Your definition of science is non-existant. I can just as easily tell you the same things.
Well I gave several definitions, and there are several, but there is an overarching idea that they all share.
systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
And here comes in your understanding what is meant with observation and experimentation. Because evolution (as for example Robert pointed out) is both observed and experimented with. The fact that you cannot see human go from ape ancestor to now doesn't change anything. Just how we haven't actually seen gamma radiation with our own eyes, but only detect it via secondary means.
ExDeus, you've repeatedly mentioned creatures adapting to back up evolution, so if evolution has nothing to do with that, you are contradicting yourself. Make up your mind.
There again is difference between "adaption" in biology (and evolution) and "adaption" in the layman's terms which you were actually using. Using a coat is adaption in layman's terms, because you are making a conscious decision towards a goal. It's not like a coat spontaneously generated around you. No, you either made it or bought it, and then you wore it. You adapted to outside world, but you made an effort to do that. Here is evolutionary definition:
1. Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby an organism becomes better able to live in its habitat or habitats.
) What here is meant that the organism doesn't actually decide that it will adapt to survive. What it means is that certain individuals in the population have the traits to survive in a specific habitat while others do not. An example of evolution and adaption:
Take flies and put them in a box with air, food and anything else they would need to survive and procreate. At certain temperature flies would die immediate - for example, at -10C they would probably die pretty fast if put there from room temperature. But if you lower the temperature slowly (very slow, over hundreds or even thousands of generations) then this is what will happen - Flies that are more resistant to colder temperatures will live longer than those who are not suited. That mean the ones more resistant will procreate more and their descendants will also be more resistant (as it will be more likely that both parents have this mutation). After hundreds or thousands of generations they will be able to survive at cold temperature, because even though maybe 0.1% at the beginning were capable of that, in the end 100% will be. So they evolved and adapted to the habitat via the evolution. The reason for their survival could even be a "coat" - as in more hairy flies would be the ones more resistant to cold. This would also make them a new species - a hairy cold resistant fly. They would also be physically (visibly) changed. So they "adapted", but trough evolution and random mutations. If none of them had these mutations, they would die out (go extinct). If the temperature change was very drastic (like taking from room temperature into -10C), then they would also all die out even if there was some individuals who had the mutation, because of the speed of the event it would not be possible for the right individuals to procreate and the mutation that gives the resistance to cold could also be primary only over time (many generations). I could probably even program this as an example in ENIGMA.
What was this shit you were saying about science not based on visual evidense?
And it's not. Observation, again, doesn't mean LOOKING. You keep using your own basic vocabulary and jump to conclusions. None of the words you keep using have the definitions you think they have in the context we use. For example, definition of observation:
Observation is the active acquisition of information from a primary source
Thus, nothing specifically to do with visual evidence. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observation#Observation_in_science
And science doesn't need to be tested in order to be declared science?
It does need to be tested. I never said it doesn't need to be. But your understanding of "testing" or "experimentation" is very limited as you don't get what induction and deduction means. Many (I would say up to 99%) of hypothesis cannot be tested directly, so they are instead tested indirectly by knowing relationships (which theories and hypothesis describe) between things.
Mutations have never been proven to cause anything positive or hereditary such as a species becoming dominant or survive longer than other species.
There have been countless examples (even posted here) on the contrary.
Mutations can never be passed on to the next generation, so who are you fooling here?
What? Do you know what a mutation even is? How the hell you think it cannot be passed to the next generation? You do know, that for example, eye color is a mutation. One has green, others has blue. If both parents have blue eyes it is a lot more likely that the child will also have blue eyes, because they passed that mutation to their next generation. On the other hand it is possible that the child has a different mutation and eye color doesn't match. For example, all my family has blue eyes while I am the only one with green. Even my grandparents doesn't have green eyes. So I have a mutation that I didn't inherit. But my children have a pretty large chance to inherit green eyes from me.
This is an issue I have, if this is the case, then why are we not amongst some of our already evolving ancestors.
40k in evolutionary terms is drop in an ocean. People usually have problems with large numbers and understanding the scale of evolutionary time. There are subtle changes from people that lived 40k years ago, but of course there isn't much that has changed. Just like Cambrian explosion. I have seen some movies where creationists use it as an example why evolution is wrong. They say that it's impossible that number of species increased so fast, as the length of time is only about 20minutes in earths lifetime (if we take earth's life as 24 hours). But the thing is these 20minutes is still 80million years. And even 80million years divided by 40k you were mentioning is 2000. So that evolutionary stage took 2000 times more. So in the end evolution is extremely slow process and it works only because we can take hundreds of millions of years into account. 40k or even 100k is drop in an ocean on this scale.
The big bang is a theory because a large majority of scientists can not recreate the same experiment and get the same results consistently proving the big bang
Actually scientist do recreate same experiments with consistent results. That is why big bang is also "theory" in the scientific sense - as in everyone agrees that it most probably happened - or alternatively - as close to fact as possible. Like we know pretty detailedly what happened less than fraction of a second after the big bang. Knowing what happened before this fraction is still the open question and that is why we build very expensive machines.
Now gravity is a scientific law because it has been tested by many scientists and regular people over and over again with the same equations and always yielded the same results.
In science it actually still is theory. I already pointed out what is law and theory in science. Gravity is defined by general relativity theory, not by general relativity law. We of course do know that it works and in layman's terms it is a law. But scientifically, it is a theory.
So i think it's a little bold to say there is no difference between theory and facts.
In science theory and fact and law are often used interchangeably. There are subtle differences, but overall they doesn't make one less true than the other. And theories try to explain observations and make predictions. I guess using "facts" in any context is quite bold because of the misunderstanding people might get.
often belong to 'clans', with their 'dogmas
I don't like seeing these words in scientific context. Because while of course people do fight new ideas, scientists are the ones who are the most open minded. They are the ones having no problems changing their understanding when new facts arise. They don't care about being "right" before, they care about being "right" right now. That means you can propose a revolutionary idea, and if it has any evidence behind, they will accept it. That is why every theory is tested. For example, when some Italians (or whatever) made headlines by creating "cold fusion" reactor, most scientists of course were skeptical, as they know that such a device is probably impossible. Yet, they didn't have problems performing tests on their machine or read their paper on it. Of course scientists ended up being right, as their reactor was most probably not a cold fusion reactor. But it does show how every theory is tested when it makes sense to do so, even if it contradicts our current understanding. They don't hold on to their dogmas. They hold on to what they know. If someone says something they don't know, then they listen. Giving credit and listening to others is very important in science. I have never seen a scientist who has been ridiculed for a theory if the theory is in any way valid/probable.
But what is a billion micro-evolutions? Couldn't it then be macro-evolution?