Evolution has never been observed

[Red Hypergiant]

Yes exactly, they didn't use the word evolution but they expressed in different words how the beliefs of evolution which darwin believed in were impossible. They were the true skeptics unlike others on this forum embracing evolution at face value when they themselves have never observed it with their own 5 senses. Evolution is an embarrassment to empiricism.

 

How could they express how Darwin's ideas were impossible if they were dead before he published his works?

 

 

And we don't just accept evolution at face value. We see all the evidence, the fossil record, phylogenetic tree, and numerous observed cases, and then accept it.

[ydoaPs]

Yes exactly, they didn't use the word evolution but they expressed in different words how the beliefs of evolution which darwin believed in were impossible. They were the true skeptics unlike others on this forum embracing evolution at face value when they themselves have never observed it with their own 5 senses. Evolution is an embarrassment to empiricism.

I haven't observed your brain with my own 5 senses; it must not exist.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Yes exactly, they didn't use the word evolution but they expressed in different words how the beliefs of evolution which darwin believed in were impossible. They were the true skeptics unlike others on this forum embracing evolution at face value when they themselves have never observed it with their own 5 senses. Evolution is an embarrassment to empiricism.

 

The beliefs of evolution were not articulated before Darwin and Wallace, except through Lamarckianism, which is wrong.

 

Again, Hume, Kant and Hegel were dead before biological evolution was proposed as a theory. If you want to prove otherwise, point me to the books and chapters where they discuss it. I can easily get my hands on their works to see if you're right.

[ydoaPs]

I am not talking about words i am talking about video footage or a photo.

Is this video proof of psychokinesis?

[Moontanman]

Animals and plants change over time due to the environment, I've directly observed it but I didn't video tape it. In animal husbandry and over time you get the chance to see lots of things most people never notice. The faster an animal reproduces the faster the changes accumulate, some animals I have personally watched change over time in captivity...

 

Heterandria formosa

Gambusia holbrooki

Amphiprion percula

Enneacanthus gloriosus

Cambarellus shufeldtii

several species of Coral

Ghost shrimp

 

 

Now I know that since I didn't video tape it you won't believe it but i find it difficult to video tape a process that takes years and hundreds of generations but the time it takes does not negate the process.

 

How long have you been observing the universe ?

[cabinintheforest]

The beliefs of evolution were not articulated before Darwin and Wallace, except through Lamarckianism, which is wrong.

 

Again, Hume, Kant and Hegel were dead before biological evolution was proposed as a theory. If you want to prove otherwise, point me to the books and chapters where they discuss it. I can easily get my hands on their works to see if you're right.

 

Heres Hegel

 

http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/hegel-denies-evolution-but-dies-28-years-before-the-origin-of-species/

 

Animals and plants change over time due to the environment

 

I am a botanist i work with plants everyday. Put a plant in a different evironment and it will die. Go and get a plant and put it in a dark room it would be dead in 2days, wheres the evolution? Survival of the fittest? lol

[Red Hypergiant]

Heres Hegel

 

http://www.uncommond...gin-of-species/

 

 

Great, he has a negative opinion on pre-evolution by natural selection ideas.

 

 

 

 

What does this prove?

 

 

[cabinintheforest]

Is this video proof of psychokinesis?

 

That is a fake video but yes there is some real life footage of psychokinesis from a russian woman.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Heres Hegel

 

http://www.uncommond...gin-of-species/

The only "evolution" to Hegel was Lamarckian evolution. This is not surprising, given that Lamarck was wrong.

[Red Hypergiant]

 

I am a botanist i work with plants everyday. Put a plant in a different evironment and it will die. Go and get a plant and put it in a dark room it would be dead in 2days, wheres the evolution? Survival of the fittest? lol

 

 

 

Yes, because that is an extremely abrupt change. Obviously, the sun isn't going to go out, and if the plant can't survive in a new environment, then that's natural selection. That's why when mega-disasters happen, we observe mass extinctions in the fossil record.

 

 

 

Go learn more about evolution before you just dismiss it out of hand.

 

 

 

That is a fake video but yes there is some real life footage of psychokinesis from a russian woman.

 

Then why should we believe that video is real and this is fake? Because of your opinion?

[cabinintheforest]

Then why should we believe that video is real and this is fake? Because of your opinion?

