Your comment about evolution not denying God is a little sweeping. Again you are acting as if evolution is like a religion. The idea of evolution is a progressive conclusion based on many many findings and pieces of evidence which directed scientists to a hypothesis. The existence of God in relation to the theory of evolution is not included whatsoever, because there was no evidence to include it. Science is ONLY based on what physical evidence it can obtain and which processes are able to be demonstrated and are replicable in a laboratory or equal to.
Your second comment about the same person winning the lotto over and over again I think comes again from a little lack of understanding of the processes of evolution. If you mean by it in regards to evolution, that the same organism experienced mutations over and over again, then that is not exactly the case. One organism may have experienced an adaptive mutation, and been able to survive and reproduce a trillion fold and those generations to exist in that form for a million years. It is one of those products, which are now in the inconceivable population count that may have mutated adaptively again.
Your third comment I am unable to answer very well. Scientist have been able to reproduce evolutionary processes of organisms in artificially constructed environments to speed up the process. Therefore evolution is a fact. I do not know enough about the mechanisms to be able to appreciate the complexities of it all. From what I assume it means by the mechanisms being not properly known, is that although we understand the cellular processes, we do not have all the evidence to prove the entire human evolutionary trend from bacteria to current human form. We only have information of parts of it. For example we have the bones of our ancestors that show the intermediary forms that existed. But they are few and far between, and are only in existence due to flukes of nature that were able to preserve them. Therefore the amount of evidence is not complete enough for scientists to claim knowledge of everything. To do that, is unscientific to the core of the definition.
Your comment about evolution not denying God is a little sweeping. Again you are acting as if evolution is like a religion. The idea of evolution is a progressive conclusion based on many many findings and pieces of evidence which directed scientists to a hypothesis. The existence of God in relation to the theory of evolution is not included whatsoever, because there was no evidence to include it. Science is ONLY based on what physical evidence it can obtain and which processes are able to be demonstrated and are replicable in a laboratory or equal to.
Your second comment about the same person winning the lotto over and over again I think comes again from a little lack of understanding of the processes of evolution. If you mean by it in regards to evolution, that the same organism experienced mutations over and over again, then that is not exactly the case. One organism may have experienced an adaptive mutation, and been able to survive and reproduce a trillion fold and those generations to exist in that form for a million years. It is one of those products, which are now in the inconceivable population count that may have mutated adaptively again.
Your third comment I am unable to answer very well. Scientist have been able to reproduce evolutionary processes of organisms in artificially constructed environments to speed up the process. Therefore evolution is a fact. I do not know enough about the mechanisms to be able to appreciate the complexities of it all. From what I assume it means by the mechanisms being not properly known, is that although we understand the cellular processes, we do not have all the evidence to prove the entire human evolutionary trend from bacteria to current human form. We only have information of parts of it. For example we have the bones of our ancestors that show the intermediary forms that existed. But they are few and far between, and are only in existence due to flukes of nature that were able to preserve them. Therefore the amount of evidence is not complete enough for scientists to claim knowledge of everything. To do that, is unscientific to the core of the definition.