Evolution: Non-Denial Denial?

[JAHS]

17 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

What? Here is a real life example of a small scale test to confirm how the sun works.

Like I said I know we know how the sun works now because we can perform tests now and make real time measurements. We can't perform an experiment that will prove to us how it was formed. We can't actually make a sun. 

Quote

"What makes humans so special that they are not subject to the laws of biology?"

The laws of biology are not as easily defined as they are in physics. But of course humans follow the same biochemical processes that are found in other mammals and if we observe something happening in one form of life we might postulate that it can be true for humans. But it is not possible for us to observe macro-evolution happen in lab or in nature; we can only make smaller observations on the micro scale and then have to make assumptions or extrapolations to define what might have happened on the macro scale. I am not saying that's bad science; it's all we have to work with. But I come from a field of science where everything has to be proven empirically in the lab or by actual observations of things as they are happening in nature or I don't have a job. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

17 minutes ago, Freedom said:

Yes we can. Evolution is change. Every time a child is born we are witnessing evolution. We see evolution in the lab with microorganisms. It will never be possible to create new human species in our lifetime because that is not how evolution works. And it is not required. You are setting an impossible standard. The evidence in the fossil record is undisputed, unless you are suggesting some other interpretation. All science is assumption and extrapolation. Even observing weather on mount baker requires assumptions and extrapolation. If not, there would not be any more science needed because we would have all the facts. 

One small correction. Science really isn't based on assumptions. It is based on testing those assumptions for accuracy.

SEE http://undsci.berkeley.edu/lessons/pdfs/how_science_works.pdf

[longview]

1 minute ago, thesometimesaint said:

One small correction.

Yeah, Mr. KnowItAll.

2 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Science really isn't based on assumptions.

Soft sciences are based on a HUGE amount of assumptions and conjectures and guess work.  Evolution is very much a soft science (despite the presence of fossils).

3 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It is based on testing those assumptions for accuracy.

No way of testing "macro" evolution.  Because there are NO examples of "transitions" between stratas of geological layers.  DESPITE your LAME links in which you refuse to have the courtesy of explaining WHY your links should be read.

[JAHS]

27 minutes ago, Freedom said:

And it is not required. You are setting an impossible standard. The evidence in the fossil record is undisputed, unless you are suggesting some other interpretation.

That's the key. "Some other interpretation". The fact that we don't meet this "impossible standard" leaves room for alternate interpretations of the data. Like for example God may have used some "form" of evolution to create man; not the same as we understand evolution, but a different process that has left the same kind of clues in the fossil record.  

I guess I am a little biased regarding this requirement for adequate testing to prove things because, in my profession if I don't meet the "impossible standard" my company gets sued for causing the death of a patient and I lose my job. 

[pogi]

Here is the problem for Neo-Darwinism with the discovery of convergent genetic evolution.  I give this explanation because SS doesn't seem to understand why the discoveries are so shocking to scientists.  This will help him to differentiate between convergent evolution as related to phenotype, and convergent evolution as related to genotype.  

Neo-Darwinism states that evolution is basically a combination of random genetic mutations and natural selection.

Random genetic mutations are the first step in evolution, because first you have to have the change, only then does natural selection come into play.  In other words, natural selection can only play with the random genetic output that genetic mutation supplies nature.  

Now, convergent evolution has long been known to occur in nature.  However, it has been understood that similar morphology in distantly related species resulted from divergent genes displaying similar traits due to environmental drive (natural selection).  It was always assumed that natural selection (not convergent genes) was the cause of convergent phenotypes (most of the time that is true).  It was thought that convergent phenotypes could not possibly be the result of convergent genotypes, because that would imply that the mutation of genes is not random at all (remember, random mutation has to happen before natural selection can work).  Evolutionary biologists have understood the statistical improbability of genetic (not phenotypic) convergence.  They have written about it and formulate laws (Dolly's Law) to explain it.  

As I have already pointed out, because the statistical probability of genetic convergence is so low, scientists are now studying to see if genes are biased or predisposed for a given novel function.  If they are right, where does that leave the theory of evolution?  Let me clarify.  The theory of evolution stands on 2 legs (random mutation and natural selection), if you remove one of those legs (random mutation), the whole theory collapses. 

To say that the theory of evolution has not become scientific dogma is completely ignorant.  SS believes in the dogma so strongly, that his bias has convinced him that genetic convergence is easily explained by the theory of evolution (it must be!), even when scientists are dumbfounded by the discoveries.