 

No, becuase she was tied up, fruad out the question. She was in a lab. Under set conditions. She was checked by scientists thoughout the observed psychokinesis. Reports were written, and the lady repeated the test in 3 videos. It was observed, repeated, testable and studied after. This is some real science.

[ydoaPs]

Im nearly 20 years old

vs

I am a botanist i work with plants everyday.

You're a botanist at under 20 years old, eh? Did you go to school with Doogie Howser or did you graduate from Patriot university?

 

Put a plant in a different evironment and it will die. Go and get a plant and put it in a dark room it would be dead in 2days, wheres the evolution? Survival of the fittest? lol

So, you're a botanist that doesn't know the difference between a population and an individual?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

No, becuase she was tied up, fruad out the question. She was in a lab. Under set conditions. She was checked by scientists thoughout the observed psychokinesis. Reports were written, and the lady repeated the test in 3 videos. It was observed, repeated, testable and studied after. This is some real science.

 

This is how most biological experiments are done. You know, in a lab, under set conditions, checked by scientists throughout, observed, with peer-reviewed reports published. Why do you dismiss those experiments but not the ones in psychokinesis?

 

I'd love to see links to these videos and reports, but I think you ought to open another thread about it.

[ydoaPs]

No, becuase she was tied up, fruad out the question. She was in a lab. Under set conditions. She was checked by scientists thoughout the observed psychokinesis. Reports were written, and the lady repeated the test in 3 videos. It was observed, repeated, testable and studied after. This is some real science.

Did you see the video? There was a glass bowl over the psiwheel. A hairdryer was used to show that there were no leaks. A magnet was used to show that it wasn't magnetism. This is some real science.

[Moontanman]

Did I mention I am nuclear physicist?

[DctrZaius]

Your understanding of evolution is really inaccurate. This is the problem with you wishing to discuss this on a science forum. You seem to be completely oblivious to the actual science behind the evidence for evolution. You just keep disregarding every piece of evidence by saying you don't think it's evidence, when it clearly is.

 

Of course if you take a plant away from a light source, it's source of energy, it will die. Just as if you take food away from a human it will eventually die. Natural selection comes into play when you have an entire population of plants or animals and there is some genetically variable trait within the population that makes some organisms more likely to survive in a particular environment. In a population of plants there might be one that survives slightly saline conditions better than all the other plants due to a variable peptide sequence. If the water table rises and the topsoil becomes saline all the other plants die and the one with salt tolerance will survive to reproduce and pass on that important trait. One human example of natural selection is the tendency for carriers of a particular allele of the sickle cell anaemia gene to survive malaria infections. This particular allele is selected for in the population where malaria is rife because people without it die and cannot pass on that trait. People with the allele survive and pass it onto offspring who can survive malaria better than non-carriers of that allele. This has occurred over many many years in African countries where malaria is common. Can you not see that this is clear evidence for natural selection? Are you just going to deny that this is true because you haven't personally sequenced a sickle cell anaemia gene and witnessed the survival of those who carry it?

 

I strongly suggest you go and read some reliable books on evolution if not for the sole purpose of being able to form stronger arguments. At the moment you're embarrassing yourself because nothing you allude to is based on scientific evidence. You just keep saying that scientific evidence is wrong, which is completely ridiculous. Do you think the scientific evidence that says medicine works is wrong? Despite the fact that it works? Are you going to deny the scientific evidence that led to the invention of things like computers when computers clearly work as a result of the evidence and theory they are based on? Seriously, your arguments are completely logically inconsistent.

 

What has evolutionary theory got to do with anybody's personal opinion of rapists? Your statements are just ridiculous. How can you not see how little sense you're making?

 

If you're a botanist, which university did you go to? Certainly not a recognised one. No botanist could ever have such a poor understanding of evolution when plant biology, classification and distribution only ever makes sense in the context of evolution.

Edited November 4, 2010 by DctrZaius

[ydoaPs]

If you're a botanist, which university did you go to? Certainly not a recognised one. No botanist could ever have such a poor understanding of evolution when plant biology, classification and distribution only ever makes sense in the context of evolution.

Especially being at most 19 years old.

