evolution is not a theory, It is an unconfirmed hypothesis

Allow me to also address sources even though it's not really a main focus. Firstly, It's true that creationist sources need not be necessarily biased against evolution. Indeed even the current pope wholly agrees with it (with your proposed interpretation specifically). However, Neither you nor the pope are representative of all creationists and for many of them, Evolution is contradictory to what a typical religious text states, Especially when taken in its most literal sense. Hence, There is a reason for creationist sources to be biased. Indeed, A quick google search reveals many biased sources. In the case of atheistic sources, The key point here is that evolution and creationism are not equivalent explanations for the development of life. For there to be bias against creationism, I feel that there must be some sort of scientific equivalency. Of course, The best policy overall is to carefully review sources to determine their reliability. In the case of the sources you have provided, You'll note that : 1. They are biased in favour of creationism 2. They either provide no evidence for their claims or the evidence lacks scientific rigour 3. Lack any sort of peer-review process In short, They are the equivalent of me creating a website that states that there is a teapot that orbits the earth, And using said website as a source to argue that there is a teapot that orbits the earth. Fossil Records: Your assertion that we should be finding thousands, If not millions of transitional forms is based on faulty reasoning. While I understand that you've made the connection that if there were lots of animals, There must've also been lots of dead animal bodies, You've failed to take into account the destructive effects of time, The rarity of the fossilization process and the ability for humans to find and identify fossils at all. Structural Homology: I believe I mentioned this in my last post but I'll expand further. While I don't mind logical arguments, If you're going to base an argument on a specific fact that cannot be readily googled, I need a reliable source that specifically states what you've claimed. This source must provide evidence for it's claim if it's not a primary source, As well as being scientific in nature. This is called the burden of proof. If you assert something, You must provide evidence for it otherwise it can equally be dismissed without evidence. Molecular Biology: Your reply wasn't very coherent so I'll just comment on what I understood and hopefully clarify things. When you say yeast would've had to have evolved from bacterium, Just to be clear, This isn't a direct relationship from modern bacteria to modern yeast. It would be a relation from some sort of primordial bacteria to a modern day yeast, Meaning an innumerable number of generations have passed between them. There wouldn't have to be some very large jumps between species, And I don't understand why you think so. Again, Evolution is a gradual process, Not a sudden one. Finally, When you're talking about molecular biology, You are talking about a study between modern day yeast to modern day bacteria. As previously mentioned, Both the yeast and bacteria would've had an innumerable number of generations until their common ancestors. Hence, They should be very very different. In your previous post you mentioned that yeast was more related to a horse than to a bacteria. This is because on an evolutionary scale, The common ancestor between yeast and horse was closer than the modern day bacteria and yeast ancestor. Hence the molecular biology is perfectly consistent with evolutionary theory. Mutualism: I still feel like you don't quite understand. Evolution doesn't occur to specific individuals. It occurs to populations. Perhaps one of your many reasons did prevent hundreds of such occurrences from happening. Perhaps thousands or millions. The key point of evolution is that in the occurrences that it did happen, Both fish had better survival rates than the ones who didn't. They were more likely to reproduce. And hence over time, The fish with the genes that gave a better survival rate out-competed the fish that didn't. Regardless, While I understand what you're trying to say here, Improbability is not in and of itself an argument against evolution. This is called a fallacy. A fallacy is a mistake in reasoning that causes an invalid argument. Specifically, This fallacy is called an appeal to probability. Just because something is unlikely to happen, Doesn't mean it didn't happen When context is added to your argument, Along with the missing information and explanation of false reasoning, It becomes quite clear that your arguments do not support the resolution that evolution is an unconfirmed hypothesis. What I can see is that your arguments sum up to one point in particular: you feel that there is not enough information to warrant acceptance of evolution To address this: Firstly, I would argue that there is enough information, Just that it is not well understood. The prime example of this is in your arguments. I've pointed out multiple flaws in your understanding of evolution, Some extremely basic. How can one justify not having enough information if the information that they currently possess is poorly understood in the first place? Secondly, Even if someone were to understand evolution well and were to still objectively argue that there wasn't enough information, I would say that evolutionary theory is consistent, Predictive, Well supported and lacks competing explanations. For example in the fossil records, Transitional fossils have been predicted and found. Those fossils are consistent with what is expected in evolutionary theory. We know that this is consistent due to observable supporting information like micro-evolution. The good scientific practice then is not to ignore all this collaborative data and conclude evolution is false, But to accept it until proven otherwise.