The Believabliltiy of Evolution

[tas8831]

I don't know but maybe a picture will help you to understand this simple observable process.

The first animal suddenly turned into the second animal.

If this was the case, then you should be able to provide real-time evidence of this.

Analyses of pig genomes provide insight into porcine demography and evolution

 

[tas8831]

I strongly suspected it was not but it just doesn't matter because the point and the "proof" stand.

"I am wrong, as I thought I might be, but I am still right"


No, the "proof" does not stand, for you did not provide a proof.

You provided an unsupported assertion - that you provided pictures does not rescue the fact that you did not prove anything.


In order for your claim "The first animal suddenly turned into the second animal." to have been proved, you would have had to do more that assert it and provide a couple of pictures.

Let me see if you accept this:


The first animal turned into the second animal over very long periods of time, hundreds of generations:

Proof!

Major change is sudden just like almost all change to life on every level.

Re-stating the assertion 100 times will not make it true. Sorry.

The things that affect and shape life is usually virtually instantaneous on every level and in every way.

Re-stating the assertion 101 times will not make it true. Sorry.

Your view, understanding, and knowledge of reality is shaped by a reductionistic science that takes reality apart and never puts it back together again.

Your pseudoscience is shaped by your fantasies borne of an inability to understand actual science.

Reality is all forces and all matter acting in tandem. It can not be reduced except in experiment and experiment has meaning ONLY within metaphysics. You have put the cart before the horse and see only a few of the pieces. You complain that you keep going in the ditch.

You keep thinking that writing things over and over make them true.

If something you write over and over were true, it seems that it should be trivial for you to provide sufficient evidence so as to change the mind of a skeptic. And were that skeptic to continue to disagree, you could rightly call him out, and all could see how the skeptic was in error yet refused to acquiesce.

That you have not done so tells the casual reader and skeptic alike that you cannot.

If I were to claim that gravity makes things fall down, I could provide hundreds of pieces of evidence to show that this is so.

Your claim is, essentially, that your mere assertions are trivially correct, seeing as how they are so ubiquitous (all change is sudden). Yet on the occasions that you have tried (or believed that you had actually tried) to provide what you think to be evidence, by writing a short list when asked for examples of how speciation is sudden, ALL YOU DID was write a list. A list is not evidence, especially when it is easy to show (as I did) that for one critter on your list, mink, speciation did NOT occur "suddenly", but rather over the course of at least 7 generations.

Why is it that others are required to produce evidence (which you then ignore) but you need to merely provide a list?

Ok - here is my evidence of creatures that evolved gradually via survival of the fittest (as you naively and pathetically keep describing it even though you've been corrected repeatedly):

Humans, elephants, storks, giraffes, naked mole rats.

Prove me wrong.

 

[tas8831]

The picture he used is of a warthog. A totally different genus than that of pigs.

But it suddenly became a domestic pig. By magic.

 

[tas8831]

If you were to return to the very first exchanges you would see I posted what is virtually overwhelming evidence that each individual grows a broccas area in order to learn modern language.

No, one would see you to have written a series of assertions. Same as always. Don't have time now to catalog them all, but I will do so and prove that you are, um, 'mis-remembering' as is so often the case.

No other animal thinks or uses abstractions.

And you determined this how, exactly?

Never mind - I am not in the mood for another series of paragraphs filled with fantasy-driven assertions.

 

[cladking]

Don't have time now to catalog them all, but I will do so and prove that you are, um, 'mis-remembering' as is so often the case.

I very much look forward to this.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I can't find a sentence or meaning in these words. Please rephrase.

You said that "all animals are fit".

I replied by saying that "fit" in evolutionary terms, refers to those animals that succesfully survive and reproduce. And that, by whatever means.

"fit" in evolutionary context, is frequently misunderstood to mean "faster, bigger, stronger".
Instead, "fit" refers only to reproductive success (which implies success in survival, obviously).
Evolution is not a ladder towards "faster, bigger, stronger" or alike.