[cabinintheforest]

Your understanding of evolution is really inaccurate. This is the problem with you wishing to discuss this on a science forum. You seem to be completely oblivious to the actual science behind the evidence for evolution. You just keep disregarding every piece of evidence by saying you don't think it's evidence, when it clearly is.

 

Of course if you take a plant away from a light source, it's source of energy, it will die. Just as if you take food away from a human it will eventually die. Natural selection comes into play when you have an entire population of plants or animals and there is some genetically variable trait within the population that makes some organisms more likely to survive in a particular environment. In a population of plants there might be one that survives slightly saline conditions better than all the other plants due to a variable peptide sequence. If the water table rises and the topsoil becomes saline all the other plants die and the one with salt tolerance will survive to reproduce and pass on that important trait. One human example of natural selection is the tendency for carriers of a particular allele of the sickle cell anaemia gene to survive malaria infections. This particular allele is selected for in the population where malaria is rife because people without it die and cannot pass on that trait. People with the allele survive and pass it onto offspring who can survive malaria better than non-carriers of that allele. This has occurred over many many years in African countries where malaria is common. Can you not see that this is clear evidence for natural selection? Are you just going to deny that this is true because you haven't personally sequenced a sickle cell anaemia gene and witnessed the survival of those who carry it?

 

I strongly suggest you go and read some reliable books on evolution if not for the sole purpose of being able to form stronger arguments. At the moment you're embarrassing yourself because nothing you allude to is based on scientific evidence. You just keep saying that scientific evidence is wrong, which is completely ridiculous. Do you think the scientific evidence that says medicine works is wrong? Despite the fact that it works? Are you going to deny the scientific evidence that led to the invention of things like computers when computers clearly work as a result of the evidence and theory they are based on? Seriously, your arguments are completely logically inconsistent.

 

What has evolutionary theory got to do with anybodies personal opinion of rapists? Your statements are just ridiculous. How can you not see how little sense you're making?

 

 

Do you have a dictionary? The dictionary defines science as knowledge from observation. The stuff that you put forward is faith based over millions of years. Most people on this forum are people who spend there life in a lab or in a room reading textbooks this is the problem with physics and this has what has taken you away from the real world. I live in the countryside, both my parents have been gardeners, i grew up in nature i have been lucky. I have experienced life as it really is. You have never experienced this world. You read textbooks, you think too much, you think about reality but have never experienced reality. You have never been out there day to day in solitude like myself in marshlands, heathlands, forests and wildlands, we all have our area of knowledge i could probably list 60 grass type and name 250 plant species just off the top of my head i know how to cook raw foods, i practice alternative herbal medicines i know how to survive. Im not claiming to be a nuclear physicist i am not claiming to have a phd im just saying go with direct observation, get out of the house, get actually in reality. And when you are funamentally present you will realise this so called macroevolution is not taken place. I read a tonne of books of anti evolution. Iv read nearly every holy book in the world. i study paranormal phenomena.. charles fort is one of my heroes. If i am not a scientist then so be it. But evolution is a fairytale. It takes people away from reality, and yes evolution the idea of evolution has lead to mass murder think of Hitler and starlin both influenced by darwin evolution both strong atheists... if you do not like ID that is up to you but ID is a family thing it has brought people together. Read my thread atheistic intelligent design, i dont even like atheistic ID i put it up to wake some atheists up so far iv had 60% positive feedback. if you do not like the idea of ID that is up to you.. but we live in a myserious universe and please do not think you have all the answers on this forum here. This is going round and round i won't post here anymore. Iv had a look at some of the people on this forum supporting materialistic evolution and you all look depressed from your photos. look at the figures all the evolutionists who have supported darwins views have died early. False beliefs can kill you. Up to you. Im done with false beliefs, evolution is a fairytale im glad im free from that lie. B) a big cheers to you all. btw evolution is not observable.

Edited November 4, 2010 by cabinintheforest

[ydoaPs]

Do you have a dictionary? The dictionary defines science as knowledge from observation.

A dictionary is not a technical resource.

 

The stuff that you put forward is faith based over millions of years.

It's not faith-based at all. You repeating it doesn't make it true.

 

Most people on this forum are people who spend there life in a lab or in a room reading textbooks this is the problem with physics and this has what has taken you away from the real world. I live in the countryside, both my parents have been gardeners, i grew up in nature i have been lucky. I have experienced life as it really is. You have never experienced this world. You read textbooks, you think too much, you think about reality but have never experienced reality. You have never been out there day to day in solitude like myself in marshlands, heathlands, forests and wildlands

You don't know anyone here.

