Should we teach both evolution and religion in school?

Hi OpticalIllusions, and welcome to the fray Why shouldn't kids be exposed to all sides of a question so they can explore the differences and make up their own minds? Then you shouldn't expose him to any, otherwise you are biasing the information being presented to benefit your views. Why not? We can teach kids that what is portrayed as "witchcraft" is actually a misrepresentation of other religions and show them what those other beliefs actually say. We can teach them to identify straw man and ad hominem logical fallacies, and encourage them to form opinions based on facts instead. Because you intend to keep him from the truth about other religions and only feed him biased information? Which is why you should not try to take advantage of that in your own teaching. Why? Don't their parents teach enough, don't their churches teach enough, so you want assistance in providing biased information?If you have kids from a variety of religious backgrounds do you teach about all those backgrounds? So we could group them according to which parents want their children to be gullible ignorant and biased, and those that want to learn how to make decisions based on evidence and facts? But your policies appear to be those of a zealot in what you want to see in school. Good, because religion is not science, founded on evidence, it is faith, founded on belief without evidence. There is no such thing. There is either science or not-science. These can all be taught without having to introduce religion, and where religion does impact these fields it is a small part of the overall picture that should be presented in them.Of course this would apply to ALL religions, as no one religion has had more effect than the others.Curiously, the best place to teach about religious impacts would be in a comparative religion course, covering as many different religions as practical. Nope. This is the kind of unsupported assertion that is made by religious zealots. And again, this is just the kind of unsupported assertion that is made by religious zealots.Enjoy.

Welcome to the fray mram10, Curiously, that does not define science, and that pretty well rules out teaching any version of religion that fits your watered down definition in science classes -- where the material does fit the definition of science. Teaching science, because the field of evolution does fit the definition of science, it follows the scientific method, it does not depend on opinion but on empirical objective evidence. And not only is opinion worthless in studying science, but it has been shown to be woefully inadequate in altering reality in any way shape or form. Science studies reality as evidenced by objective empirical evidence. Opinion can be wrong, as can be seen by the fact that your opinion of evolution is wrong. If they have a testable description of origins then they can be reviewed by the scientific method to determine whether or not they are valid, and without such a test it can't be scientific. If you are teaching to increase knowledge then nothing is "safe" -- good teaching will always challenge opinions and cherished beliefs, because the purpose is to learn something new."Safe" would be teaching kindergarten courses to older kids and adults ... no challenge there. And is that "purpose" to wallow in ignorance, or is it to challenge your knowledge of reality, to grow in knowledge ... after all what is the "purpose" of having a brain if not to use it? Again, your opinion. But consider that you need to include all life in your philosophy. Or not, depending on your beliefs, of which there are a vast number of various concepts, and without some method to test them with objective empirical evidence none of them qualify for inclusion in any science class.One of the things to consider is this: if your belief system involves beliefs that are known to be false -- such as believing in a young earth instead of accepting that it is 4.55 + billion years old (based on tested objective empirical evidence) -- that you are not being taught "safe" things but wrong things.Enjoy

