Juvenal
Radical strawberry
If folks will pardon my late arrival, I'd like to be sure I'm still tracking with the o/p.
You always want to stick with agreed-upon definitions, but this one is troublesome. There's evolution, which we all agree occurs, and the theory of evolution, which encompasses both the processes by which evolution occurs, and the tentative conclusions, or not-so-tentatitive conclusions that arise from examining those processes.
So when we ask if evolution is even a theory, the immediate answer is obviously not. Evolution is a fact. But there is also a robust theory of evolution which we can charitably grant was the intended topic of the o/p.
That theory includes hypotheses of greater or lesser certainty, some of which are sufficiently outré to be considered "not even wrong," following the exasperated expression attributed to Pauli. Those portions could be considered "not even a theory" of evolution.
But one of the not-so-tentative conclusions of the theory of evolution is universal common descent. One of the consequences of universal common descent is that our species also descended from universal common ancestors. And that, if I'm reading the o/p correctly, is the theory of the evolution of man from single-celled organisms the o/p would like to examine.
It should be noted that this restriction would probably be considered grossly inappropriate by most biologists, but as I'm not a biologist ...
The modern theory of the evolution of man includes evolution by natural selection, as posited by Darwin himself, while explicitly contradicting his theory of blended inheritance in favor of Mendelian inheritance.
Fossil evidence was indeed the best evidence for the evolution of our species from non-human species, at one time. But it has more recently been displaced since the mapping of the human genome allowed us to examine the affinities between our chromosomes and those of our closest primate relatives. Two chimp chromosomes, for example, have been renamed in acknowledgement that our chromosome 2 resulted from their fusion.
As suggested above, geology and astronomy could have shown there was insufficient time for the evolution of humans to occur.
The o/p seems to be slipping back and forth between the evolution of humans and the more general theory of evolution. Most of the fossil record is of species that are not ancestral to humans. Neither does the suggested criticism of the fossil record relate to "predictions that might ... disprove the theory."
Leaving aside more direct criticisms, it should also be noted that contrary to the chosen name of the linked website, it provides no answers for the majority of Christians. Since the inception of modern polling, it has always been the case that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, though they prefer to believe that evolution was somehow guided by their God.
Bravo.
As others in this thread have already noted, more obliquely perhaps, the independent creation of species without the advantage of evolutionary processes is neither predictive nor explanatory. To wit, it fails to predict the emergence of new species. To wit, it fails to explain the extinction of ancestral species.
Each of these events, multiply attested in the fossil record, are adequately predicted and explained by modern evolutionary theory.
That includes the theory of human evolution, from which we predict that our species will likewise become extinct, displaced by species better fit to our ever-evolving environment.
And to the last, while I make no pretensions to being a biologist, I am qualified to sit on committees minting new PhDs in mathematics, and as such, I can assure you that the probability for any event which has already occurred is exactly one.
Conversely, the probability of any event far in the future, itself the consequence of myriad random events, is infinitesimal. Yet events far in the future will certainly occur, barring the end of time itself.
Upvote
0
