"Assumptions" is a magic word

Muppets like me or credible scientists like Jonathan Sarfati?

What important contributions to science have been made by Sarfati? A review of his curriculum vitae doesn't come up with much in the way of publications.

His biography says he only "co-authored" papers in scientific literature, which is odd; if he's a PhD, he should have done at least one on his own. But I can't find any.

But you don't actually know much of anything about evolution -- you yourself have said that you don't know the evidence for it. Nor are you able to point to assumptions that evolution does not share with any other science. Creationists attack the "assumptions" behind evolution because they're convinced that it's wrong, but don't know why.

If this were not the case, we would see cogent, accurate critiques of the assumptions behind evolutionary biology. I've certainly never seen such a thing from a creationist.

You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:

animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.

You are right. I do not know exactly what is/are the assumptions of evolution. Here is where I always come to:

animals evolved from bacteria and bacteria evolved from organic molecules. These may not be the correct basic assumptions of evolution. But, I can certainly argue a little bit on the negative side of them. Somewhere in the argument, the true assumption(s) of evolution must show up.

Thinking through the basics of evolutionary theory, I am finding it remarkably difficult to come up with any assumptions. The one I can think of is not an assumption of evolutionary theory, but of all science; namely, that if the observations our theory predicts we should be able to make are in fact observed, it is likely that our theory provides a correct model of nature.

Darwin began with a couple of observations and a couple of inferences and came to a conclusion. Most of evolutionary theory would seem to consist of the same ingredients.

Your first is a conclusion, not an assumption. The second is neither a conclusion nor an assumption of evolution. Evolution makes no assumption about where life came from. I think it is an assumption that bacteria evolved from simpler living cells, but that assumption has little effect on the study of evolution.

So, is there any assumption in the theory of evolution? If yes, what is it?

We assume that we exist.

We assume that the universe exists.

We assume that things happened as they appear to have happened. What I mean by that is that we don't take into consideration ideas like, "it was all created 5 minutes ago with the appearance of history".