well I lost the previous version I typed up just before dinner, so I'll try to recap.As noted by Adminmoose there are a lot of offshoots occurring, and a lot of them involve topics more pertinent to other threads. I have noted several of these already in replies to your posts, and I'll provide a few more here.Forum administration likes to keep topics focused on single issues for several reasons, not least of which is following an argument without having to plow through distractions. A good indicator that they were on the right track I would think. This is. I have not found any site on the internet that is more open to discussing new ideas, but what you won't find is acceptance of ideas that are not substantiated by objective empirical evidence. If you want an example of openness to ideas I suggest to do a site google on geocentric and you will find several results (such as Geocentrism).If you expect to find a site that is favorable to your opinions, then you may have more difficulty (unless you go to a christian only mutual admiration forum, a nice "safe" place eh?). Having a theory does not make a concept science, for that you need an hypothesis based on known evidence that explains the evidence and makes predictions for finding new evidence, preferably predictions that would differentiate the new theory from the existing ones (already bing used to explain the known evidence and make predictions). The hypothesis that "god used evolution to make his creation" would not be distinguishable from evolution ... unless you could show how god was involved.Thus far both IDologists and creationists have failed to do this.For further discussion see:
(1) Is ID properly pursued?
(2) Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...Can you show evidence that would make ID scientific rather than philosophical (which is a valid approach to the ideas presented by IDologists so far, in my mind)? Glad to know my efforts are not totally in vain ... You realize that you have just profoundly insulted millions of living and dead biologists who have worked in this field, spending their lives studying it and increasing our knowledge of how it works. My father, for instance, taught biology at the U of Mich and ecology at Harvard, and he would be amused at your smug self-satisfied arrogant undereducated ignorance. But you have been very rude in dismissing replies here by actual scientists (to say nothing of dismissing the whole field of evolution) simply because they don't fit in your cherished personal worldview. Perhaps that is because your posting on this so far is just simplistic spouting of opinion insulting the work of people, and not a real discussion of what evolution and the theory of evolution are, and the evidence for it ... and because you blithely insult people that have worked hard to increase our knowledge -- perhaps it is because you are wrong and won't admit it eh? Curiously evolution is an observational science: every fossil, every strand of DNA, every lab and field study are bits of observed evidence that test the theory of evolution. Evolution is readily seen in every generation of every species in the world today.It's not about "blind trust" it is about looking at the evidence and seeing how ALL the evidence is explained by the theory. If you are still skeptical then it is up to you to show that the theory does not explain certain evidence or to provide a better explanation. Dismissal is just a cop-out response, not a real unbiased evaluation.Can you define:(1) microevolution
(2) macroevolution
(3) the theory of evolutionand have you looked at how your versions compare to those of the scientists in this field?If you mean something different that scientists when using these terms then you are causing confusion in your own mind as well as in what your responses to others mean.See Definitions, Daffynitions, Delusions, Logic and Critical Thinking.Perhaps it is you that is close minded, refusing to be corrected on mistaken concepts ... have you considered that?Perhaps it is because all science literate people know that you absolutely need evidence to substantiate scientific concepts, and that without evidence ... you ... do ... not ... have ... science.This isn't being close-minded, it is the defining aspect of science. Without evidence all you have is untested opinion and philosophical hypothesis. You keep using that word but I do not think you know what it means ... And I'll be happy to discuss the age of the earth with you on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, as YEC is just as delusional* as flat-earthism in it's absolute failure to explain the mountains of objective empirical evidence for an old earth and the consilience (have you looked up that word yet?) between different systems that validate the process.Enjoy* de•lu•sion•al - adjective
1. having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions: Senators who think they will get agreement on a comprehensive tax bill are delusional.
2. Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness: He was so delusional and paranoid that he thought everybody was conspiring against him.
Based on the Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2011Edited by RAZD, : /

Which is not evolution but abiogenesis. What we know from the objective empirical evidence is that the earth is 4.55+ billion years old and that life is at least 3.5 billion years old -- the earliest fossil evidence found shows developed life. There has not been any record of the how life developed that has been found to date, so what we know from the available evidence is that somewhere between 3.5 and 4.55 billion years ago life began on earth.If you are interested in what we know about how life may have begun, I suggest you look at:
(1) Panspermic Pre-Biotic Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part I)
(2) Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II) - Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks, Part IINote the dates on these threads are a couple years old now, so you can expect that more recent information is available that build on what is posted. You are going to have to provide more detail than a bland assertion. Certainly what we know is that the genome projects show that there is closer relationship between man and chimpanzee than there is between chimpanzee and gorilla, and that this relationship is on the same order as comparison of species in other branches of life.What we do know is that there are markers in both genomes that cannot be explained except by common ancestry or a truly amazing high number of truly remarkable coincidences of identical mutations in both lines. And we know that there are similar markers shared by humans chimps and gorillas: if you god is directly involved in this, then he must be a prankster (don't be offended by what the evidence shows). Curiously, all you have done is natter on about your opinions and beliefs while being evasive about providing any actual data, information or evidence to substantiate your ramblings.Can I be offended by someone making a fool of themselves? No, you don't offend me, you amuse me.To question science you need to provide evidence that challenges the science, because opinion is remarkably ineffective in challenging science or altering reality. So far all you have done is shot off a bunch of blanks. Sadly, for you, I don't think any scientist will feel in any way impelled in any degree to change their work in any way because of the opinion voiced by some smug arrogant creationist infatuated with their beliefs and unable to provide evidence to substantiate a single claim they have made -- scientists get much stronger challenges from their peers. It's Occam's razor, which is a philosophical tool, useful in science in paring down hypothesis to their most simplistic form, but no guarantee that the simplest hypothesis is the correct one.Plus your math is wrong: creation or creation plus creator?Now I am a Deist, and I don't confuse faith with science, I believe that god/s created the universe but I have no need to prove it with science -- science just provides me with the best explanation for how it was done. So you agree that the objective empirical evidence shows the earth is old by many different methods agreeing with each other with remarkable consilience, and that what we don't know can only improve on the approximations we have developed via the scientific method. Good. And philosophy means love of knowledge, so? What is important is how the word is used today by scientists -- the meanings of words do change over time you know ... they evolve.So what should we teach in science class? How to do science? How to use the scientific method to explain objective empirical evidence? How to test theories with predictions? How this is actually done in various fields of science? Sounds good to me.Enjoy