It's not "fit" like the "fit" you become after working out in the gym.

No.

Yes. That's literally what natural selection is. Well, one aspect of it anyway.

ONLY the sick, lame, and dull are unfit.

No. It's clear that you're operating from that misunderstanding I mentioned above...

All the others are for all practical purposes are equally fit.

No.

Each individual has approximately the same odds of success or failure because success and failure is largely the product of chance.

No, it's not.

A less than average mosquito might have countless millions of off spring while a super mosquito might not reproduce at all or all of the eggs are destroyed through happenstance.

See? The exact misunderstanding I was talking about....
The first mosquito has millions of off spring. The other has none. Then in evolutionary fitness terms, it's the first one that is the "super mosquito", not the latter.

What's "super" about it in evolutionary terms, if it completely fails to reproduce even just once?

When it comes to not being a meal alertness is far more important than speed, agility, or intelligence.

You can't say that as a general rule at all. It completely depends on the specific selection pressures at work.
Intelligence specifically, for example, is perfectly capable of compensating below average score for ALL other things you mentioned. To the point even of having a better fitness score (in evolutionary terms) then the rest of the population.

Alertness is closely associated with consciousness. If an individual attends to threats he is far less likely to eliminated

A more intelligent creature could avoid exposing itself to some threats all together and by doing so, have no need for cat-like reflexes.

Once a lion and any wildebeest meet the outcome is preordained. It simply doesn't matter which if any are more "fit". Foxes eat rabbits and no amount of "fitness" can ever change this equation

You are just obviously and demonstrably wrong about that.

Darwin looked at the wrong end of the question and the wrong end of the rabbit. Consciousness drives life and it drives change in life and change in species.

No, it doesn't.

I hate to be the one to break this to you but all individuals are "average Joes'. People want to believe in survival of the fittest because there is always someone beneath them on the evolutionary treadmill but the reality is that every average Joe is as smart and capable as all other individuals. This isn't quite as true in humans because we've had 4000 years of de-evolution but it is still essentially true. We might fail to educate large percentages of the population and force others to work 14 hours every day just to eat but this doesn't mean that the wealthy are more "fit" or that they have ANY evolutionary advantage. It is principally exploitation and much its justification is Darwinian beliefs and the results of Look and See Science. Inequality is not leading to a healthier human race but rather to a continuing decline in the genetic health of the species.

We maintain a fiction we call "intelligence" but such a thing doesn't even exist as we define it. We choose to believe that everyone has limited capabilities and talents except those few who succeed but the reality is that we all have virtually unlimited ability to adapt and succeed at almost any given task. Most average Joes never get an opportunity or miss it. But this isn't about human (de)evolution because humans are no longer a natural part of the environment with their own niche. Rather we are a product of belief and technology which creates our own niche and can do so almost anywhere. This is about average rabbits, lions, and wildebeest. These lack the ability for abstraction and animal technology is (still?) highly limited. Even where animals have technology man tends to destroy it when it gets in his way. Dull and slow witted animals are taken out as fast as the sick and lame. This helps the genetic health of the species. The healthy still have very diverse characteristics because of localized population bottlenecks in the past. There are still genes like those for upside down flies. There is variability in size, shape, coloration, "intelligence", speed, stamina, visual acuity etc etc etc. But to claim that some given trait will breed true while any trait might work for OR against and individual in any situation is simply short sighted. Despite significant differences, for instance, males and females tend to survive in equal numbers.

Your ignorance on this topic is really just disturbing.....

Humans have a unique way of thinking and communicating but where do you go to "inform" yourself about the nature of "thought", consciousness, and communication within and between species?

Science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, evolution is as broad of a subject as the scriptures, so I guess you can't say it all in a few paragraphs. Plus, perhaps my knowledge is so out of date that the following questions are irrelevant. If so, let me know.

Do they still say all life came from primordial soup?

The origins of life (abiogenesis) and evolution are two different topics and different fields of study.

