Evolution isn't even a scientific theory.
Right. It's an observed phenomenon. Evolutionary theory is the scientific theory that explains it.
As per Wikipedia, "A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested and verified in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment."
Right. It's why the theory is a theory, rather than a hypothesis. Every hypothesis must be testable. So evolutionary theory made some testable claims:
1. Fitness tends to increase in a population in a new environment. Confirmed
2. There should be all sorts of transitional forms in the fossil record. As YE creationist Kurt Wise admits, the many transitional forms are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory." Confirmed
3. There should be feathered dinosaurs in the fossil record. Confirmed.
4. The DNA of dinosaurs should be most like that of birds, rather than like that of modern reptiles. Experimentally Confirmed.
5. There should be transitional forms between humans and other primates. Confirmed
6. There should be lots of vague boundaries between species. Confirmed.
7. Genetics should show common ancestry of all living things on Earth. Confirmed.
And so on...
Lots more if anyone needs to see more.
Also per Wikipedia on evolution, "Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations...
Yep. Change in allele frequency in populations over time.
All life on Earth shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA)."
Yep. See above.
NEVER has it been observed, measured, repeated by experiment, etc... where all life arose from a LUCA.
Several different ways. Smith and Margolis experimentally veryified this by DNA analysis:
This is only speculated and concluded, which is conjecture (definition of conjecture: "an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information").
See above. You've been misled about that. You're relying far too much on your own opinion, and not enough on the evidence.
Evolution is nothing more than a mental framework, a paradigm, a presuppositional 'lens' by which evidence is interpreted.
It's directly observed. Changes in allele frequency occur constantly, and are frequently recorded. Even speciation has been directly observed. Would you like me to show you that?
The fossil record does not support evolution from a LUCA,
Your fellow YE creationist, Kurt Wise thinks it does. But he has a doctorate in paleontology, so he perhaps knows a little more than you do about it.
See above. That's just for animals, but it works for all known living things. Would you like me to show you that?
All the fossil record shows is already complex life
Nope. The oldest fossils are single cells with no nucleus. Nucleated cells show up later. And then, in the Precambrian, we start to see multi-celled organisms, that diversify widely in the Cambrian. You were misled on that.
with various life forms going extinct over time and similarities in DNA only shows that similar DNA sequence results in similar design, function, and purpose.
If you were right, sharks and dolphins would have very similar DNA, as would bats and birds (but not ostriches and penguins). But penguins and eagles have closer DNA, and dolphins and bats have closer DNA, confirming evolutionary theory.
The evidence is not mutually exclusive to the idea that all life grew in complexity through an unguided, random process.
Darwin's great discovery was that it is not a random process.
What is observable is that life that already exists can have variability, but evolution does not explain how that life arose in the first place.
The theory makes no predictions about the way life began. It assumes living things, and explains how they diversified. Darwin wrote that God created the first living things.
Well, you got that right, at least. Darwin would approve.