Here is a fascinating article about a well respected molecular evolutionary biologist who agrees that Darwinian evolution has become dogmatised.  He rightly questions natural selection as the primary driver of evolution.

Quote

Molecular evolutionary biologist Masatoshi Nei says Darwin never proved natural selection is the driving force of evolution — because it isn't. 

Darwin is a god in evolution, so you can’t criticize Darwin. If you do, you’re branded as arrogant.
But any time a scientific theory is treated like dogma, you have to question it. The dogma of natural selection has existed a long time. Most people have not questioned it. Most textbooks still state this is so. Most students are educated with these books.
You have to question dogma. Use common sense. You have to think for yourself, without preconceptions. That is what’s important in science.

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, pogi said:

Here is the problem for Neo-Darwinism with the discovery of convergent genetic evolution.  I give this explanation because SS doesn't seem to understand why the discoveries are so shocking to scientists.  This will help him to differentiate between convergent evolution as related to phenotype, and convergent evolution as related to genotype.  

Neo-Darwinism states that evolution is basically a combination of random genetic mutations and natural selection.

Random genetic mutations are the first step in evolution, because first you have to have the change, only then does natural selection come into play.  In other words, natural selection can only play with the random genetic output that genetic mutation supplies nature.  

Now, convergent evolution has long been known to occur in nature.  However, it has been understood that similar morphology in distantly related species resulted from divergent genes displaying similar traits due to environmental drive (natural selection).  It was always assumed that natural selection (not convergent genes) was the cause of convergent phenotypes (most of the time that is true).  It was thought that convergent phenotypes could not possibly be the result of convergent genotypes, because that would imply that the mutation of genes is not random at all (remember, random mutation has to happen before natural selection can work).  Evolutionary biologists have understood the statistical improbability of genetic (not phenotypic) convergence.  They have written about it and formulate laws (Dolly's Law) to explain it.  

As I have already pointed out, because the statistical probability of genetic convergence is so low, scientists are now studying to see if genes are biased or predisposed for a given novel function.  If they are right, where does that leave the theory of evolution?  Let me clarify.  The theory of evolution stands on 2 legs (random mutation and natural selection), if you remove one of those legs (random mutation), the whole theory collapses. 

To say that the theory of evolution has not become scientific dogma is completely ignorant.  SS believes in the dogma so strongly, that his bias has convinced him that genetic convergence is easily explained by the theory of evolution (it must be!), even when scientists are dumbfounded by the discoveries.

Here is a fascinating article about a well respected molecular evolutionary biologist who agrees that Darwinian evolution has become dogmatised.  He rightly questions natural selection as the primary driver of evolution.

 

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

[Calm]

I am not necessarily supportive of Pogi's commentary on evolution, but comparing his thoughtful, original, engaging posts with the response of a link, I am giving him points for being willing to take the time and effort in spite of what are in my opinion really useless posts on what is supposed to be a discussion board.

Edited March 28, 2016 by Calm

[pogi]

14 hours ago, Freedom said:

Much of the facts in science are from observation, not from lab experiments.

No, we were not there to see it happen but to suggest we must see it personally to prove it is a reality is completely false.

To clarify, it sounds like your argument is that scientific theory does not require "lab experiments" for falsification, but that it only requires observation.  Is that correct?

I only ask because it is strange that you then admit that evolution is not even observable.  If you can't "see it personally to prove it is a reality", how exactly can you observe it?

Carl Hempel said about the properties of scientific theories:

Quote

“The statements constituting a scientific explanation must be capable of empirical test.”

Karl Popper, a leading philosopher of science and originator of the idea of falsifiability as a criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience, said this about natural selection:

Quote

I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme—a possible framework for testable scientific theories;

Only under severe pressure from the dogmatic Darwinian community did Popper later retract that statement.  However, after retracting that statement he later revised his book and decided to leave his original conclusion, that "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program" unchanged.  His original thoughts remained. 

