leroy
Well-Known Member
That is incorrect. Tell me, what reasonable test would show you to be wrong.
So amazingly wrong. If you are trying to make an "odds argument" the odds against a magical creator would be greater than anything natural.
I am answering according to the definition of evidence that "Aint Necessarily" provided
From your comments it is obvious that you are not following the conversation that
Aint Necessarily and I are having.
The argument is currently being discussed in peer reviewed articles. Currently it is just a viable hypothesis.Then you would need to show that. Please remember, don't use old failed arguments.
Just to be clear my argument is that evolution is caused mainly by non random genetic changes and natural selection rather that random genetic changes and natural selection.
Yes there is a point.Nope, try again. So nonsensical there is no point.
I am rejecting the idea that small evolutionary changes necessarily add up and produce big changes.
If that where true then lamarkism should be accepted as an explanation for the diversity of life because small evolutionary changes are being caused by mechanisms that resemble what Lamark said.
So you have 2 alternatives
1 accept lamarkinian as a mechanism being responsible for evolution at a big scale
2 accept that small changes don't necessarily imply big changes, microevolution does not necessarily imply macro evolution
Scientists are on my side, it is widely accepted that evolution by random changes + natural selection is a controversial idea. New non random mechanism are constantly being discovered to be responsable for evolutionary changes.You were being asked why scientists do not believe you.
There no point. NGE appears to be mostly handwaving and trying to claim that natural selection is their method. There is a reason that real scientists do not pay any attention to it.
There are peer reviewed articles on NGE, and on many other non random mechanisms that are said to be responsible for evolutionary changes.
I am going to repeat this, since it is very important:
What reasonable test could show your ideas to be wrong?
My idea is that, evolution is being caused mainly by non random genetic changes could be proven wrong if one can show that random genetic changes can account for the diversity of life . A posible test (not viable with our current technology) would be showing a step by step path that would explain the origin of something complex like an eye , each step has to be achivable in 1 generation, simple, statistically likely, selectively positive and towards the correct direction.
You believe that diversity is caused mainly by random genetic changes and natural selection, what test would prove your idea wrong.?