Summations Only

That is not the theory of evolution. As you have been told many, many times before.

You didn't ask for proof that it's a lie. You asked for proof that he never said that. The former can be proved, the latter cannot. Basic logic. Message 151Someone else addressed the question but I can't find it now. Some moderator posted a message to you linking to both my and the other replies.Bounore did not say that. Saying he did is a lie.Jean Rostand did say something close to that, but not exactly that. Quoting him as saying that is a lie. He also said "Transformism may be considered as accepted, and no scientist, no philosopher, no longer discusses the fact of evolution". As previously discussed and ignored by you, he obviously accepted that evolution occurs, but also thought that the theory of how this happened was incomplete at that time. That opinion is now way out of date.

First of all, it seems to me that you are making an assumption - ie, that the mutations are "new". Is it not possible that bacteria are continually mutating through a fixed repertoire of mutations?("repertoire" is a french word derived from "to repeat")
To humans, these mutations may may appear to be novel, but only because they haven't seen them before. (Consider swans: they were all considered to be white ... until blacks ones were discovered in Australia. The black was not a "new" variation, but simply an unknown one.)Secondly, as I have already pointed out, Peppered Moths were known to produce white and blacks variants, yet the process of natural selection they experienceddue to colour is nevertheless referred to as "evolution". This doesn't seem to support your claim that new characteristics differentiates evolution from natural selection. Evolutionary biologists claim that all life descended from a common ancestor. How can you say this is not a theory?Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

How would that work exactly?

That's where statistics comes in. If there is a statistically significant difference in allele distributions between two defined populations then you can objectively define "evolving separately".

As shown by the experiment, those variations are produced by mutations.

That's why natural selection by itself is not the totality of evolution. You also need random mutations (with respect to fitness) producing new variations.

Universal common descent is useful for explaining the distribution of characteristics amongst all life, which is a very useful theory in biology.

If you randomly pick a card out of a deck you will pick the same card with enough draws. Those are still random draws even though a pick is repeated. I said they are random (with respect to fitness), not novel. It is entirely possible for two populations to produce the same random mutation in the same way that you can pick the same card from two random draws. That process includes the mutations that produce the two colors. Claims are not necessarily a theory. A claim can also be a conclusion drawn from evidence, which is the case with universal common descent. Conclusions and theories are two different things.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

There is a "fixed repertoire" in the sense that only a certain set of combinations are possible. But it's a really, really big set.Your task in rejecting evolution is to show why a subset of those possibilities would be fixed. For example, if the alphabet is your set of possibilities, you need to show why the combination AB is possible but the combination AC is not.

Almost right. However, Taq never said or implied that the mutations were produced in response to antibiotics. Do you have any evidence that the mutations for insecticide resistance are detrimental?Can you cite any research papers that support your statements with regards to insects?Do you have any research that shows the resistance mutations in insects are constantly removed by natural selection?

Dredge says: "the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution)." Please describe the general theory of evolution without referring to common descent.

ffs, there's a whole thread on that very subject that does exactly that.How many times? Are you really this dumb?

He's a troll, just yanking chains.

Dredge writes:
I accept that there are many practical uses for some of the things that come under the umbrella of what you call "evolution". However, you have not demonstrated that the theory that all life shares a common ancestor (ie, evolution) has any use in applied science. Good luck with that one. You seem to be under the impression that a theory offered to explain a certain obsevation is, in and of itself, useful. I suggest you have a very odd notion of what "useful" means. How times do you evo's have to be told? Theorising is not a use!
Scientists have an explantion for why the sky is blue. Said explanation is not useful in any practical sense; it's just a theory ... an idea ... a story ... ink on paper. Scientists came up with String Theory to explain a certain observation, but String theory has no practical use. Do you see a pattern here? Coming up with a theory to explain an observation is not necessarily a use.
In a similar way, universal common descent is a theory that attempts to explain an observation, but it is of no practical use. Take away the theory of common descent and every biologist in the world will be able to go about his work unaffected. Common descent is a useless idea."That, by this, evolutionism would appear as a theory without value, is confirmed also pragmatically. A theory must not be required to be true, said Mr. H. Poincare, more or less, it must be required to be useable. Indeed, none of the progress made in biology depends even slightly on a theory, the principles of which [i.e., of how evolution occurs -- ED.] are nevertheless filling every year volumes of books, periodicals, and congresses with their discussions and their disagreements."
Professor Bounoure, Determinism and Finality, edited by Flammarion, 1957,Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.