John Horgan interviewed Popper in 1992 and said this:

Quote

Early in his career, the philosopher John Popper (yes, cited by F and P-P) called evolution via natural selection “almost a tautology” and “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.” Attacked for these criticisms, Popper took them back. But when I interviewed him in 1992, he blurted out that he still found Darwin’s theory dissatisfying” One ought to look for alternatives!” Popper exclaimed, banging his kitchen table.  http://www.uncommondescent.com/darwinism/karl-popper-never-really-retracted-his-skeptical-view-of-darwinism/

Leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse acknowledged regarding Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: 

Quote

Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable. If one relies heavily on natural selection and sexual selection, simultaneously downplaying drift, which of course is what the neo-Darwinian does do, then Popper feels that one has a nonfalsifiable theory. And, certainly, many followers agree that there is something conceptually flawed with Darwinism.

Max Whitten of the University of Melbourne said:

Quote

Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.

 

Edited March 28, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

3 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

SEE http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/denton.html

And?

When I told you that I have read your links, I wasn't lying.  No need to repost them over and over as if it will somehow make them relevant. 

Your link is nothing more than a review of some other dudes book written back in 1985!  Not to mention, the guy who wrote the critique is not even a scientist.  He has a masters degree in philosophy.  I am linking to genetic evolutionary biologists with up-to-date research, and you are linking to some philosophy dude's reviews of another guys book written in 1985, and the review was written in 1996?  It is not helping your cause.  

How could this review possibly address discoveries found in 2013 that have left scientists shocked, and without explanation?  It does not contest or explain the recent findings that I have linked to.  Once again, this is Straw-man.  Why do you keep trying to use it?  If there is anything useful to your argument in it, please explain. Copy and paste the specific sections that refute my argument and give me an explanation of what you think it means.

Edited March 28, 2016 by pogi

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, pogi said:

To clarify, it sounds like your argument is that scientific theory does not require "lab experiments" for falsification, but that it only requires observation.  Is that correct?

I only ask because it is strange that you then admit that evolution is not even observable.  If you can't "see it personally to prove it is a reality", how exactly can you observe it?

 

All scientific theory involves observation, it is not that it only requires observation. that is what science is, observing the natural world. There are many scientific experiments that cannot be performed in a lab. You cannot understand the planets, for example,  in a laboratory. You have to buy yourself a telescope. Evolution is absolutely observable. Speciation of large mammals is not observable in the sense that we cannot watch offspring over many thousands of years because we do not live long enough to watch it occur; we can, however, observe it in the fossil record. We do see evolution in microorganism that have a much shorter live cycle which allows new types, or species to develop on a daily basis. But evolution occurs all the time. Evolution is change. Every time a child is born we are witnessing evolution. 

But if you are bent on the lab, there are numerous examples of lab experiments producing new species. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It simply is not needed to see something personally to prove it is a reality. I can look at ruins from the Roman Empire and know that someone built it a long time a go. I do not have to go back in time to make sure that these structures did not just suddenly appear 20 years ago. I do not have to personally go to Japan to know it exists. There is amply evidence that it is really there that I can observe from afar. I do not have to go in an airplane to know clouds exist. I can watch them from the ground. 

[pogi]

5 hours ago, Freedom said:

All scientific theory involves observation, it is not that it only requires observation. that is what science is, observing the natural world. There are many scientific experiments that cannot be performed in a lab. You cannot understand the planets, for example,  in a laboratory. You have to buy yourself a telescope. Evolution is absolutely observable. Speciation of large mammals is not observable in the sense that we cannot watch offspring over many thousands of years because we do not live long enough to watch it occur; we can, however, observe it in the fossil record. We do see evolution in microorganism that have a much shorter live cycle which allows new types, or species to develop on a daily basis. But evolution occurs all the time. Evolution is change. Every time a child is born we are witnessing evolution. 

But if you are bent on the lab, there are numerous examples of lab experiments producing new species. 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

It simply is not needed to see something personally to prove it is a reality. I can look at ruins from the Roman Empire and know that someone built it a long time a go. I do not have to go back in time to make sure that these structures did not just suddenly appear 20 years ago. I do not have to personally go to Japan to know it exists. There is amply evidence that it is really there that I can observe from afar. I do not have to go in an airplane to know clouds exist. I can watch them from the ground. 

It is too bad that the originator of falsifiability as criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience (Karl Popper) disagrees with you.  And he is not alone.

