation.
Prove that carbon has always decayed at the same rate. ALWAYS.
Given the principle of relativity, the onus is on the claimant to prove that a variation has occurred. Ever. In any situation.
Regardless, carbon dating has little to do with the geological record. The geological record is dated using isochronic mechanisms. I am perfectly willing to explain, but I expect you to state that you will read and make an attempt to understand.
Explain WHY there was so little moon dust on the moon.Creationists admitted that this was a fallacious argument nearly two decades ago.
I expect you to apologize for making such a spurious and widely disproven claim.
Based on evolutionary theory, it should have been FEET deep.
I also expect you to acknowledge that there is a difference between fields such as the following
Biology (and Evolution)
The moon dust argument has nothing to do with evolution. At all.
I expect you to acknowledge this.
Show me where in the world the fossil record actually exists. To the best of my knowledge (and collegiate geology/biology), it doesn't. Not in any one spot.
Please explain why the fact that the fossil record is held in thousands of museums and universities around the world has any sort of bearing on this argument.
I look forward to your detailed reply.