On a similar note, do they still hold the big bang theory as the ultimate source of the universe?

The big bang theory is cosmology and evolution is biology. These are again two different topics and different fields of study.


The topic is evolution, in case you need to be reminded.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Thanks. Yeah, I know neither is technically evolution, but unless I'm mistaken, both the universe had to come into existence somehow and their had to be some "first life" before any evolution could have taken place. Preliminaries, if you will.

And we need to know neither in order to study life and understand its history and development.

Life exists and we can study it. However it came to be, it exists and it is subject to biological processes that we can study and unravel.

I think there are way more holes than substance in the current theory.

Such as?
Hit us with what you think is the biggest "hole".

I do accept evolution within a genus. Genesis does say God created animals "after it's kind" with the word "kind" being "genos" in Greek. Monkeys have certainly evolved into other species of monkeys, but I really don't see any evidence other than pictures and diagrams that a monkey became a man, or any other genus becoming another genus. Is their such evidence.

No, there is no evidence of a genus becoming another genus. If we would find evidence of such, evolution as presently understood would be falsified.

That humans and the other great apes share a common primate ancestor though, has overwhelming amounts of evidence in both the fossil record as well as the genetic record.
And by extension, the same goes for common ancestry of mammals, tetrapods and the rest of life.

I understand that the whole idea of family, genus, species, etc are man made for a means of classification.

Do you also understand that these classifications aren't arbitrary, but rather based on solid evidence?

I guess it all comes down to, have they found the proverbial missing link?

What do you mean by that? Be specific.

I understand the monkeys and humans have a common ancestor. Is there much evidence of whatever life forms led off into the direction of each?

Well, even ignoring all the fossils, the genetic evidence is pretty much beyond any reasonable doubt. It's the same kind of evidence from which we can tell who your biological parent is from a bunch of random and anonymous DNA samples, only 1 of which is your father.

DNA allows us to establish levels of relatedness.
So even if all other evidence disappears overnight, DNA alone is pretty slam dunk. It's so rock solid, we can reasonably say that common ancestry is a genetic fact.

As for fossils... yes, we have them. A small sample with some examples:

 

[tas8831]

If you were to return to the very first exchanges you would see I posted what is virtually overwhelming evidence that each individual grows a broccas area in order to learn modern language.

No, one would see you to have written a series of assertions. Same as always. Don't have time now to catalog them all, but I will do so and prove that you are, um, 'mis-remembering' as is so often the case.I very much look forward to this.

I doubt it.

The thread is "Argumentum Ad Populum."

The claim:

Cladking 'posted what is virtually overwhelming evidence that each individual grows a broccas area in order to learn modern language'

EVIDENCE:
noun

1. the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

FACT:
noun

1. a thing that is known or proved to be true.

PROVE:
verb
verb: prove; 3rd person present: proves; past tense: proved; gerund or present participle: proving; past participle: proven

1. demonstrate the truth or existence of (something) by evidence or argument

Cladking made 54 posts in the thread. Let's see...

Gibberish about global warming... look and see science...life is sudden... butterflies in china... predictions are dumb...peer review is dumb... Darwin... real science is not science because I say so.. back to changes are sudden (no evidence for any of this so far)... erroneous claim re: 'survival of the fittest'... no such thing as species - WOW this thread was like a warehouse of cladking's nonsense! - ...everything in life is sudden.. HERE is a classic - "Dog, cats, farm animals, and crops." are things that appeared in 2 generations or less!!!!! I must have missed that garbage - .. Ah - post 27.

I will include the entire paragraph within which Cladking mentions Broca's area (he typically misspells it as 'broccas'). In addition, we had discussed this in another thread previously, but since he claimed to have presented evidence in 'earlier posts' in this thread, I will only deal with this thread for now. I will provide a link to each post in the first few words of each quote.