 

i practice alternative herbal medicines

You just make yourself look worse at every turn.

 

i am not claiming to have a phd

You claimed to be a botanist.

 

And when you are funamentally present you will realise this so called macroevolution is not taken place.

What, then, is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from accumulating into macroevolution?

 

I read a tonne of books of anti evolution.

It's obvious you haven't read any reputable books, because you have demonstrated repeatedly that you know nothing about evolution.

 

he idea of evolution has lead to mass murder think of Hitler and starlin both influenced by darwin evolution both strong atheists

Social Darwinism has nothing to do with evolution. And by the way, Hitler was a devout Christian.

 

So, you have demonstrated arrogance and ignorance in the areas of biology, medicine, sociology, and history. Is there any subject that you actually know anything about? As I've said before, go read and learn what evolution actually says.

 

This is going round and round i won't post here anymore.

No, this is you sticking your fingers in your ears. Since you're obviously not keen on actually learning or discussing, I'm not sure why you came here in the first place.

Im done with false beliefs

You've already said that you endorse alternate medicine. You know what they call alternate medicine that actually works? Medicine.

 

btw evolution is not observable.

Repeating it does not make it true. You have been given several specific examples of speciation.

[DctrZaius]

72% of america are creationists, if you don't like it take it up with them. Evolution is dieing out get over it. evolution is an insult to science.

 

Are you aware that the USA has one of the poorest education standards in the world when compared to other developed countries? And that there is a clear correlation between lack of education and belief in creationism? And that intelligent design has been rejected in the USA by the people who matter? How about the fact that it has been rejected by the courts as science education and has been described clearly as religious creationism in disguise through the use of pseudoscience?

 

Acceptance of evolution is not dying out. Do you see all of the major universities all of a sudden not teaching it? You can go to any peer-reviewed science journal (do you even know what they are?) and see how discoveries in many fields are put in the context of evolution to make sense. No molecular genetics makes sense without evolution. The fact that there are so many proteins and gene sequences that are conserved across hundreds of species only makes sense in the context of them having a common ancestor. If you were a real scientist you would not say something as ignorant as evolution being an insult to science. How ridiculous! Without evolution nothing makes sense. In addition to that, some of the most elegant experiments have been accomplished through the investigation of evolution. I'm sorry but you need to become more educated on this topic instead of arrogantly refusing to accept the existence of something you clearly know very little about. I'm a molecular biologist so I don't arrogantly go and tell my plumber how to do his job, I know nothing about it. Just as you're a 19 year-old creationist, you shouldn't be telling scientists how to do their job because you clearly know nothing about it. Would you want medical advice from a baker? No, that's not their field of expertise. So why should you accept science from people who aren't scientists and reject science from people who are? It doesn't make any sense whatsoever. I think you have a lot of growing up to do

 

False beliefs can kill you. Up to you. Im done with false beliefs, evolution is a fairytale im glad im free from that lie.

 

This is the most ironic thing I've ever seen in my life. It would be great satire if it was a TV show.

 

So you specifically came to this forum with the intention of never listening to anything we say regarding evolution? Please never come back. And get an education.

Edited November 4, 2010 by DctrZaius

[mooeypoo]

Thank you. In other words there is no direct empirical evidence for evolution and evolution is just a theory. Basically you are saying you believe in things which you can not see with your own yes. You are really no different than the typical religious creationist then. Cheers for this. Evolution is pseudoscience. I studied chemistry for two years, most of the stuff in chemistry can be observed. Molecules can be observed - http://www.newscient...es-at-last.html Lets not compare the theory of evolution to chemistry experiments.

 

You seem to be nitpicking through the answers so you can attack what you can win in. There have been quite a lot of questions posed bck to you along with quite a large number of links and propositions. Ignoring them does not make them wrong and you right.

[ajb]

cabinintheforest:

 

My brother has a degree in biology and a PhD in plant biology. He is interested in the molecular science as well as other things to do with plant/viral/fungal/invertebrate interactions. Calling him a botanist would be fine. He is a very strong supporter of evolution via natural selection. Just about all working biologists are going to be supporters of evolution.