Empirical testing is key. http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=312

Neo-Darwinianism is based on multiple auxiliary assumptions which are not demonstrably true.  For example, it relies on the auxiliary assumption that mutations are random.  However, new evidence strongly refutes that idea.  It relies on the assumption that one fossil descended from another fossil, however, there is no observation or empirical testing to verify such assumptions.  "Falsifying a theory requires that auxiliary assumptions are demonstrably true."  Even the auxiliary assumption that natural selection is the primary driver of evolution has not been verified as demonstrably true. See here: article

Edited March 29, 2016 by pogi

[Freedom]

5 hours ago, pogi said:

It is too bad that the originator of falsifiability as criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience (Karl Popper) disagrees with you.  And he is not alone.

Empirical testing is key. http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=312

Neo-Darwinianism is based on multiple auxiliary assumptions which are not demonstrably true.  For example, it relies on the auxiliary assumption that mutations are random.  However, new evidence strongly refutes that idea.  It relies on the assumption that one fossil descended from another fossil, however, there is no observation or empirical testing to verify such assumptions.  "Falsifying a theory requires that auxiliary assumptions are demonstrably true."  Even the auxiliary assumption that natural selection is the primary driver of evolution has not been verified as demonstrably true. See here: article

Um, these links prove my point. I don't believe you understand what empirical testing is. I have never insisted on natural selection. Natural selection does occur when random mutations provide a benefit, but the reality is mutation also causes the opposite which is one of the reasons species go extinct. 

 

Here is a definition of empirical testing:

"The central theme in scientific method is that all evidence must be empirical which means it is based on evidence. In scientific method the word "empirical" refers to the use of working hypothesis that can be tested using observation and experiment. Empirical data is produced by experiment and observation." 

Nothing in this statement contradicts what I said, and nothing in this statement requires a lab; nevertheless every lab experiment used to text evolution has proven it to be a fact. . 

[Maedros]

The evolution theory is (imo): a false doctrine to counteract the true doctrine of creation. After all Satan is the father of lies; I'm not a scholar on this but I do believe that I don't have to study counterfeit bills to tell the real from the fake; I just have to know what the truth is. There's a lot of suppressed history out there such as evidence that dinosaurs existed with man and that ancient man was scientifically advanced. Mankind was never primitive; so (imo) the Neanderthal man and any others were just its own species that became extinct or it was an adulteration of man and beast; either way: I think that it is very difficult if not impossible to believe in creation and evolution. 

[snowflake]

On ‎3‎/‎27‎/‎2016 at 6:16 PM, Freedom said:

Yes he is the head scientist, and he is revealing how he did it through inspired scientist who are following the scientific method. I am always curious why people seem to take issue with evolution, but not any other scientific theory. Science and religion are not related. The scriptures do not consider how things came to be, they are concerned with teaching the plan of salvation. Evolution has been proven over and over gain through the scientific method. It has been observed in nature and in the lab, the archaeological evidence has proven it to be how life came to be. The reality of evolution has nothing whatsoever to do with God being the head scientist other than to show us how God created his masterpiece. 

Freedom, could you please show us an experiment of how life came to be?  (The Miller-Urey experiment is a bust). Please show us how using the scientific method we can observe animals changing species? Also, I think you would find Genesis 1 directly relating on how things came to be, God gives us a few chapters on his creation. 

Evolution requires massive assumptions every step of the way.

[bcuzbcuz]

1 hour ago, snowflake said:

Freedom, could you please show us an experiment of how life came to be?  (The Miller-Urey experiment is a bust). Please show us how using the scientific method we can observe animals changing species? Also, I think you would find Genesis 1 directly relating on how things came to be, God gives us a few chapters on his creation. 

Evolution requires massive assumptions every step of the way.

Interesting. I assume you´re using the King James version. Tell me, was the sun created, (Gen.1: 3-5) on the first day Or,  (Gen. 1: 14-19) on the fourth day?

[ERayR]

22 hours ago, JAHS said:

That's the key. "Some other interpretation". The fact that we don't meet this "impossible standard" leaves room for alternate interpretations of the data. Like for example God may have used some "form" of evolution to create man; not the same as we understand evolution, but a different process that has left the same kind of clues in the fossil record.  

I guess I am a little biased regarding this requirement for adequate testing to prove things because, in my profession if I don't meet the "impossible standard" my company gets sued for causing the death of a patient and I lose my job. 

Or just maybe God created different kinds and evolution made the variations within the creations.  Just maybe everything did not come from a common ancestor.  Just maybe human (God) kind was a separate creation.

[thesometimesaint]

22 hours ago, longview said:

Yeah, Mr. KnowItAll.

