quote: What you identify are minor mutations in bacteria, what you claim is that this indicates the construction of new digestive systems, respiratory systems, circulatory systems - whole new biological organisms. These observations cannot be extended to that degree.
But observing the mechanisms of development can be extended to the mechanisms of evolution ? I think that your argument is far worse. After all you have no real evidence for the mechanisms that would underly your ideas at all. If they are there then why are they so invisible ?
What you are proposing seems to me to be a variant of Orthogenesis, an idea rejected for just that very lack of evidence.
quote: Experiments have indeed shown mutations can provide benefit to an organism in a particular environment (Lenski's famous 50,000 EColi evolution) but the benefit is achieved by a loss of information.
So creationists say. But if all they do is say it. If they don't propose a useful, usable and relevant measure of information which can be shown to decrease with every beneficial mutation then all they are doing is talking. Why believe that something is true just because a creationist says it ?
quote: There is an expression "Science progresses one funeral at a time." No scientist, in fact no person in authority, wants that authority undermined, overturned, quashed. Many university departments, careers and book sales are based on upholding the current theory of evolution. To maintain this seat of power we are subjected to outlandish attacks on religion.
Really ? Or do you mean that scientists defend science and science education from the attacks coming from religion ?
quote: What Darwin proposed was linked to Nature - variance in phenotype could produce new biological structures. He believed it was a simple process, like animal husbandry - we can make woolier sheep, meatier cows. But we now know variance in phenotype will not create new biological structures and systems. So we've declared it is mutations in DNA
I have to say that if you believe this, then you really lack even a basic grasp of the science. Genetic mutations did not replace phenotypic variation, they were identified as the cause of (heritable) phenotypic variation.
quote: - this is not natural. Nature does not develop life in this way. Nature develops life through systems and processes - no ad hoc mutations in sight.
As has already been pointed out, mutations do occur, they are natural and they do add variation which can serve to drive evolution. It is your presumed mechanisms which are not seen in nature.
Might I suggest that if you are really interested in the truth that you take the time to learn the science, and acquaint yourself with the evidence and then - when you are in a position to do so - rationally evaluate it.
I have to say that it does not appear to be the case. In fact it seems to be very much not the case. We haven't seen you offer any good reasons to think that your claims are true.
quote: I refute the current explanation because I know a better one. In the 1980s in the Far East I learned a different explanation of evolution. A compelling and clever theory that did not rely on meteor strikes or mutations as mechanisms of development. It is based on evidence and rational argument. It made predictions which at the time did not seem possible, yet they have come true and continue to do so. I argue from a position of knowledge. I think there is something better because there is.
If it is "better" in the sense of better explaining the evidence then you need to actually support that claim. You certainly haven't done so in this thread. And despite your claim to argue "from a position of knowledge" you seem to know very little about the relevant biology (to the point of failing to even understand even a simple Mendelian view of genes).
If the question is about "what is" and not what you personally like, then an understanding of biology and an understanding of the evidence is absolutely necessary to argue from a position of knowledge. You can't be in a position to claim that your preferred theory fits better with the evidence without the understanding needed to adequately evaluate how it fits with the evidence.
quote: know the theory I heard 25 years ago may be false, but it clearly demonstrates that an alternative is possible. I have only been on this site a couple of weeks. I did not intend to explain the theory I heard, I came here because I was dismayed that the current theory of arbitrary events is purported to be the only possible scientific explanation. This is arrogant and deeply misleading to people who trust in science. As I do.
Let us be honest, simply hearing a view that you like and which makes sense to you is not sufficient to conclude that that idea is scientifically viable. You should not expect us to believe that your preferred "theory" is scientific just on your say-so.
I would suggest, indeed, that the arrogance is largely yours. Like the vast majority of anti-evolutionists I have observed you seem to start with the belief that your opinions are correct and reality has to agree.
I can say with a great degree of confidence that there is at present no scientifically viable alternative to the current theory of evolution considered broadly. Certainly there is still a lot of refinement to do but at present there is no great evidential challenge, nor any sign of there being one. This is not arrogance, it is an honest assessment of the facts - and if I am not an expert, at least I have a better understanding of the evidence and the support of the overwhelming majority of experts.
You on the other hand, assume that we must accept your opinion that there are scientifically viable alternatives as unquestionably true despite being unable to even offer an example for evaluation or showing an understanding of the relevant science.
In short, you are simply indulging in personal attacks here instead of supporting your claim. And if you cannot support your claim, then you are quite definitely being arrogant.