 

As a botanist your opinion on evolution is against the mainstream of your peers.

 

However, I think it would be fair to say that we do not have complete understanding of how things evolved on the Earth, but that should not be taken as a sign that it is all wrong. The evidence is there.

 

So do you believe in paranormal phenomena?

 

There are natural phenomena we do not understand. So, in that sense yes I do believe in paranormal phenomena.

 

 

 

UFOS?

 

It is unlikely that aliens have visited us, but I could not say impossible. In my opinion there is very little credible evidence here.

 

Aliens?

 

This is much more fascinating. Given the size of the universe, the number of stars, the number of planetary systems, the fact we know that many of the building blocks for life can be found all over the cosmos, the discovery of many extremophiles, the fact that water may be quite common etc can only suggest that life on another planet is a real possibility.

 

This is independent of them being advanced and having visited us.

 

So, do I believe they exist? One should be very cautious, but I would have to say that given what we know about life here on Earth and our knowledge of cosmology and astrophysics that I believe it is very likely that aliens do exist.

 

 

Ghosts?

 

In my opinion credible evidence has not been found.

 

Ghosts (or really people thinking they have seen them) I believe tell us more about the human mind and primordial fears/hopes. A fascinating subject for psychologists and neuroscientists.

 

entities? Deity?

 

Gods and alike?

 

Again no credible evidence for their existence has ever been presented. Thus, I see no reason to invoke such ideas.

 

Of course, this does not prove that gods don't exist. You can find posts about this on this forum. In short, lack of evidence is not evidence against. But this is generally how science works.

 

Evolution? There is evidence as you have been directed to by many of the posters here who are more informed on the subject that I.

[Horza2002]

No I don't beleive ion stuff that I can't see, there are wonderful techniques that you can use to give DIRECT evidence that you have your molecule. If you'd actually studied chemistry, you'd know that IR, UV, NMR, microwave and X-Ray spectroscopy all provide DIRECT evidence that you have a molecule which you can't see.

 

And read my post correctly, and you'll see that I said you can't see molecules reacting in solution! That link and all other pictures of moclues come from a molcules being loaded onto a solid surface! I.E. not in solution!

[dragonstar57]

what the OP seems to be saying is that if you have never seen something you can't prove it.

he seems to be saying that a "creator" could have created the universe in such a way as to make it appear that the evolution has taken place and that if a rock has a certain % of an isotope relative to another it is just that this "creator" created it that way.

and that changes in bacteria is just an unusual bit of information that is irrelevant.

although i disagree with all outlined above i do not have a strong enough knowledge of scientific argument to refute it and i do not think that ANY amount of evidence would be enough to make the op believe evolution.

in the end science will never be able to say for sure that life (or anything else for that matter) was not magic-ed up but bearing magic evolution is the best explanation made so far.

in addition keep in mind that evolution is not in disagreement with ID.

that does not make ID any less wrong however.

Edited November 5, 2010 by dragonstar57

[Edtharan]

btw evolution is not observable.

Ok, so If we could show you that evolution is observabel, even letting you observe it yourself, would you be willing to then admit that evolution is real?

 

I can do it. It is not that hard. But it will requier you to do some little experiments yourself (as I can't exactly get over there to show you them).

 

If you are willing to do this, then read on.

 

First, you have to understand two things:

 

1) Evolution is not just limited to biology.

 

2) Evolution is an algorithm.

 

If you can understand what these things are, then I think we can continue.

 

Biological evolution is just one implimentation of the algorithm of evolution.

 

The algorithm of evolution is basically:

 

1) Replicate the data set with small variations in each duplicate

2) Apply some elimination function to select a subset of the data set for future replication.

2) Repeat steps 1 and 2 until all data sets are eliminated (or some other end condition is met).

 

This is the basic algorithm of evolution.

 

One thing about algorithms are that any algorithm can be implimented on a Universal Turing Machine. One type of Univsal Turing Machine is called a computer. So to prove that Evolution is an algorithm all one has to od is to attempt to impliment Evolution on a computer. If you can't do it, then Evolution is not an algorithm. Fortunately this has been done (I my self have done it, it is not all that difficult to program if you know how to program).