If we were teaching a class on religion, then all religions should be discussed and compared ...If we were teaching a class on philosophy, then all philosophies should be discussed and compared ...If we were teaching a class on science, then all sciences should be discussed and compared ... ... within the bounds of the time-frame for the class.BTW ... you are aware, aren't you that evolution is NOT concerned with the origin of life, just how it has evolved from generation to generation (which means you can't study it without life existing) ... yes?I notice that you have not yet provided what you understand to be definitions for

1. 'micro'evolution
2. 'macro'evolution
3. the theory of evolution

If you know what they mean, then this should be easy.In fact I don't think you have really answered a single question of any substance that anyone has asked you ... rather poor form in a debate, yes? Which would be a valid point in a class on comparing various theological creation concepts, or in a class on philosophical discussion of possibilities (which would also include panspermia and other means of transporting life from elsewhere in the universe, and doesn't address the question of where that life originated).But just discussing possibilities is not science: science is based on evidence and how that evidence can be explained by theory and how that theory is tested by predictions and falsification tests. Which, alone, is not science -- the issue is whether the hypothesis in question makes testable predictions, and whether those predictions have been tested.As noted in Self-Replicating Molecules - Life's Building Blocks (Part II), there are several hypothesis on the formation of chemical evolution of primitive life that are being tested ... and this is what makes the field of abiogenesis a science, and the lack of such work on ID is what keeps it from being science. Again, evolution makes testable predictions regarding complexity -- that in certain conditions it will increase and in other conditions it will decrease. Evolution doesn't care about the degree of complexity, because that is irrelevant to the long term trends.IDology does not make testable predictions regarding complexity, rather it makes the logically invalid assumption that if complexity in X cannot be explained that it must be designed by an outside agent (typical false dichotomy creationist ploy) -- a claim that has, incidentally, been falsified in every single instance that has been suggested as an example. See Acid Test and Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments for example.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ..

Four things:(1) "generally" does not mean "always" and for your logic to work it has to be "always" :: logical fail,(2) I am a designer by profession, and I KNOW that complex systems can be built by the application of a small number of very simple rules ... and I also KNOW that design willingly borrows ideas from other lines of development, something NOT seen in life on earth as we know it,(3) Complex biological systems have actually been observed evolving from simpler systems, and(4) a math\logic evaluation of the overall pattern of biological life, where any species can evolve to be (a) more complex, (b) remain the same degree of complexity, or (c) become less complex -- run over millions of generations -- and there will be a distribution of different levels of complexity in a skewed pattern (life can't become too simple to live and remain in the picture) and this will predict that most life forms are simple single cell organisms, and that increasingly complex organisms will be increasingly rare. Curiously that is what we see.Taken together, the existence of complexity is not a surprise, rather it is expected.Enjoy.

Actual observational science experiments in several cases have shown development of biological systems that were more complex. Irrelevant to the issue, but it was observed to occur over generations. Also irrelevant to the issue, but you can read the link Dr.A. provided or the one I provided before (Irreducible Complexity, Information Loss and Barry Hall's experiments, where an "IC" system evolved) ... and there are others, nylon eating bacteria for instance (see nylon eating bacteria and ... creationism/ID (failed) responsesThese are all OLD news ...Enjoy

The chromosome difference is fairly well documented on the web (ie in many places).This is actually a test of evolution, that if we had a common ancestor then we should have similar chromosome structures, however chimps have 24 chromosome pairs while humans have 23 pairs. Therefore there should be evidence of this change in the DNA patterns, and there is: when you look at human chromosome 2 there are remnants of telemeres (end sequences) and a second centromere (middle sequence) that has been disabled. If we compare this chromosome to chimp chromosomes 2a and 2b we see that they match.Chromosome 2 - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Chromosome 2 is one of the 23 pairs of chromosomes in humans. People normally have two copies of this chromosome. Chromosome 2 is the second largest human chromosome, spanning more than 243 million base pairs [1] (the building material of DNA) and representing almost 8% of the total DNA in cells.

