I thought it was genetic. Are you saying, rather, that you believe you can observe genetic changes by what they produce?
heritable traits are observable facts
The lasting effects of the fall due to Original Sin come to mind.
prevalence of dominant and recessive alleles
Does this fit into you particular sense of what you mean by that four letter word - evolution? Perhaps, as a good scientist, you should state what you mean, precisely, scientifically, so that everyone will understand your meaning.
genetic drift is observable
Do you know what some mean by that term?
I do not see where faith comes into
I understand that. But with regard to this, if you cannot say what you mean, if you cannot present evolution as something other than a vague religious imperative, which can tolerate no heresy from Revelation, then you need to show a) that Darwin thought he was God, and b) just what you think that Revelation must be. Because if it's just science, it could just be wrong. But if it is science, it is a) falsifiable, and b) importantly, it can be stated succinctly, which you've yet to do. Throwing out words and phrases at random is no sort of scientific definition.
let's start from the top:
mutations in base-pair sequencing can be and have been observed directly through various methods.
get that little tidbit lodged deeply into your head.
then pe polite.
The lasting effects of the fall due to Original Sin come to mind.
so... you are now extending the doctrine of original sin to non-human species, such as Mendel's peas?
It is evident you are a dilettante here, spouting half-considered false cleverness in the joy of reading your own posts.
Do better.
And DO try to be polite.
"But if it is science, it is a) falsifiable, and b) importantly, it can be stated succinctly, which you've yet to do."
I'll agree that a theory must be falsifiable. But where did you get the notion that "it ain't science if you can't reduce it to a sound-bite"?