Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

Like this one for example?Peacock tail tale failure - creation.comA very shallow and self-serving article it has to be said. As usual, creationists who pour scorn upon science generally are quite happy to accept any paper that seems to confirm their biases, without the least bit of critical analysis.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi BD, just a brief note. You say; and; Darwin never knew about random mutation. It had not been discovered in his day. On the Origin of Species never uses the phrase "random mutation" and when using the word "mutation", Darwin uses it only in a general sense, comparable in meaning to "change" or "variance". Darwin was unaware of the exact cause behind inheritable characteristics and their variation, only that whatever the cause, it s results were guided by natural selection.If you want to insist on a purely "Darwinian" model (i.e. a model that Darwin himself would have put forward during his time), you should not be talking about random mutation, because he would not have recognised the concept.For the record, what ideas Darwin had about heritability and variation were largely wrong. This has been known for decades.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Bolder-dash, you are showing an astonishing capacity for missing the point. Is this really so hard to understand? I don't think that anyone is disputing that. To discuss evolution as a whole one must discuss both natural selection and random mutation. The point that is being made here is that you didn't start a topic about evolution-as-a-whole. You started a topic about natural selection.Natural selection can be considered a subset of evolution as a whole. Random mutation can also be considered a subset of evolution as a whole. It is necessary to discuss both subsets in order to discuss the whole, but it is not necessary to discuss subset A in order to discuss subset B. Thus, it is not necessary to discuss random mutation in order to discuss natural selection. Got it?In case you still don't see it, consider this. Darwin wrote about natural selection extensively in the Origin, but random mutation had not been discovered. If we must discuss random mutation before we can discuss natural selection, how was Darwin able to write on the subject? How come most of what he did write is still relevant today?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Look, all I'm saying is that you didn't ask about RM. You say; Okay BD, let's take a look at your OP; I have bolded the references to NS. I would have bolded the references to RM as well, but there aren't any.As written, your OP asks about the role of NS in causing evolutionary change. You make no mention of RM. That is why people are talking about NS and it is why we are surprised at your insistence on talking about RM.Topics here at EvC are deliberately kept tightly focussed. This is done to avoid topic sprawl. Evolution, viewed in its entirety is a big, big subject. Many brilliant people have devoted a lifetime to understanding evolution and still there are countless aspects where we still have much to learn. A thread that took all of evolutionary change as its topic would have no focus. Had you worded your OP to say "I would like to discuss all aspects of evolution; have they been tested?", it would most likely not have been promoted. That's just how things are done around here; we find that tightly focussed topics work better in promoting productive discussion.Hopefully, this might help you understand why so many people here are taking umbrage at what they probably see as an attempt by you to move the goalposts. You mentioned RM zero times. You asked about the role of NS in evolutionary change. That's why you have been getting answers about the role of NS in evolutionary change. It's really not complicated. My problem is that you didn't ask about the role of RM in evolutionary change. You asked about the role of NS in evolutionary change. Then, you started throwing a tantrum that no-one had addressed RM, the subject you didn't ask about. You didn't ask about genetic drift or the founder effect either; are you going to complain that no-one has addressed them? What, the point that I clearly said no-one was disputing? Given that we've hardly spoken on this thread, you haven't "pinned me down" on anything. I said that evolution, considered in its entirety, includes both NS and RM. It includes much more besides. A cursory glance at any biology text book would be enough to confirm this, so don't you go acting as though you have won some kind of concession here.Evolution involves both natural selection and random mutation. You didn't ask about the whole of evolution though. You asked about the role of NS in evolution.No-one is trying to tell you that you can't ask or talk about RM. What we are telling you is that it's a bit rich to ask a question about NS and then complain that we haven't addressed RM. That makes no sense and only serves to make you look foolish.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : Grammar, style.

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Peg, When I read that I thought; "Probably in the part of that sentence that Peg left out.". So I went and had a look and sure enough... I am at a loss as to what you thought to achieve by posting as you just did. Quote mining is like a disease with you guys.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Look, Peg, there it's all very well you taking offence, but the fact of the matter is that you just chose to clip Huntard's quote and in doing so, destroyed its meaning. And he did so in perfectly lucid English. Huntard is writing in his second language and yet he still gets his point across quite nicely. You are reading in your native language and you still don't seem to get it. Case in point. That isn't what he said. The original statement was talking not about the traits themselves or how they originated, but the process by which they are filtered, i.e. natural selection.If you want to know the distinction between an "inherited trait" and a mutation, Percy puts it well in Message 203, but really, there is little difference.RM produces variation in inheritable traits.NS filters those variations within a population, favouring traits that improve the survival/reproductive chances of the organisms within that population.After over eighteen hundred posts on this board, have you really not grasped this?Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi BD, Why thank you very much, that's the most flattering thing I've heard all week. That's because you did ask about NS, not evolution. If you disagree, perhaps you would like to point out exactly where you asked about evolution(as a whole that is).Your OP is perfectly clear; Your title asks if NS has been verified.You have heard that Darwin gave a mechanism for evolution and that it has been tested.This is the only mention you make of evolution without further specifying natural selection. You have doubts that any such proof has been made.You ask for evidence that natural selection has verified.Note that this appears to qualify your opening statement. You don't want to talk about bacteria.You ask again for evidence that natural selection has been verified.That is your entire OP. It makes no mention of mutation and the only actual questions you ask are specifically about NS. You very clearly asked nothing about evolution in general. The only questions you asked were about NS and its role in evolution. Naturally, everybody has assumed that you wanted to talk about NS. *sigh* You are at perfect liberty to propose a new topic about random mutation. People are only reacting the way they are because you asked about NS and then threw a tantrum because nobody answered about RM. You are behaving like a child.If you want to talk about the role of RM in evolution, you will find people happy to do so. What people are not happy to do is allow you to play bait and switch. If you want to talk about RM, propose a new topic. Actually, it is trivially easy to demonstrate how NS could work without RM. Imagine that instead of mutation being random, it is guided. Each mutation is personally shaped by the guiding hand of whatever god you happen to favour. This direction is essentially undetectable, but it is enough to produce variation in inheritable characteristics. NS would then go on to act upon these variations, filtering out the harmful changes and leaving the useful ones. I'm not interested in your whining. If you think the game is fixed, don't play. Otherwise, man up and accept that NS and RM are separate processes.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod