How do you define the word Evolution?

of Species, not life.

A theory that attempts to explain the origin of species without explaining the origin of the first species is incomplete.I think Darwin got a lot right in his book. However he fell into error when he extrapolated beyond the evidence.

All theories are incomplete. Otherwise there would only be one theory.The issue is where to place a theory's boundaries. Since selection is an integral part of the ToE it's reasonable to say that if selection is not involved it's not covered by the ToE. We can't identify exactly where that boundary is but there are plenty of phenoma that obviously fit on one side.

Yes, what of it? No-one has claimed that the theory of evolution explains everything, just that it explains the things that it does in fact explain.

There are lots of things the TOE doesn't explain. It explains evolution, thus its name. There is no scientifically accepted theory of the origin of life, because we just don't know. That is different than the TOE.Maybe you need to review what a Scientific Theory is. Please check out the definitions in this thread.
Logical fallacy poster

Here's one example of a secular trained geologist who made the switch to YEC.Dr Ron Neller - creation.comThere's a longer interview here http://www.creationmagazine.com/...on/2017_volume_39_issue_1

I've read Dobzhansky's paper
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution
Author(s): Theodosius Dobzhansky
Source: The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 35, No. 3 (Mar., 1973), pp. 125-129It was written 40 years ago so we shouldn't be too critical of it.
It mis-characterizes YEC's as believing in special creation for each species and fixity of species which does not represent current thinking. This invalidates about 1/2 the paper. His comments about the universal genetic code, cytochrome C, human gill slits, and some bad theology, make it rather out of date.His title "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense except in the Light of Evolution" is wrong. A lot in biology makes perfect sense without evolution. E.g. the physical adaptations of the giraffe to cope with its height are functional requirements; while variations in the genetic code don't make sense in the light of evolution.I also note this quote supporting abiogenesis and universal common ancestry.
"They suggest that life arose from inanimate matter only once and that all organisms, no matter
how diverse in other respects, conserve the basic features of the primordial life. (It is also possible
that there were several, or even many, origins of life; if so, the progeny of only one of them has survived
and inherited the earth.)"

Unless of course God actually did it, in which case excluding the possibility before examining the evidence is intellectual laziness and materialistic conceit.

Even if he did, just saying so would not in fact be an argument.

That depends who you ask. Dredge was denouncing speciation as an evil-utionist lie just the other week, perhaps you could have explained to him that the thoughts he currently has do not represent current thinking. Well, that was vague. I didn't even know theology could go out of date. What observations of God have you made since he wrote the article that invalidate his theology? None? OK, then his guess is still every bit as good as yours. Or better, since it reconciles God with the world we actually live in. ... and they evolved, how else do you ... oh yeah, magic. But that does not make perfect sense. That's remarkable claim given that we can actually watch these variations evolve. But not supporting the claim that this is the definition of evolution.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Coyote: ""verified by observation and experiment" is not a valid criterion is science."Really? My dictionary seems to differ; it saysscience is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world THROUGH OBSERVATION AND EXPERIMENT."This means theories that aren't verified by observation and experiment lay outside the realm of science - the theory that all life evolved from a common ancestor, for example. Since creationists don't deny anything in science that has been verified by observation and experiment, they can't be accused of being anti-scientific.

dwise1: "I'll give you two major ones: 1. Young earth
2. Noah's Flood"Since I'm not a young-earther, the first item doesn't apply to me.How can you prove that Noah's Flood is "contrary to fact"?

dwise1: "thank you for pointing out that you are not a YEC."But don't get your hopes up - I also believe that all life on earth was created in six days, 5778 years ago.

Nonsense. Some fields of science are not able to do experiments, but that does not prevent them from doing science.

I have a theory that the sun exists, but so far I have only been able to verify it by observation, so, alas, it lies outside the realm of science.