We don't really "decide" to grow a broccas area. In a sense we do because "decide" is just one of those words with an infinite number of definitions and individuals do acquire language through intent. In order to acquire language we "grow a brocas area". This varies in position from individual to individual because we are all at a loss to figure the best place for it. Very few even realize they are doing it of course. When we turn 2 we all start growing billions of connections in the brain. These would all be used to speak metaphysical language but we are force fed modern language and must learn it instead. We grow a Broca's Area which acts as a translator between the digital speech center and the now analog higher brain functions. These higher brain functions used to be digital as well and no translation was required. Babies and ancient people don't think like us but we can no longer teach them metaphysical language so they grow a Broccas area. They grow it because they must. Then they think just like we do; Homo Omnisciencis and we're so proud because we think and therefore exist and we think we're so smart. It's win, win, win and then we hold elections to determine reality and ignore anomalies that are almost invisible anyway since we see only what we believe.


I suppose you never considered the possibility that if the location of the Brocca's Area varies among individuals then we might not have been born with one.​

And... that is actually it.

Just those 2 posts... Please, anyone - tell where is the "overwhelming evidence" - for ANYTHING, much less for individuals deciding to grow a Broca's area - is in those passages... Anyone?

I will look for our previous discussions on this tomorrow maybe. It will not be fruitful in terms of finding evidence, but it will show that Clad either does not understand what evidence is, or is just a major troll.

 

[gnostic]

You've never heard that we are all "stardust". A little ashes, a little dust, and then just add 80% water and "instant man".

It took nature a little time to perfect this mixing and Adam was just a mutant born to parents who were proto-human.

You are not reading Genesis 2 properly.

Genesis 2 say that god created man DIRECTLY AND INSTANTLY FROM DUST.

Adam wasn’t born, that have no childhood.

You have told me repeatedly that I shouldn’t believe the translation from Egyptian hieroglyphs of the Pyramid Texts, because it is filled with superstitious nonsenses about magical rituals, and yet you believe in the superstitious nonsenses about Genesis creation of Adam and the story of people only speaking one language pre-Babel.

You are hypocrite.

Creation myths about humans being made from ground, from dust or from soil, is common theme in the Middle East.

The part where god transformed dust directly and instantly into living human being could only be possible in a myth.

Humans don’t just pop into existence from the ground. I assuming the dust is from soil, since Genesis 2 take place in the garden, eg Eden.

But such myth can be originally further east than in Israel, in the late 3rd millennium BCE, eg in Mesopotamia.

In the ancient Sumerian myths, man was created from clay and water. Myths because there are several versions of creation of humans from clay, and several more later in Akkadian-Babylonian-Assyrian versions.

Since the kingdoms of Israel and Judah have encountered the Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians from 8th century to 6th century BCE, then it come as no surprise that Judah created their own creation and flood myths by borrowing and modifying Assyrian-Babylonian myths.

Two-and-a-half thousand years later (after the oldest Sumerian creation myths), Muhammad revived the myths that man (Adam) was created from clay and water.

The oldest man is not made out of dust, soil or clay, cladking. It is just superstitious myth.

You are being hypocrite, because the only smelling-feet bumpkins that I see, is you, because you are the who believe in superstitions from Genesis, eg Adam, Nephilim, Tower of Babel.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I won't say you are wrong, but it does mean that the sequence of events would be even more unlikely than just one ancestor being the source of life. All those thousands of creatures would have to arise by chance mutations in a perfectly precise order in both time and result. If the odds of one thing happening are pretty low, I can't imagine what thousands would would do to those odds.

That is a total fallacy.
It would be true that two worlds developing the same forms of life In the same order as each other would be beyond belief.
But for things to happen In the way they do and did, is absolutely normal. It only becomes difficult if you try to see what developed as part of a plan or preordained.

Man is what he is, because that is just the way it worked out. had conditions been different he may have developed as a sea creature. Or not at all.

 

[cladking]

Yes. That's literally what natural selection is. Well, one aspect of it anyway.

You're telling me there is such a thing as "survival of the fittest" and then using a circular argument to show it.

