Absolutely and positively not in any way shape or form.
And still you describe the gradual changes of fish evolving to exploit the land in a simplified description of evolution.
You have never, I MEAN NEVER, offered any reason to agree with this.
and that the job of every individual is to assemble this evidence in meaningful patterns that make accurate predictions and create fewer anomalies.
Then take up the duty of your own words.
Darwin assembled the evidence incorrectly
No evidence of that. The way he didn't launched literally millions of research projects and millions of publications of continued research, vast discoveries and the cornerstone of modern biology.
because common sense doesn't apply to how and why species change.
Evidence does and using common sense to recognize when someone has it and someone doesn't.
Well, more accurately common sense applies to everything but it is ALWAYS dependent on proper beliefs and models. All of our beliefs are wrong.
Based on the evidence all the beliefs you claim are wrong.
Yes, species change as is apparent from the "fossil record" but just because gradual change and "survival of the fittest" are common sense doesn't mean they explain the evidence.
The aren't common sense. They are conclusions of the evidence.
The way homo omninisciencis
Not an actual species that is known to exist or has ever been described in the literature. As far as I know, you made it up and decided it was real.
thinks is not in any way natural.
How a made up species thinks is immaterial to the discsussion.
Naturally all individuals model reality itself in the brain but we must learn abstract language so we can learn anything at all so we must model what we believe. These models ideally are tied to experiment but in the real world they are tied more closely to extrapolations that might best be called "paradigms".
Whatever. Just seems like more rambling to me.
Every bit of the Theory of Evolution tied to experiment is probably mostly spot on but little of the theory is tied to experiment.
Much of it is, but it doesn't have to be. We can get data from observations of natural systems too.
It is instead tied to interpolations and extrapolations of what we believe.
NO!!!! @NO.com
No. Remember, you have defined that word out of any utility and no one knows what you mean here. Change in species is demonstrated by the evidence to be gradual.
Species undergo mutation suddenly.
I'm not sure what you mean here and I'm pretty sure you don't either. Mutations occur in one generation and are passed on to the next.
Speciation occurs suddenly at bottlenecks caused by behavior of individuals.
Not at all.
NO!!!! Your erroneous claim has been routinely debunked and the reality of it has been regularly explained to you.
A bottleneck is an event that radically reduces the absolute numbers of a population and often the genetic diversity of a population. But they are the same species at the beginning of the event as they are at the end. There is no behavior that has been observed to drive speciation.
The behavior is a result of learning, experience, consciousness, and genetics.
No. There is no such behavior, so it can't have any origin in anything.
Evolution big E or little e simply does not exist.
Except you claim it does as steps resulting from different fitnesses.
It is interpretation of evidence led astray by faulty premises.
Your claims about the phenomenon and the theory seem to be made up out of what you believe and not what you know.
Frankly, you seem to understand better than most.
There is no reason to come to that conclusion. Quite the opposite based on the evidence.
