Has natural selection really been tested and verified?

But you have already stated that the definition of the ToE simply says any explanation for how the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens. The ToE by definition (according to you) puts no constraints on what that explanation may be.

Forgive me, but you said:1. Organisms have heritable traits (genes)
2. These traits exhibit variation (random mutation)
3. Some variations are more successful than others (natural selection)
4. Successful variations spread throughout the population (evolution)By this did you not mean thatorganisms have heritable traits = genes ?
and
traits exhibit variation = random mutations ?I realize that it might be in your best interest to be as vague as possible, but let's be fair here.

No, according to your definition, the ToE is simply the explanation for how change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next happens.Seriously, who is changing the goalposts? There was absolutely no mention at all in your definition about what that explanation needs to be, just that it needs to be an explanation. If you are gong to come here and try to argue something, at least try to do so in an honest fashion.So now, do you wish to change your definition? Please go ahead-but I hope this is going to be the final change.

I am not trying to put words into your mouth, but by your definition of what we have to work with, natural selection needs variation to work, and the way to get variation is through random mutations, thus no random mutation=no variation equals no naturals selection-yes?If you don't mind, I just want to be sure that your definition is complete. Its pretty hard to have a discussion about anything if things like definitions keep getting changed in the middle of the discussion.

What current explanation? That God creates everything? So is that what you are saying?Let's face it, you were trying to be cute by answering in a stupid way, and now you have been called for it and you are weaseling.
Where are you going with this, either answer the question, or stay out of the discussion.The fact is you can't answer the question, because you are already trapped by your previous statements, so now you are just playing the role of antagonist.

Its a good post. I will get back to you later.

As you have just said, The change in the frequency distribution of hereditary traits in breeding populations from one generation to the next is caused by random mutations, then natural selection.So if the change in frequencies from one generation to the next is caused by random mutations, how can we talk about evolution occurring without showing that it was random mutations? You are trying to have your cake and eat it too.Without the concept of random mutatins causing evolutionary change, we don't have evolution-and yet you don't want to discuss random mutations.And I can certainly understand why you don't want to discuss random mutations, because having it make sense scientifically is pretty hard to do.To recap-1.Evolution is RANDOM MUTATIONS and NATURAL SELECTION2. To show scientifically that evolution has occurred, we have to prove that it was BOTH things acting together. So if either one happens without the other, its not evolution correct?--We can't say we have only have random mutations without Natural Selection and have say we have evolution, right?--And we can't say we have Natural Selection without random mutations and also say we have evolution.And we can't say either of these things, because we have already explained what the definition of evolution is.Any tests must prove BOTH concepts, are you with me?So now you want to prove scientifically that any tests show evolution occurred, but when asked to prove that it was TRULY RANDOM MUTATIONS occurring, all of you keep complaining that you shouldn't have to prove that it was RANDOM MUTATIONS happening!You evolutionists sure have mastered some convenient tricks for framing the debate haven't you?

So will you now concede that in order to discuss evolution, we need to discuss both? Or are you still equivocating on this point? In other words, its only evolution if it has both.

That is completely false. Please reread my opening post. I mentioned "evolutioary change" three different times. You are continuing to propagate a myth.Your problem seems to be that I didn't include my entire post in the title of the post. I suppose if one did that, there would be no need for a title, because the post would be the title.

So can I now at least pin you down to this point?

You know, I really think you have a lot of nerve. First you have tried to say that I asked about natural selection, and NOT evolution. When I have pointed out to you that I VERY clearly asked about evolution-it is YOU who moves the goalposts by now saying that I never asked about RM! Then you dig even deeper to say that NO ONE has said I can't talk about RM, when there have been TEN people saying I shouldn't be allowed to talk about RM, and one even reported it to the moderator.Meanwhile, very disingenuously many of you have tried to somehow separate the concept of Natural Selection from RM, exact for the fact that no one can show how you can have natural selection work in your evolution theory without them.It must be very convenient for you evolutionists, you get to tell me what I can talk about, you get to tell me what I said, and you get to be moderated by another evolutionist who not only allows you all to inject numerous ad hominum attacks on everyone with a dissenting voice, but more importantly does nothing to stop all of you from derailing this thread (how many posts of there now been from people complaing that I am talking about RM when talking about evolution 50?-that's contributing to the topic???).You can't talk about evolution without RM, your theory doesn't exist without them!!! If it does please explain it clearly how it can.I guess under such terms, it is no surprise that you all are convinced your theory has nothing to explain-you silence anyone who challenges it!