Soft sciences are based on a HUGE amount of assumptions and conjectures and guess work.  Evolution is very much a soft science (despite the presence of fossils).

No way of testing "macro" evolution.  Because there are NO examples of "transitions" between stratas of geological layers.  DESPITE your LAME links in which you refuse to have the courtesy of explaining WHY your links should be read.

I've never claimed to be Mr.KnowItAll. That is a projection on your part.

SEE; Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unpleasant impulses by denying their existence while attributing them to others. For example, a person who is rude may constantly accuse other people of being rude. It can take the form of blame shifting.

I'm just an old retired psychiatric social worker who likes to know stuff. Including why people do the things they do.

There is no such thing as "Soft sciences". Frequency distribution graphs are just the same in psychology and chemistry.

Fossils are but one of many evidences for evolution. IE; Ringed Species are another. 

Macro-evolution is just Micro-evolution over time. There are innumerable tests for Macro-evolution. IE; Anything that changes the gene frequency over time(generations) at or over the species level is Macro-evolution.

Sure fossils play a part. What scientist throws out evidences just because they don't like them? Science is about explaining the evidences, not just throwing them out.

You don't know what the heck you are talking about. So now geology is a so called "Soft science"?

SEE https://www.google.com/search?q=Stratrigraphy&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=Stratigraphy

Why should they be read is real simple. They show the evidences for evolution.

SEE; NAS http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

SEE; AAAS http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=450

[ERayR]

9 hours ago, Freedom said:

Nothing in this statement contradicts what I said, and nothing in this statement requires a lab; nevertheless every lab experiment used to text evolution has proven it to be a fact. . 

Evolution is a proven fact.  Transmutation is not.  All one has to do to prove evolution is to look at our canine friends or our feline friends.  The fact remains that despite the variation from their evolution they still remain canine or feline.

[JAHS]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

nevertheless every lab experiment used to text evolution has proven it to be a fact. . 

Can you please text that evolution to my phone so I can see it. :-)   In science nothing can be considered absolutely "proven". True scientists never make such bold statements. Testing, observations, and interpretations can be flawed. Further research and testing can and has changed conclusions that at one time were thought to be certain. If you are relying on your own definition of "proven", well then you have stated your opinion. The best one can say is that testing and observations made so far tend to suggest that evolution was the process that brought about life as we see it now on this planet. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by JAHS

[thesometimesaint]

15 hours ago, pogi said:

It is too bad that the originator of falsifiability as criterion of demarcation of science from nonscience (Karl Popper) disagrees with you.  And he is not alone.

Empirical testing is key. http://www.openscience.org/blog/?p=312

Neo-Darwinianism is based on multiple auxiliary assumptions which are not demonstrably true.  For example, it relies on the auxiliary assumption that mutations are random.  However, new evidence strongly refutes that idea.  It relies on the assumption that one fossil descended from another fossil, however, there is no observation or empirical testing to verify such assumptions.  "Falsifying a theory requires that auxiliary assumptions are demonstrably true."  Even the auxiliary assumption that natural selection is the primary driver of evolution has not been verified as demonstrably true. See here: article

Mutations are random.

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

[pogi]

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

I don't believe you understand what empirical testing is.

I know what empirical testing is. Based on the following statement, I question your understanding however:

17 hours ago, Freedom said:

It simply is not needed to see something personally to prove it is a reality. 

If you cannot see it, smell it, feel it, hear it, or taste it, it is not "empirical" evidence.  Empirical evidence is sense experience. You used the example of the ruins from the Roman Empire.  You deducted that because they exist, somebody must have built them a long time ago.  I agree that that is a reasonable deduction, but that is not empirical evidence.  That is a rationalist view, which requires reason or reflection on the evidence to make a conclusion based on deduction rather than first-hand sensory experience.  If you did not observe it, and cannot test it (I never said it has to be in a lab), it is NOT empirical evidence.  No scientific theory can be created from such evidence. 

There is no empirical evidence for evolution from one class to another.  There is no experiment that can be done, and there is no sensory experience of it.  The fossil record does not even show evidence for evolution between classes. All fossil records show that cytochrome C distinguishes all species into different classes, there is no in-betweeners in the fossil record. I actually learned this from SS's link.  The argument made against this was this:

Quote

If we were able to extract DNA from enough fossils, the typological boundaries would break down.