No, it's not.

since survival and reproduction is based on the genes that happen to express the behavior looking at the products of a species and the reproductive capabilities is looking at the wrong end of the horse you put before the cart. You need to look at consciousness not how good the animals are at sex.


What I stated is factual and connected by logic. Whereas you just cite research that has no bearing on a word I say and which do NOT SHOW gradual change in species.

I don't have a "problem" with science, biology or experiment. I have a problem with experts who look at bones and conclude they mustta resulted from survival of the fittest. Show me how you know they are the result of evolution. Don't show me what you believe "evolution" is because I believe there is no evolution, merely change in species precipitated by behavior induced bottlenecks. I have evidence and logic. You seem to have neither. And yes I am quite aware there is some evidence for survival of the fittest based change in species, I simply believe this is a tertiary cause of change.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're telling me there is such a thing as "survival of the fittest" and then using a circular argument to show it.

No, he was trying to explain to you how "survival of the fittest" is a poorly understood phrase. You still don't understand it.

since survival and reproduction is based on the genes that happen to express the behavior looking at the products of a species and the reproductive capabilities is looking at the wrong end of the horse you put before the cart. You need to look at consciousness not how good the animals are at sex.

Whoosh!!!

What I stated is factual and connected by logic. Whereas you just cite research that has no bearing on a word I say and which do NOT SHOW gradual change in species.

Please, please, don't pretend that you understand or use logic.

I don't have a "problem" with science, biology or experiment. I have a problem with experts who look at bones and conclude they mustta resulted from survival of the fittest. Show me how you know they are the result of evolution. Don't show me what you believe "evolution" is because I believe there is no evolution, merely change in species precipitated by behavior induced bottlenecks. I have evidence and logic. You seem to have neither. And yes I am quite aware there is some evidence for survival of the fittest based change in species, I simply believe this is a tertiary cause of change.

i don't think you would let yourself understand if he showed you. There is a reason I wanted to go over the basics with you. You will not be able to understand his posts until you understand the basics of science.

 

[cladking]

You have told me repeatedly that I shouldn’t believe the translation from Egyptian hieroglyphs of the Pyramid Texts, because it is filled with superstitious nonsenses about magical rituals, and yet you believe in the superstitious nonsenses about Genesis creation of Adam and the story of people only speaking one language pre-Babel.

It's incredible that you could possibly misunderstand me so totally after so many exchanges. I shouldn't be surprised because in almost every case it seems you didn't even read the post to which you responded.

The authors of the Pyramid Texts were wise scientists of the species Homo sapien. The translators are stinky footed bumpkins of the species Homo Omnisciencis which arose from the dust of the tower of babel. I said everything we say is nonsense and gobbledty gook because everything is deconstructed in an infinite number of ways but AL had one single meaning.

I never said I believe in the literal meaning of anything at all in the Bible. I said perhaps everything in the Bible can be deconstructed to make it real and that this reality was that intended by the authors. I said much of the Bible is founded on ancient science which was correct by definition and that modern science is only correct within its own metaphysics. I'm assuming you still haven't bothered to look up the word.

I give up. It's becoming apparent the collapse of the educational system is virtually total. It's obvious few people care about the truth or reality any longer. Most people don't even believe in reality and truth is what MSN or FOX say it is. I don't think I can compete with illiterate talking heads or Look and See Scientists. I can't argue with people who think logic is what sounds right and reality doesn't exist.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, such a shame.

Why, I recently ran across a chap that, on the one hand, boasted of having predicted 15 years ago that the worldwide life expectancy would be in decline now, yet on the other hand, wrote that people who make predictions are loopy.

I just saw this article this evening.

US life expectancy climbs for first time in four years - CNN

 

[Subduction Zone]

I just saw this article this evening.

US life expectancy climbs for first time in four years - CNN

Must be Trump

 

[gnostic]

It's incredible that you could possibly misunderstand me so totally after so many exchanges. I shouldn't be surprised because in almost every case it seems you didn't even read the post to which you responded.

