New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"

Which fairy tale world are you discussing?I was talking about the real evidence, not the ones in your mind.

Excuse me? He remarked that there was evidence for RM/NS in humans, in the fossil record, in the "chain of development"(?) and I don't know where else, without providing evidence for nay of that. So I can only assume he was discussing his fantasy of the evidence and not actually evidence that he can show me.

NON-responsive. Its not real because you dreamed it.

First off, what does the fossil evidence tell you about RM/NS being the mechanisms of change? Nothing is the answer.And secondly, very very frequently they discover fossils that are exactly where the theory wouldn't predict them to be (you probably have heard of the Cambrian fossils), and whenever this happens, they are clever enough at making the theory so flexible that they can just call it a new name like punctuated equilibrium, and just sweep it under the rug.The newest new name is evo-devo, where large scale changes do happen suddenly, and which will continue to throw problems into the ever increasing hodge podge of whatever the ToE is actually trying to say, but you get to oh so conveniently say-well, its another mechanism....lalala.It completely contradicts the original mechanisms, but so what, the theory can have many mechanisms (please don't ask too many questions!)

Whether or not ANY organisms have ever had a random mutation, or whether or not ANY natural selection (which really is a pretty ambiguous and meaningless term) has ever occurred to any populations-I guess since some organisms die before others then its pretty self defining-it is not of very much significance. The point is demonstrating that these two things are sufficient to produce all the meaningful complex structures of life. Without any evidence other than your fairy tales, I am not willing to just swallow your theory on your faith.

Man, you speeches are like broken records. How many times can you continue to say that RM and NS can do this and can that, and saying that this is possible and that is possible.? Ok, we have heard it. You believe this is possible. Maybe you can start a thread discussing the things you have faith in and believe are possible.This about what we can prove. What we can demonstrate. What people don't need your awesome faith in, to see that its true. If you continue to make wild assertions about what YOU claim a process can do, I am going to have to ask the moderators to force you back on track to real things and real evidence.I have already heard your long winded speeches about what you believe RM/NS can do a thousand times. The name of this thread is not 'what crashfrog believes is possible'. I can create all sorts of great stories about what I think is possible. its irrelevant to what can be proven to any degree of certainty.

Well, if I am going to state my position, I would do it slightly different than what you wrote for it.I would say I believe that random mutations happen to some species maybe (in fact I have no way of knowing if any of them are truly random, but perhaps a few are).And so as I said before, if one individual in a population is different from some others, at times this might save their life a little longer-for example a cripple who can't go outside to work in a field in Tanzania might be less likely to get eaten by a pack of wild heynas. does that mean that natural selection has selected for cripples in this case. I guess it does. I personally feel the term natural selection is so ambiguous that it means nothing much. Just that someone didn't die at one time when someone else did.But the point of this thread is not just what evolutionists BELIEVE these mechanisms can do, the point is what they can actually show with evidence what these mechanisms can do. And so far, despite all of the repeated contentions that there is lots of evidence aside from the bacteria diet kind, there seems to only be talk of this evidence, not evidence of this evidence.I believe if all of these people are allowed to SAY that they have presented evidence here, it is not asking to much for them to just number and list those evidences so we can be clear what evidence they are talking about. You can not say that the fossil record is evidence for the mechanisms of common ancestry. They are only evidence for the possibility of the common ancestry, not the mechanisms.So, as moderator, and in accordance with the forum guidelines, please ask them to spell out their evidence clearly, by number, or stop just saying they have given evidence without saying what evidence. If they can only give bacterial evidence then my opening premise still stands. The name for the Theory of Evolution should be changed to the bacteria diet theory.