Debate: Is Evolution Science?
Side: Yes

The development of such magnitude without the information to code each individual cell type to make up any species out of no information to begin with and get that right isn't mathematically reasonable, the odds are to the ridiculous. Even virus and bacteria have initial sequencing, so the growth of mutations are based in the information already available in nature.Like to cross a wolf with a dog, no one is doing anything that doesn't already exist in someway of compatability. Which I guess is kinds. But evolution is ridiculous. It takes a biological understanding and then creates mythological stories surrounding whatever they can find that fits. If it means ignoring somethings and twisting others the puzzle will at least look like it fits. But they don't raise many questionables for answers. Instead of seeking challenge of theory, they express only assurance of their answers. And where are the modern day mutations out of nothing. If it's possible then why don't we see other complicated animals forcing in an evolutionary style? Evolutionary style - without previous design input. Or is it like hair dye, and stops processing after 25 minutes. Evolution is laughably foolish if it weren't so incredibly sad!http://www.khouse.org/articles/1998/163/ Excerpt from link"One of the most important proteins - perhaps the most important - is hemoglobin. It is responsible for both the red color of our blood and for the oxygen chemistry based on our breathing. TheTorah notes that "life is in the blood."4The formula for hemoglobin is detailed in Figure 2:In the chart there is only one specific sequence of the amino acids that is hemoglobin. Hemoglobinopathy occurs if even one amino acid is replaced; it is usually lethal. (Sickle cell anemia being but one example.)Using the formula for alternate linear arrangements6of these amino acids indicates that there are about 10650 permutations possible, but only one of them is hemoglobin.(The actual number is 7.4 x 10654. There are indications that some of the amino acid positions may be "neutral," like spaces, which are less significant. The current research indicates that these may be up to 10% of such positions, which would indicate that there are only 516 rather than 574 significant amino acid positions, in which case the specificity would reduce to 7.9 x 10503.)7 This is still a pretty good finite approximation for infinity! The likelihood of this specific sequence occurring by chance is clearly absurd.8(In speculating about obtaining this precise sequence by 10500+ random trials, remember that there have been only about 1017 seconds in the generally accepted age of the universe, so you would have had to work rather quickly. Also, realize that there are only about 10 66 atoms in the universe, so you can't waste material on false tries!)Think about it. It isn't just unlikely; it really is impossible. It was very skillfully designed. If you really want to be a skeptic, you need to practice like the Red Queen in Alice Through the Looking Glass , who said:"I practice believing impossible things at least twice day...[check]"It takes a lot of commitment to blindness and fallacies to be an atheist. There are, of course, no dead atheists (James 2:19)."