New name for evolution, "The Bacteria Diet"

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!)

Dreamed what? Be specific.You've long stopped making any kind of sense, Dash.

Are you claiming that organisms in the past did not undergo random mutation, or are you claiming that organisms in the past did not undergo natural selection? Or are you making both claims?Since we observed organisms in the present undergo both of these processes, why should we believe that they didn't do so in the past as well? Please be specific.

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.

Darwin's theory of evolution is supported if how it is defined evolves too.

Finally, you're asking intelligible questions. If you wanted to know how we know that random mutation and natural selection can produce the varieties of life we see today, why didn't you say so before? Honestly.1) Complex structures of life are determined in organisms by the content of their genetics - that is, by sequences of DNA.2) Random mutation can produce any arbitrary DNA sequence. Mutations can add any base and subtract any base, duplicate or eliminate any gene, and make any sort of modification to DNA sequences.3) Natural selection preserves random mutations that move an organism towards adaptation, and eliminates those that move an organism away from adaptation ("maladaptation.").Logically, therefore, random mutation and natural selection in concert can produce theoretically any possible complex physical structure of life.It is estimated that the total diversity of proteins among all known species inhabits a very small fraction of the probability space, that these proteins are clustered in the probability space, and that approximately 1% of all randomly-generated polypeptides exhibit kinase activity.Mathematically that indicates that it's possible to "walk" from any one protein to any other by means of "steps" comprised of single amino acid substitutions, deletions, or additions (all of which are fairly common mutations.)Living things are not discreet and essentially different; living things occupy a smooth continuum of change in form and capability. You've been presented with a portion of that continuum in the form of the smooth continuous pattern of hominid skulls leading from our oldest evolutionary ancestor to modern humans. But that pattern is universal among living things on Earth. The biological world has almost no true novelty; every living thing is just a modified other living thing. Humans are modified apes. Apes are modified mammals. Mammals are modified lizards. Lizards are modified fish. Fish are modified worms. Worms are modified polyps. Polyps are modified molds. Molds are modified bacteria. Bacteria are modified... whatever the first living thing was.

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.

Yes, as a matter of fact this thread is about you saying that our only evidence for evolution is the changing of bacterial metabolic abilities, and that the theory should be renamed to reflect that fact.So, people presented evidence. Large amounts of it in fact, both here and in multiple other threads -- and then there's most scientific journals too -- to demonstrate that bacteria are not the only evidence used to support evolution.Thus the onus is yours to demonstrate that all of that evidence is either fabricated, incorrect or otherwise invalid. And we're talking millions of data in thousands of papers here. Which you have not done.Therefore, your proposed renaming of the theory of evolution should be considered rejected, as it is far less appropriate than the current. Unless you are in the middle of writing the post in which you conclusively demonstrate all that evidence to be wrong or bad or not applicable. We're waiting...

Naturally I am not a participant in this discussion, but this thread is at a familiar impasse, so I thought it might help to briefly characterize the situation as I see it.Evolutionists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection that we observe at work in the world today are sufficient to produce the observed diversity of species found in the both today and in the fossil record, but they do not have the kind of direct evidence of what happened in the past that creationists might find convincing.Creationists believe the processes of random mutation and natural selection, though real, are insufficient to produce the aforementioned diversity, but they cannot point to other observable processes or mechanisms that might have been responsible.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

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.

You could try thinking along the lines that, if only a small percentage are advantageous, then that would be a clear indication of general randomness. And you could certainly consider the detrimental ones as being random. Also, most are fairly close to neutral, and in their immediate effects, have no apparent point to them. Which would inevitably lead to differential reproduction, wouldn't it? You shouldn't project your own inability to read evidence onto others. Biologists can look at the genomes of individuals in the same species, and see that the differences are the results of types of mutations they know from the lab.When they've established common ancestry between two species, they can do the same thing. The quantity of mutations that make up the differences is just larger.Even things that rarely go to fixation in a population group, like our fused chromosome 2, occur quite frequently. There are lots of perfectly healthy humans walking around today with a different number of chromosomes than the rest of us. I've already shown you in a post above how you can easily extend that to plants.I'll help you to extend it to another Kingdom, as well, because there's plenty of research on fungi like this example.Spontaneous Mutations in Diploid Saccharomyces cerevisiae | Genetics | Oxford AcademicSo now you've got the theory of evolution of bacteria, fungi and plants + evidence of common descent + transitional fossils + plus evidence of mutation and selection in animal genomes etc.Soon, you'll end up with the modern theory of evolution, and realise that the rest of us are just quicker than you.

It takes two to tango. Here's a collection of some of your responses to attempts to describe evidence for you: I think if you respond to the evidence presented, even if it's just to explain why you don't consider it evidence, that it would help move the discussion constructively forward. This is your thread, try to make the most of it.Please, no responses to this message in this thread. Problems with discussion should be taken to the Report discussion problems here: No.2.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

That random mutation and natural selection can produce any arbitrary DNA sequence, that morphology of organisms is determined by DNA, and therefore that random mutation and natural selection can account for any morphological feature of any organism, living or dead.That's what I can, and have, demonstrated.