1. So, based on your reticence, we can agree that all 11 items I stated are correct.
True or not none of these are branches of science and Lenin was no scientist.a. In order for communism, statism, collectivism, Liberalism, whatever, to succeed, religion and belief in God must be banished from the public consciousness.
Then, quoted Lenin to document same.
You use a politician's view. A politician from over 200 years ago.b. The OP stated that there is life on earth, and pointed out that the Founder attributed same to the Creator.
argumentum ad verecundiam. (Using an authority as evidence in your argument when the authority is not really an authority on the facts relevant to the argument)
Just about every living thing has abilities that differ from those of other organisms. And that is just what you'd expect from evolution since organisms would otherwise have to directly compete and one or the other would become extinct.c. I quoted the editor of Nature magazine, pointing out that human mental abilities differs from that of other organism.
A scientist from 100+ years ago? Wallace had some personal issues with Darwin but he independently came up with essentially the same theory so whatever problems he had with Darwin were minor.d. I quoted Alfred Wallace, co-inventor of Darwinism, "physical characteristics," Wallace observes in this essay, "are not explicable on the theory of variation and survival of the fittest" -- the criteria of Darwinian natural selection.
Yet on the major point of evolutionary decent from a common ancestor, he was in complete agreement.e. Wallace labeled much of Darwin's theory as "evolutionary fantasy."
So? A completely science-free statement. Humanists were quick to endorse Galileo and Copernicus while Religious authorities condemned them. We know who was right.f. I stated that the above reveals the value of Darwin to Marxists, and the joy of Engels upon latching on to Darwin's theory.
The Scientific Method has been applied to evolution many times and has always revealed the truth of it. The dating and examination of every fossil is a test of the theory.g. the most basic requirement of science: the conclusions of reproducible experimentation, known as 'The Scientific Method,'
Nothing in the theory requires that evolution be gradual.h. The fossil record should provide proof of the gradual progression toward diversity....but even Darwin admits that it doesn't: "I can give no satisfactory answer..... The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained."
The fossil record has only been read for less than 200 years. The earth is constantly destroying fossils. It is hardly surprising to learn it is incomplete.i. ....many organisms suddenly appear remains the fact to this day.... with no transitional fossils preceding them in the fossil record, most of the major phyla presently on earth appear abruptly in the fossil record.
We never directly observed an atom. Do you doubt they exist? Why?j. ...even one animal species into a different species has never been directly observed either in the laboratory or in the field."
Recorded history is less than 5,000 years. Not many generations of humans in that time but I'd bet there are new species of virus (HIV?).k. ...we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding.
That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies,...
As for domestication, have we tried? What is the value of turning a cow into a dog?
I'm afraid it is your attack on Darwin that is pretty far from science.