The authors of the Pyramid Texts were wise scientists of the species Homo sapien. The translators are stinky footed bumpkins of the species Homo Omnisciencis which arose from the dust of the tower of babel. I said everything we say is nonsense and gobbledty gook because everything is deconstructed in an infinite number of ways but AL had one single meaning.

I never said I believe in the literal meaning of anything at all in the Bible. I said perhaps everything in the Bible can be deconstructed to make it real and that this reality was that intended by the authors. I said much of the Bible is founded on ancient science which was correct by definition and that modern science is only correct within its own metaphysics. I'm assuming you still haven't bothered to look up the word.

I give up. It's becoming apparent the collapse of the educational system is virtually total. It's obvious few people care about the truth or reality any longer. Most people don't even believe in reality and truth is what MSN or FOX say it is. I don't think I can compete with illiterate talking heads or Look and See Scientists. I can't argue with people who think logic is what sounds right and reality doesn't exist.

Then everything you claims about ancient Egyptians about them being scientists and metaphysicists hence Ancient Science, about the Ancient Language and the Tower of Babel, which you have claimed, are also deconstruction and reconstructed by you.

So you are not only hypocrite, but notoriously cannot help yourself and deluded by your own stories.

 

[gnostic]

And btw, cladking

Most people don't even believe in reality and truth is what MSN or FOX say it is. I don't think I can compete with illiterate talking heads or Look and See Scientists. I can't argue with people who think logic is what sounds right and reality doesn't exist.

I don't watch FOX, MSN, and I rarely watch YouTube, so this is nothing more than strawman.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You're telling me there is such a thing as "survival of the fittest" and then using a circular argument to show it.

Nope.
I'm trying to explain to you what "fit" means in evolutionary context and how it relates to natural selection.

But it seems you are to stubborn to listen. Apparantly, you prefer sticking to your errors.

since survival and reproduction is based on the genes that happen to express the behavior looking at the products of a species and the reproductive capabilities is looking at the wrong end of the horse you put before the cart. You need to look at consciousness not how good the animals are at sex.

Not just sex. First you need to survive. Then you need to find a mate. Then you need to reproduce.
Sure, there is some chance involved when looking at it on a case by case basis, but overall in the bigger picture, not so much.

It's not "random" that the better camouflaged have a higher survival rate then the lesser camouflaged.
It's not "random" that those with stronger immune systems have a higher survival rate then those with average immune systems.

Off course, none of this will sink in with you if you consistently refuse to understand / learn what natural selection is all about and what "fit" in evolutionary context means.

What I stated is factual and connected by logic

The problem is that your premises are flawed.

Whereas you just cite research that has no bearing on a word I say and which do NOT SHOW gradual change in species.

The actual research indeed has no bearing on a word you say, I'll agree there. ;-)
The reason for that is because you are arguing strawmen.

I don't have a "problem" with science, biology or experiment.

Instead, you just don't understand it?

I have a problem with experts who look at bones and conclude they mustta resulted from survival of the fittest.

LOL!!

So you have no problem with science, you only have a problem with........ science. Uhu.

Show me how you know they are the result of evolution.

Comparative anatomy (of both extant as well as fossilised species)
Comparative genomics
Geographic distribution of species and fossils
Timeline of fossils
And all that, crossreferenced with eachother.

All of it converges on the exact same answer: gradual diversification.

This explanation makes testable predictions. When those are tested, they confirm the explanation.
One example of such prediction is distribution of ERV's (or other genetic markers). The closer related the species, the more ERV's they should share.

So by comparing genomes and mapping out ERV matches, we can create a "family tree".
We can also create such a family tree from any of the above mentioned studies - all of which are indendent lines of study / evidence.

And when we do that, the trees match.
Exactly as expect if life shares ancestry.

Common ancestry of species, is a genetic fact.

This is something that is also frequently misunderstood.
Common ancestry isn't a theory. It's a genetic fact.
The theory of evolution provides an explanation of the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

The species share ancestors, is a genetic fact.
Evolution theory, provides an explanation of the process by which that occurs.