​

All members of Hominidae except humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans have 24 pairs of chromosomes.[3] Humans have only 23 pairs of chromosomes. Human chromosome 2 is widely accepted to be a result of an end-to-end fusion of two ancestral chromosomes.[4][5]

​

The evidence for this includes:

​

• The correspondence of chromosome 2 to two ape chromosomes. The closest human relative, the chimpanzee, has near-identical DNA sequences to human chromosome 2, but they are found in two separate chromosomes. The same is true of the more distant gorilla and orangutan.[6][7]
• The presence of a vestigial centromere. Normally a chromosome has just one centromere, but in chromosome 2 there are remnants of a second centromere.[8]
  
• The presence of vestigial telomeres. These are normally found only at the ends of a chromosome, but in chromosome 2 there are additional telomere sequences in the middle.[9]

​

Fusion of ancestral chromosomes left distinctive remnants of telomeres, and a vestigial centromere

​

Chromosome 2 presents very strong evidence in favour of the common descent of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [9]

---

There are other sources of this information. Can you provide a source of this tidbit so that we can see what specifically they are talking about (there are a number of different ways that have been used to look at the data).For instance
Sandwalk: What's the Difference Between a Human and Chimpanzee?

quote:

---

What's the Difference Between a Human and Chimpanzee?

​

The number of differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes is consistent with Neutral Theory and fixation by random genetic drift.

​

How Many Differences?

​

You can estimate the total number of single nucleotide differences by measuring the rate of hybridization of human and chimpanzee DNA in a technique developed by Dave Kohne and Roy Britten over forty years ago. This technique was applied to human and chimp DNA and the results indicated that the two genomes differed by about 1.5% (reviewed in Britton, 2002). That corresponds to 45 million bp in a genome of 3 billion bp.

​

This value of 1.5%, rounded up to 2%, gave rise to the widely quoted statement that humans and chimps are 98% identical. Britton (2002) challenged that number by pointing out that humans and chimp genomes differed by a large number of insertions and deletions (indels) that could not have been detected in hybridization studies. He claimed that there was an addition 3.4% of the genome that differed due to indels. That means the the real difference between humans and chimps is closer to 5% and we are only 95% identical!

---

That would correspond to ~150 base pairs.The difference between 150 million and 600 million out of 3 billion is still not a big deal, imho, however creationists have also been known to inflate the numbers by misrepresenting some of the data, so give us your source in order to provide you with a better answer, eh?Enjoy.ps (edit) Proposed New Topics, Why Did Homo Erectus Not Retain a Tail?, Message 1:

quote:

---

A tail would be incredibly helpful for balance (tripod example), productivity, etc. I read that it could have been the climate change from forest to desert that could have been the reasoning.

​

What is the best current explanation? (other than natural selection/god just did it)

---

First, note that chimps, orangutans and gorillas are also tailless apes, tail loss occurred well before the human lineage split off the common ancestral branch.Second, evolution doesn't occur just to provide something that would be useful. This is known as the "Savannah Hypothesis" that was proposed as an environmental change that led to the adaptation for full upright walking, however current evidence points to this bipedal adaptation occurring before this time period, while there were still trees, but in an open woodland ecology.(/edit)Edited by RAZD, : formatEdited by RAZD, : added psEdited by RAZD, : =

Curiously this bald opinion has absolutely no effect on reality.I'll bet you can't define evolution properly -- care to try and prove me wrong?One should know what they are talking about before mocking it. And the teaching of science is based on real objective empirical evidence, repeated experiments and observations, and historical accumulation of knowledge validated by the scientific method.How do you determine what is "true evidence" and what makes it "true" as opposed to just being (real objective empirical) evidence? What is your paradigm for sorting truth from fiction and fantasy and ignorance? Can you define the difference between a scientific theory and a hypothetical conjecture?Should every mythology be taught as theory?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : ...

First off it is easier to track your replies to people if you use the lower right hand reply button on the post you are replying to: and if you use the "peek" button you can see how the post is formated.Second I just love people that make absolute statements based on ignorance. They are so funny. Thirdly, just as I predicted in Message 284 you don't know what the theory of human evolution is. You don't have a clue how evolution actually works, but feel that your personal opinion is a valid argument. It isn't - that is not how science works, whether biology or physics or chemistry etc.You should learn what you are criticizing before you make a fool of yourself by displaying ignorance on the topic -- it is like getting in an axe fight without an axe. Curiously, what science actually uses is evidence, not myths. Objective empirical evidence, like actual fossils and actual DNA. and again, as I noted previously the information is readily available on the internet. Dr Adequate provided you with one image and another version is this one, with the fossils identified along with their ages:29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

quote:

---

Fossil Skulls!

