Bolder-dash writes:
Once again you and Perry and others are trying to run away from the random aspect of the entire ToE, as if natural selection all by itself can do anything. The fact that you can neither adequately demonstrate the accuracy of either the random mutations aspect of it, nor the natural selection aspect of it, does not prevent you from claiming that the random mutations part is a "very small part of it."
Random mutation and natural selection don't just apply to biological life. It's also a very useful method to understand physical problems in physics. Hint: monte carlo method.
Random mutation is a small but significant part of evolution. Parameters (selective pressures) are then applied to weed out the undesired results and keep the desired results. Through time, small but significant results are accumulated to give rise to new characteristics. And so on and so forth. But my point in this thread is random mutation isn't the start all end all thing that drives evolution. It's a significant piece, but just a piece nonetheless.
You side claims it takes too long to "see" evolution and that's why it is hard to demonstrate it scientifically
Incorrect. Evolution is very easy to demonstrate. But it also depends on who's receiving the information. And right now as it stands, you seem to have no clue how the mechanisms work.
you claim your theory can make predictions but don't know what they are
What are you talking about? Accurate predictions have been cited so many times on this forum, I've lost count.
you claim the mechanisms for all of the variation are still not clearly know yet you are sure they are random
Huh? When did I or anyone say this?
you say you don't know how it all started but are working on that
What, and you claim to know it all?
and now you want to say that well, look let's not get all hung up on the small matter of how the changes happen in a species, let's just concentrate on the fact that once the changes happen, animals survive better (or maybe not, we are still working on that too, perhaps its all just lucky horizontal drift!).
You seem to have a gross misunderstanding of evolution based on these words.
For a scientific theory that wants to preclude consideration of all other ideas, its not much of a theory.
Incorrect. If you have a better view, please by all means publish your experiments and results in peer review.
Do you or do you not agree that mutation invariably happens? If you do not, please explain why and give us examples. If you do agree, then I don't understand what the argument is here.
And from the incredulity that your side thinks that just because your theory is hard to prove and impossible to show...
Again, the theory is quite simple to understand and demonstrate. The problem lies in the audience. Your words demonstrate that you don't even understand the basics of biological evolution. Just because you can throw in words from a high school biology text doesn't mean you understand them.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
