That is EXACTLY what Evolution dictates and believes in great faith. Random chance is accident, even if YOU can't deal with the intellectual absurdity YOU swallow whole.
You are missing a huge chunk of evolution. That's like me saying God's plan doesn't make sense if I ignore the entire NT.
Well of course you think it's absurd, the evolution you have in your mind is nothing like the evolution that is real.
"Evolution" is not "reproduced."
Sure it is, all the time.
Do you know how many mutations there are between you and the genetic code of your parents?
The "empirical evidence" is very limited far short of what unbelievers have imposed upon it in assumption.
Nope, the empirical evidence is mountainous, 150 years worth. And nothing to contradict it.
"Predictive value" is essentially prophecy. Man's is nothing. God's is perfect. Yours I couldn't care less about since these distinctions seem to be news to you.
Except the predictions of evolution are actually verified independently by many different lines of evidence spanning generations and across completely unrelated areas of science.
I've never seen a real prophecy by God come true.
"Peer review" is men seeking the approval of men. Men are subject to all the limitations of mere men.
Seems you can add peer review to the list of things misunderstood. Peer review is men seeking the disapproval of men. Well men and women actually, women can actually be scientists nowadays too.
And science is a way of overcoming the limitations of mere men. Peer review is not the end of science, it's the start. A conclusion isn't reached because one person publishes. The question asked isn't "what do I think of this and do I approve", it's "How can I refute this, either by repeating experiments or doing a different one." The consensus isn't built based on agreement, agreement is based on being forced into a conclusion based on the results.
You have it backwards, and as I already said it's a result of the backwards authority driven mindset, it makes some incapable of understanding.
"Science" may be a "discipline" but "scientists" are not much more disciplined than you.
Good thing that that's not really relevant to the success of science.
For starters, the ASSUMPTION that evolution is obviously true and, therefore, all observed evidence must fit within that operating assumption.
This is obviously false. The neo-darwinian synthesis is much bigger and better than what Darwin originally wrote, improved and tweaked based on new evidence.. evidence that didn't completely contradict the original theory, but necessitated some growth and change.
If evidence was found that completely contradicted evolution, evolution would be cast aside. And this is demonstrably so because science has done this repeatedly over centuries.
The alternative is mocked and dismissed, in indoctrination.
Good point, which makes it clear that science isn't indoctrination.. because alternatives if they have merit become adopted and the people are given Nobel prizes and have theories named after them and are commemorated for generations for their contributions which started out as alternatives.