That is an assumption, not empirical evidence.  Sorry!  However, even if there was a fossil record showing "transitional" cytochrome C evidence, it would not be empirical evidence as there is no reproducible empirical experiment that could be performed, and the transition was not observed.  It is another case of Roman ruins and deductive reasoning - a rationalist view rather than an empirically tested theory.

Remember:

Quote

Biologists are simply naïve when they talk about experiments designed to test the theory of evolution. It is not testable. They may happen to stumble across facts which would seem to conflict with its predictions. These facts will invariably be ignored and their discoverers will undoubtedly be deprived of continuing research grants.

Popper himself agrees.

10 hours ago, Freedom said:

I have never insisted on natural selection. Natural selection does occur when random mutations provide a benefit, but the reality is mutation also causes the opposite which is one of the reasons species go extinct. 

If you think that my last link "proves your point" then you don't understand Darwin.  Also, if you don't "insist" on natural selection, then you don't understand Darwin, who states that natural selection is the primary driver of adaptive evolution.  And based on your statement, neither do you understand natural selection.  Natural selection does not occur only when mutations provide a benefit. Also, mutations do not kill populations, it only kills individuals if the mutation is not viable.  Natural selection kills populations, not mutation.  But that is neither here nor there because neither natural selection nor random mutation can be empirically tested to show that they cause evolution from one class to another. 

As I have already pointed out, Neo-Darwinism stands on two legs - natural selection and random mutation.  If one leg falls, the whole theory collapses.

Show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that natural selection has ever caused one class to evolve into another class.  If you cannot, then it is not a scientific theory as Popper points out.  He said it is “not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research program.”

Now, show me empirical evidence that demonstrates that genes are not biased or predisposed.  If you cannot, again, it is not a scientific theory as there is no empirical evidence to support it - only auxiliary assumptions which have not been falsified. 

 

 

Edited March 29, 2016 by pogi

[pogi]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

Mutations are random.

SEE http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/mutations_07

Are they?  Thousands of convergent genes in divergent species is not statistically probable.  The likelihood is "nil" according to scientists. Scientists are now studying to see if genes are "biased" or "predisposed" for a "given novel function".  I am afraid your insistence that they are random is pre-mature and only shows the strength of your dogmatic beliefs.  You are blind to the statistical improbability.  

Again with the irrelevant links?  

The test in your link was based on this hypothesis, which has nothing to do with the hypothesis that scientists are now studying:

Quote

Esther and Joshua hypothesized that antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria surviving an application of antibiotics had the resistance before their exposure to the antibiotics, not as a result of the exposure. 

Sorry, but the results of testing this hypothesis cannot satisfy the hypothesis of "biased" or "predisposed" genes for a "given novel function".  That test is completely unrelated to what I, and other scientists are talking about.  The best your link can say is this:

Quote

In this respect, mutations are random

Keep trying!

You don't seem to understand that these are new and unexpected findings, which require new hypothesis and new experimentation.  Your old and tired links won't work.

Edited March 29, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

There is also gene insertions, deletions, and recombinations.

I hope you'll agree that there is Natural and Artificial Selection(which requires no magical suspension of the natural laws of genetics).

Genetic Errors.

SEE http://geneticseducation.nhs.uk/mededu/changes-to-dna-affect-gene-dosage-or-function/errors-during-meiosis

SEE http://geneticseducation.nhs.uk/mededu/changes-to-dna-affect-gene-dosage-or-function/mutations-vs-polymorphisms

[pogi]

18 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

There is also gene insertions, deletions, and recombinations.

I hope you'll agree that there is Natural and Artificial Selection(which requires no magical suspension of the natural laws of genetics).

Those are all forms of "mutations", which I was actually the first to point out in an earlier post. What is your point?  

Do you really think that modern biologists don't understand this?  Does this somehow make the statistical probability higher?  Are you suggesting that they are idiots and should know that this is easily explainable with a proper understanding of "insertions, deletions, and recombinations", and understand the difference between "natural and artificial selection"?

Seriously, you are not appreciating what these scientists are saying. 

Edited March 29, 2016 by pogi

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, ERayR said:

Evolution is a proven fact.  Transmutation is not.  All one has to do to prove evolution is to look at our canine friends or our feline friends.  The fact remains that despite the variation from their evolution they still remain canine or feline.

Actually such a transmutation would disprove evolution.

Edited March 29, 2016 by thesometimesaint