 

This means that Evolution as an algorithm is a mathematical FACT. So to deny that evolution exists is to deny mathematics itself. Actually the car you drive, the roads you drive on, the circuits in the computer you are using to read this message and many other aspects of our daly life are dependent on the fact of this algorithm's existance. Genetic Algorithms (the name of computer programs that utilise the Algorithm of Evolution) are in common use around the world in many different industries.

 

However, this does not prove that living organisms can run the algorithm of evolution and thus evolve, so accepting this does not (this far into my argument at least) mean you have to abandon your current position on biolgical evolution.

 

Now, a Universal Turing Machine can run the Algorithm of Evolution, but for every algorithm that can be run by a Universal Turing Machine, there exists at least one (and almost cirtainly more) Non-Universal Turing Machine that is can run that particular algorithm.

 

So to show that biological systems are subject to evolution all one has to do is to show that biology is capable of performing the requiered functions necesary run the Algorithm of Evolution.

 

Now if you look back up to the basic algorithm you will see that reproduction with variation is the first necesary step.

 

Do biological systems reproduce with variation? Yes

 

The second step is applying an elimination function that selects a subset for future replication. This is probably the hardest to prove, but it can be done.

 

First lets look at populations. A singe Rabbit can have between 2 to 12 babies in each litter (We will use an average of 6), can have 4 to 7 litters a year (we will use just 3 litters a year), can breed from 3 to 4 months of age (we will use 4 months) and they can live for around 9 to 12 years (so we will a life span of 10 years). So from these I am taking a moderatly conservative value of the breeding numbers of rabbits.

 

Starting from a single breeding pair at 4 months of age. In this they will produce 6 offspring.

 

4 months latter, these young can now breed giving us 4 breeding pairs (6 offspring divided by 2 plus the orriginal breeding pair).

 

This now gives us a total of 24 offspring giving us an extra 12 breeding pairs after the next 4 month period.

 

We now have a total of 16 breeding pairs which leads to a birth population of 96 more young. Giving a total of 64 breeding pairs.

 

After the next period we have 384 young giving us a total of 256 breeding pairs.

 

So continuing:

Offspring: 1536, Breeding Pairs: 1024

Offspring: 6144, Breeding Pairs: 4096

Offspring: 24576, Breeding Pairs: 16384

Offspring: 98304, Breeding Pairs: 114688

Offspring: 688128, Breeding Pairs: 458752

Offspring: 2752512, Breeding Pairs: 1835008

Offspring: 11010048, Breeding Pairs: 7340032

Offspring: 44040192, Breeding Pairs: 51380224

 

So after just 3 years, from a single breeding pair we would have a rabbit population of around 10,2760,448 rabbits. Yes, over 10 billion rabbits!

 

But rabbits can live for over 10 years. How long would it take them to exceed the mass of the Earth?

 

So where are all the rabbits?

 

What this means is that not all rabbits live to breed. In fact, only 2 rabbits need to survive to breed for the population to remain stable. Any more then the population will quickly exceed even the mass of the Earth (unless somthing else descreases the survival rate).

 

So what we have is an elimination function (starvation, predation, desease and competition for mates) that will "select a subset of the data set for future replication".

 

The third part is easy, we know that generations exist, so steps 1 and 2 are repeated over and over again.

 

What this proves is that Biological Evolution is a FACT, not "just a theory" as some people put it. If the mathematics that allow you to use a computer exist (and if they didn't you would not be able to read this message), then Biological Evolution has to occur. It is as much a fact as that 1 + 1 = 2.

 

But I did say that I woudl allow you to observe evolution for your self. This is the next part.

 

This requiers you to actually do some things and not just read. What you will need is a pen (or pencils if you prefer) and some paprer. We are going to play a little game.

 

You may have seen a kind of puzzle in magazines or newspapers where you have one word, then by a series of steps where you change only 1 letter at a time, you have to change it into a different word. Well we are going to do that, just that we are going to use evolution to do so.

 

Setup:

1) Write a word on a piece of paper. Make it as long as you like (although around 6 letters is good enough).

 

2) Write out a target word next to it. It doesn't have to be the same length, it could be shorter or longer.

 

3) On a new sheet of paper write our at least 20 variations of the starting word. When writing these variation you can make 1 change in each. You can add a lett, remove a letter or change one letter into another letter. You have already accepted that micro evolution can occur, in this, these changes are considdered micro evolution).

