Granted, non of the alternative models have been tested with definitive conclusions, but Darwinism has not been tested ether.
You don’t even understand the concept of what “tested” mean, Leroy.
I am referring to natural and physical science in general; I am not talking about Evolution alone. Natural Science involved the major branches or domain of science (eg physics, chemistry, biology, Earth science and astronomy).
“Tested” mean any observations and evidence obtained FOR or AGAINST any model (explanatory models, like hypotheses and scientific theory).
These evidence and observations will provide useful data, such as quantities, measurements, comparing the evidence against each other and comparing evidence against the models, etc, all so that scientists can test and analyse the evidence and data.
The more evidence you have, then statistically you can determine if the evidence and observations support or don’t support the model. That’s how you would determine which model is science and which isn’t science.
And Evolution have over century and a half of evidence, from botany to zoology, from paleontology to genetics, molecular biology, biochemistry, and other biology related fields.
From the 20th century to the present, they have developed technology and procedures/techniques to test these evidence, including DNA & RNA.
So for you even say Evolution “haven’t been tested”, only demonstrated you don’t know what “tested” mean. You have made yourself look and sound ignorant.
Second, there is no such as Darwinism, and Charles Darwin has never named the mechanism Natural Selection to “Darwinism”. He only ever called the field that he was pioneered in, Natural Selection.
But Darwin was only a pioneer in Natural Selection Evolution. In the decades and over a century that followed, Natural Selection has been expanded, corrected and modified, with, like new sets of techniques for testing evidence - DNA. Natural Selection is not only accepted today, it is stronger than ever, because the majority of changes to life, occurred more frequently through NS than any other mechanisms.
And to include Mutation in “Darwinism”, when Darwin never talk about Mutation, is another reason why sounds so ignorant.
The research into Mutation didn’t start until his death, in the 20th century, a new mechanism. Other mechanisms followed including Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Genetic Hitchhiking.
But Mutation and Genetic Drift didn’t replace or refute Natural Selection. No, these other mechanisms only showed that are more than one way for life to evolve.
You keep bringing up random and non-random up.
Natural Selection is not at all random. With NS, the driving forces for changes - is the environments. Changes in environment will change the fitnesses of any organisms, and they have to adapt as population for future generations to survive.
Mutation, on the other hand, can be random or non-random, but it depends on contexts, here.
I am not a biologist, so might ask someone who know far more than I do on this subject, but from what I understand mutations occur naturally and frequently, and most changes doesn’t effect outward physical appearance.
It is only when unexpected change might occurred that might be considered random, for instance, a child developed a disease that neither sides of parents and their lines never have.
But Mutation in Evolution have nothing to do with individual offspring or even individual family, but everything to do with population.
So if the mutation occurred only in a single person, and not the population having the same mutation, then it isn’t Evolution. And in majority of cases, mutations that occurred from population to population, are more often than not, non-random.
It doesn’t matter which mechanisms we are talking about, if changes only occur in one person or one family, then it isn’t Evolution.
Evolution is all about changes that occur in populations. And unless you are bacteria or microbes, Evolution may take many generations, for any noticeable changes to populations, and it really depends on big of changes.
Now I may be wrong about what I said about random and non-random, so I am hoping that someone can help us with this.