If you manage to disprove this theory (good luck with that), then you STILL have to deal with and explain the genetic FACT that species share ancestry.

Creationists tend to think that if evolution would be disproven, then that means that common ancestry is disproven along with it. That is not correct.

It's like gravity.... you could disprove Einstein's theory of gravity. But that won't make gravity go away. Gravity is still a fact and it will still need an explanation.

Don't show me what you believe "evolution" is because I believe there is no evolution

Your beliefs on a subject you don't understand, is really irrelevant.

, merely change in species precipitated by behavior induced bottlenecks

I can't even count the amount of times that @tas8831 has corrected this nonsense and explained it to you. This is another piece of evidence that you are willfully ignorant and aren't interested in learning what the theory ACTUALLY says at all.

I don't get that.

I mean, all fine and dandy if you are hellbend on not believing evolution theory is accurate. But what good does it do to refuse to even learn what it actually says?

Regardless if you believe it or not... if you wish to discuss it, it seems like a good idea to actually learn what it says first.

I have evidence and logic

No. You have a strawman argument based on invalid premises.

You seem to have neither. And yes I am quite aware there is some evidence for survival of the fittest based change in species, I simply believe this is a tertiary cause of change.

what you "believe" is irrelevant.

 

[cladking]

Not just sex. First you need to survive. Then you need to find a mate. Then you need to reproduce.
Sure, there is some chance involved when looking at it on a case by case basis, but overall in the bigger picture, not so much.

It's not "random" that the better camouflaged have a higher survival rate then the lesser camouflaged.
It's not "random" that those with stronger immune systems have a higher survival rate then those with average immune systems.

I thought I was going to abandon this thread but if I don't have to make both sides of the argument I'll continue a littler longer.

Of course there are genetic characteristics that can improve or worsen an individual's chances of reproducing many or no viable off spring. Obviously a smarter, faster, larger, or greener rabbit could have a slightly better chance of surviving any given event. Of course, as well, any of these attributes could reduce the odds of survival. Without studying these specific characteristics and how they play out in the real world of a changing environment we are just guessing at what leads to survival and then we are guessing that the new fossils are representative of what was effective in a population where we don't understand a single case of an individual failing or succeeding. Of course some adaptations in the past and in the lab have very apparent causes and require very little extrapolation. If you kill 90% of a species with a toxin it's hardly surprising the next generation is more fit in terms of surviving that toxin. You could even dissect each victim and see exactly what killed it and study how some individuals actually got slightly more or less poison. You could get a lot of genetic insight into why each survivor didn't die by studying them. So?

You need to show that the characteristic that is represented was actually more likely to be represented and that all these many characteristics that are represented are actually what drives the changes observed. We can't really do that. We have merely extrapolated common sense in terms of our beliefs and a few experiments.

You can't extrapolate the fact that everything accelerates at 32 ft/ sec/ sec To the sun going down at night will just continue to go down and never come back. Even the first extrapolation is dangerous but when layer upon layer of extrapolation is done without ever going back to the touchstone we call "experiment" all results are highly questionable. Our assumptions, definitions, and axioms make it so. And one of those axioms is that populations are relatively stable even over the long term. One of our assumptions is that behavior has little to do with animal survival. One of our assumptions is that we are much smarter than animals. One of our assumptions is that By taking nature apart and studying a species we can extrapolate what is found to every individual. One of our assumptions is that animals don't even have consciousness and it's hardly necessary to know what a rabbit is thinking as it's being eaten by a rabbit. Even our definitions can cause errors. If you define a term badly then studying that thing is more difficult and more prone to misinterpretation.

EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION IS ONLY VALID WITHIN THOSE ASSUMPTION. To the degree any of these assumptions is wrong our conclusions can be wrong. I believe there are massive problems with these assumptions. They are so massive that we even interpret experiment incorrectly.

Most people have lost sight of the foundations of modern science so they don't know what they know.