​

Below are 12 fossil skulls that represent more than 3.5 million years of human evolution. Click on any of them to find out more. This exhibit is enhanced with the Shockwave plug-in, which you can download for free from Macromedia.

​

​

Figure 1.4.4. Fossil hominid skulls. Some of the figures have been modified for ease of comparison (only left-right mirroring or removal of a jawbone). (Images 2000 Smithsonian Institution.)

​

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern man.

---

Another version is available here:Wayback Machine0/http://www.amnh.org/enews/iskulls.html

quote:

---

​

1998 The American Museum of Natural History. All Rights Reserved.

---

If you knew more about the field of evolution you would know that this is a ridiculously uninformed statement. If this is what you have been taught is evolution you have been lied to and should sue your teachers.It is also a prime example of why evolution science should be taught in schools and should be a required part of any curriculum whether offered in public school, private school or home schooling. And as was pointed out by Cat Sci we have a thread (Sexual Selection, Stasis, Runaway Selection, Dimorphism, & Human Evolution) that discusses the apparent hairlessness of humans. The actual distribution of hair on chimps and on humans is similar, but on humans it is still mainly in juvenile form (vellus hair) which is thin and clear (blond), and it is one of many characteristics of humans that are due to neoteny and sexual selection.You have a lot to learn, and unfortunately (for you) it appears you have a lot of misinformation to unlearn before you can begin to have a beginning knowledge of evolution that should have been available to you in elementary school.Let's try again, and work on just evolution before getting to the application to humans and Homo sapiens:Can you define what the process of evolution is?Can you define what the Theory of Evolution is?See if you can surprise me.If you want to pursue some remedial education on the topic I can recommend:An introduction to evolution - Understanding EvolutionEnjoy

If you want a serious debate about the evidence and what that tells us about evolution in general and human evolution in particular, then yes, you will stop pretending to be an authority on topics you are misinformed (generous assessment) about.Those pictures are not of monkeys, but of hominids. Hominids are apes, just as you are an ape. Apes are primates, just as you are a primate. Monkeys and humans share a common primate ancestor. Now I've told you this before but it appears that you didn't understand or ignored the information (or are too stupid to understand - doubtful - or you are intentionally - maliciously - misrepresenting things, as a troll would do). Trolls try to elicit an emotional response rather than engage in honest debate. Again, cognitive dissonance behavior predicts this kind of response to mock and reject information that conflicts with firmly held beliefs.Curiously, I provided you with the link information so that you could study\read\investigate the information there.Fossils are facts and you have not explained them. Evolution does.Again, I have asked you to define evolution, the process and the theory. You haven't, and I suspect this is because you can't ... but you could prove me wrong.Saying that something that you can't define is a joke is the epitome of ignorant hubris. So give it a try:The process of evolution is: ___________________________The theory of evolution is: _____________________________Would you not agree that arguing with an automechanic about how best to fix your car when you are patently ignorant of how your car works is rather silly?Enjoy.

IIRC, the orientation of the heads is based on where the spine attaches, so they would be in their natural positions. This is one of the things that differentiates chimps from hominidae.Enjoy

There were no monkey heads in that picture, they are all apes.Your failure to correct this blatant error is indicative of inability to recognize errors on your part. My first impression is that they are all arranged in their natural attitude. If you look at a chimp today you will see the head is at that attitude. Except that they do -- it doesn't really matter what the attitude of the frontal pictures are when you look at side views, and you can see the similarities from the side views regardless of orientation. It is amusing that you are so offended by the actual natural history of humans. Yep pictures of actual fossils are so deceptive ...Seems to me that you are desperately seeking things to hang your biased beliefs on. Denial of the evidence does not make it go away, nor does it alter the evidence in any way. lol -- I have to agree with Dr A.Can you tell me which of these skeletons are human? The only alteration is to scale them to the same height from knees to shoulders ...Enjoy.