I believe I have reached the answer I was looking for very early on in the postings.Your side has very little in the way of hard scientific evidence which can show that natural selection has been the cause of the diversity of life on earth. Instead what you have are some anecdotal studies of group of finches with varying beak sizes, guppies vacillating their amount of spots back and forth, drug resistance occurring in the poof of an eye, and a counting of fruit flies-all of which are subject to virtually any interpretation one wants to draw.It seems the backbone of the theory is that no one has another explanation that is satisfying to your community, so it must be right. Its conjecture not science-most of which is being evangelized by individuals who have made it a point to boast of their atheist credentials, but yet and feel that this is irrelevant to their findings, yet would never allow the same liberty in opposition.Perversely, your side has also attempted to validate your findings by dragging out theistic scientist who support your side-to somehow give credibility to your position-without ever questioning that their own beliefs could cloud their conclusions. Clouding of believes is a concept you only accept for the opposition.Given the chance to prove your side scientifically (which is supposedly your strength) you have instead shown little science, and lots of diversion. The odd thing is that I am not even a creationist, and yet when you see what your side has to offer in the way of explanation and scientific reason-a mind that is capable of philosophic thought (not a particularly abundant trait in most evolutionists apparently-perhaps that's a mutation) one can't help but draw the conclusion that a lot of things in your theory are amiss.Perhaps that is one conclusion one can draw from such a discussion-there may be some minds better suited to a scientific, molecular view of the world (but because of their detailed focus suffer from myopia-I see lots of evidence for that here), and others that are more capable of drawing conclusions from a much broader and expansive world view-and rarely the twain shall meet.This is why the tired argument, "Sorry, you don't understand biology" makes me chuckle a bit. A theory of how things fit together is not the exclusive domain of biology- as you have all shown, there is little biology to support your argument anyway-what it requires is logic...so to that I would say, "Sorry, you simply can't understand logic, so you can probably never get it..but go read more books and maybe it will help."

Are you the moderator now too? Your side has many advantages I see.How many contributions to the topic have you provided so far? How many tests to prove your side have you contributed?Do you wish to calculate that as a percentage of the number of posts you have managed to bully into?

That would be fine if I only said I wanted to talk about NS, but that is NOT what I said! I said I wanted to talk about natural selections effect on evolutionary change! That's a hard differentiation to make? You (and everyone else) are going to try to give me a lecture on biology because you can't see what I asked? (See what I mean about evolutionists really having a hard time pulling their eyes of of a microscope?)I have absolutely no interest to talk about NS as some generic reference to anything you choose to make it mean. You can do that in another thread. I started the thread and I said I wanted to talk about NS as it relates to EVOLUTION.!Percy, I really think it is disingenuous of you to allow this type of obfuscation to continue for so long. Seems I really touched a nerve with you evolutionists.

tsk tsk ICANT, now you are questioning the actual implication of the data, and that's simply not allowed. See all they have to do is prove that a test was done...when you go start throwing in this burden of interrupting what the study is actually demonstrating and unreasonable demands like this, you are playing unfair in their rules.Plus you have gone and thrown in words like species and differences, and all kinds of other terms that they will tell you were not in the original post so are also not allowed. Plus what does the word "show" mean anyway? The study doesn't have to 'show" anything; its a study isn't it? Plus its not as if there are universities all around the world researching this stuff or something.Geez, come on, like go read a biology book for crying out loud. Edited by Bolder-dash, : Edited to further emphasize the absurdity of their arguments.