 

Now we start the process of evolution:

4) Remove from the words you have any word that is not a real word. That is if it is not in the dictionary you can remove it from the words you are going to use.

 

5) From the remaining words calculate each word's "Fitness" using this method:

 

- If a letter appears in the Target word also appears in this word, then give it 1 point for each letter that matches. Do this only as a 1 to 1 match, so if the target word had 1 'E' in it and the word you are looking at had 2 'E's in it, then it only gets 1 point not 2.

- If the correct letter appears in the correct place in both words it gets 1 point for each corretly placed letter.

 

6) Take the top 5 scoring words from the previous step. These will become the "Breeder" words.

 

7) For each Breeder word create 10 variations using the method in step 3.

 

8) Repeat steps 4,5,6 and 7 until you get an exact match for the target word.

 

If you do this, you will have witnessed Evolution for your self.

 

As I shoed in the first part, the mathematics that underly computing state that if there exists an algorithm, then there can be a system that impliments that algorithm, and because of how Turing Machines describe the functioning of algorithms, any two systems that can impliment the same algorithm have an equivalence. Also that a system that can impliment the functions of an algorithm can impliment that algorithm.

 

What this means is that both the systems in biology and the game you just played both can perform the same functions (Reproduction of data sets with variations, and Elimination of replicating data sets). But I have also shown that these functions are what are needed for evolution to occur, and as a system that can implimen thre functions of an algorithm can therefore impliment the algorithm, then you have to accept that Biological Systems are capable of evolving on a mathematical basis. This is not about theory, this is about mathematical fact.

 

The same maths that allow you to use a computer dictate that Evolution is real. Thus to deny evolution exists is to deny your computer exists.

 

However, why do scientists consideer evoltion to be a theory? Well there are actually many different types of evolution (Lamarkian, Darwinian, Mendelian, etc) and it is the theoy that applys to which one, specifically, is implimented. The differences lie in how variation is introduce and how selection take place, but in any type of evolution, they must have these functions that I have explained here to be called evolution.

 

And when you are funamentally present you will realise this so called macroevolution is not taken place.

When you did the experiment, did you realise that the words you are creating , if they were shown to you seperately, would be considdered macroscopicly different. That is, by only making microcopic changes (1 letter at a time and only 1 type of change at a time) you built up large scale changes. That is the accumulation of microscopic changes lead to macroscopic changes.

 

This is why if microevolution exists, then Macrevolution has to exist. It is as much a mathematical fact as the existance of the Algorithm of Evolution.

 

I live in the countryside, both my parents have been gardeners, i grew up in nature i have been lucky. I have experienced life as it really is. You have never experienced this world. You read textbooks, you think too much, you think about reality but have never experienced reality. You have never been out there day to day in solitude like myself in marshlands, heathlands, forests and wildlands, we all have our area of knowledge i could probably list 60 grass type and name 250 plant species just off the top of my head i know how to cook raw foods, i practice alternative herbal medicines i know how to survive. Im not claiming to be a nuclear physicist i am not claiming to have a phd im just saying go with direct observation, get out of the house, get actually in reality.

And you think you are special because you have these skills. Well I can tell you now, you aren't the only one with them. I can do all this and more.

 

What you are trying to do here is called "Argument From Authority". HYou are trying to set your self up as haveing skills and knowledge greater than other, and then by that position alone prove that what you are saying is true. Well reality check here. It doesn't matter what knowledge or skills you have accumulated in your life: Reality trumps all.

 

In other words, even with all your knowledge, if what you are saying is not reality, then what you are saying is not real.

 

This is why sciecne always tests their claims against reality. It wouldn't matter if you were Einstein or Darwin or Stephen Hawking. If what you said did not match reality, then it would be wrong.

 

It takes people away from reality, and yes evolution the idea of evolution has lead to mass murder think of Hitler and starlin both influenced by darwin evolution both strong atheists...

Actually Genocide is a denyal of evolution. As variation is essential to evolution, then any action taken to reduce variation is an attempt to stop evolution. Thus Hittler was actually denying evolution. Sorry, but you loose big time on this (and I invoke Godwin's Law here too ). And actually, Hittler was more influenced by the Bible (he was born a Jew and converted to Christianity), he was no Athiest.