To add to the information provided by Dr A, see Message 251 and additional information is provided by mules and zebroids

quote:

---

Donkeys and wild equids have different numbers of chromosomes. A donkey has 62 chromosomes; the zebra has between 32 and 46 (depending on species). In spite of this difference, viable hybrids are possible, provided the gene combination in the hybrid allows for embryonic development to birth. A hybrid has a number of chromosomes somewhere in between. The chromosome difference makes female hybrids poorly fertile and male hybrids generally sterile due to a phenomenon called Haldane's Rule. The difference in chromosome number is most likely due to horses having two longer chromosomes that contain similar gene content to four zebra chromosomes.[4] Horses have 64 chromosomes, while most zebroids end up with 54 chromosomes.

---

Mules generally have 63 chromosomes, between the 62 for the donkey and 64 for the horse.Interbreeding shows relatedness, while chromosome differences show divergence from their ancestral common ancestor population.The issue for reproductive success is not the number of chromosomes, but the arrangement of the genes on them. Combining or breaking chromosomes does not change the number of genes, it does affect the alignment of them during the combination of egg and sperm into a zygote. Chromosomes are the vehicle that helps facilitate reproduction within a breeding population by aligning the genes.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : linksEdited by RAZD, : ...

a scientific theory is based on evidence and predictions to test the validity of the theory. So yes, it is not just a random made up guess, but one educated by the evidence and validated by passing the tests ... and the education can be graded by how it passes the tests. You are employing -- probably unwittingly -- the logical fallacy of equivocation, where different meanings\definitions of a word are used in different parts of the argument.You are confusing "evolve" with the meaning "unfolding" (a flower unfolds as it blooms, a butterfly unfolds as it emerges from a cocoon) with the meaning used in biology (where it has a specific meaning within that field) for the process by which species change. Let me help you: Now it is a FACT that this process has been observed and documented to occur in virtually every living species ... and this is often called "microevolution."As should be readily seen, this definition of evolution does not apply to how a play unfolds. Rather the unfolding of the play is more analogous to the unfolding of evidence as it is discovered from the natural history of life on earth -- a grand play indeed eh? We can certainly form an hypothesis about what is going to happen, and we can test that against evidence as the play unfolds -- making modifications when needed -- and this additional (new) evidence will either confirm or invalidate the hypothesis by the time the play ends.That is part of the scientific method and a valid approach to investigating new phenomena. Well you are confusing your hypothesis as both the beginning and the ending, and you used different definitions of evolution (equivocation fallacy) to arrive at a rather fatuous result -- not because the ToE is at fault but because your logic is invalid.Let me introduce you to a couple more terms:The theoretical evolution of all species involves what is called "macroevolution" by scientists (and often misunderstood by creationists) -- the effects of microevolution over multiple generations. Such macroevolution falls into two categories:

1. The process of anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the long term evolution of the entire (breeding) population of a species over multiple generations ... and it is a FACT that this too has been observed to occur, and this multi-generation process is fully explained by the process of evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting the whole breeding population.
   ​
2. The process of cladogenesis involves an evolutionary branching event of a parent species into two or more closely related sister species, where the parent population and each daughter branch (and any subsequent smaller branches) form a nested hierarchy called a "Clade"; a process that leads to the development of a greater diversity of species in the world ... and it is a FACT that this has also been observed to occur, and this multi-generational process is fully explained by the process of evolution occurring generation after generation and affecting two or more separated breeding populations with different results over time, becoming more different with each passing generation.

Thus there are two long term process in macroevolution -- linear evolution that affects the whole breeding population, sometimes call phyletic speciation, and divergent evolution that divides the original breeding population into two or more isolated breeding populations, sometimes called divergent speciation.Now, just as the process of evolution has been observed and documented, it is a FACT that these two macroevolutionary processes have been observed and documented to occur.Now just like the unfolding play we can form an hypothesis of how the natural history of the earth unfolded, and because we want it to be a scientific theory we base it on known processes and known objective empirical facts; thus we can define the Theory of Evolution as follows: AND we can test that theory against the new knowledge and evidence that occurs as the play unfolds.So far there is not one instance from "the fossil record, from the genetic record, from the historic record, and from everyday record of the life we observe in the world all around us" that cannot be explained by the two processes listed above.Thus the theory has been tested an incredible number of times (every fossil, every genome, every field observation, etc) and it has passed those tests with flying colors.Makes it a pretty intelligent theory doesn't it? You start by learning what you don't know from the information available to you. In this case I can recommend (strongly) Evolution 101 -- a teaching aid from Berkeley University ...Enjoy.