Darwin's Illusion

[cladking]

If a dog breeder has a litter of pups and selects out one pup to move forward due to the expression of a desirable trait, whether the remaining pups are allowed to breed or not is irrelevant to the description of the process. It is selection. It is not described as or by the term bottleneck. Selection and bottleneck describe different processes in biology. DIFFERENT. I cannot imagine someone trying to force their way into these discussions without a basic understanding of the material that would including knowing what those terms define and describe.

If pups in the litter without the desired trait are never allowed to breed, then their fitness is less than that of the pup that is allowed to breed. Clearly, they are not going to have offspring, so their fitness is zero. Fitness is the quantitative representation of individual reproductive success, so in populations, you see a variation of fitness by phenotype.

Change in living things and in species is variable and not sudden. There is no evidence that it is sudden across the board. That doesn't make any sense at all to claim that. It is a ridiculous claim that change in species is sudden, when the evidence does not support such a wild claim.

Speciation isn't described by the ridiculous scenario of breeding dogs that don't eat meat or like cats. What is that? Good grief. If you breed dogs selecting for a diet without meat, the end result would be a variety of dogs that don't eat meat. They would still be dogs.

Gradualism is supported by the evidence. To say it is not is an example of denial.

You might think I don't understand but in reality I simply don't agree.

Words like "bottleneck" are just symbols we use for communication. Just as you say the puppies that don't reproduce have zero fitness, I am saying that every single canine that isn't represented in a litter of puppies is irrelevant so every litter is essentially the result of a bottleneck. But when all other dogs are intentionally excluded and the puppies do not interbreed with any of these other canines it is effectively an imposed (intentional) bottleneck. If all these other dogs are excluded from a population then they are irrelevant and may as well be extinct.

I think you are over complicating this.

I've shown dozens of instances of sudden changes in life.

I am simply suggesting that if you select or nature selects for very unusual behavior that the resultant is a new species. Remember my "experiment" that produced upside down flies? Landing on a table covered in spilled syrupy goodies is most unusual behavior for a fly but it was the sole means to survival. I believe this is the source of almost all speciation other than mutation and a few other more minor processes.

 

[gnostic]

I never suggested that every bottleneck results in speciation. If you select 100 random humans to breed they would never in a million tries create a new species. I am saying that when nature creates a bottleneck it is NOT IN ANY WAY RANDOM in most instances and in NO instances when speciation occurs. I am saying that when nature selects for quirky individuals these individuals are share genes that caused the unusual behavior and it's these genes that result in speciation.

What I highlighted in red, your example (your claim) have nothing to do with speciation or with Evolution.

And speciation don't occur at individuals' level.

We are so confused because Darwin did not employ science. He thought he could solve change in species through observation alone. He couldn't have been more wrong.

Darwin may not have got everything right, but you have to remember biology at that time, was just starting, and as “pioneer” of Evolution, particularly Natural Selection, no biologists would expect to know everything there is to know about Evolution and about biology.

Darwin isn’t a god, prophet or seer. He did admit his limitations, and throughout his earlier prior to publication of On Origin of species (1859), he had help/assistance from friends and colleagues.

Other biologists would correct his mistakes and expand his Natural Selection with the Modern Synthesis that would integrate Mendelian genetics with Natural Selection. Other biologists would integrate RNA and DNA, and other molecular biology knowledge, which would all help to include other mechanisms to evolutionary biology:

1. Natural Selection
2. Mutations
3. Genetic Drift
4. Gene Flow
5. Genetic Hitchhiking

And speaking of Mendelian genetics. Gregor Mendel was Darwin’s Czech contemporary, whom Darwin knew nothing about. Mendel and his work. He formulated the law of inheritance, with his experiments in his pea garden at St Thomas’ Abbey (he was friar at that time), during 1856 - 1863.

Mendel’s work was published as Experiments On Plant Hybridization in 1866, but it never garnered the same attention in his lifetime as Darwin did, by the time of his death (1886), his work was lost and forgotten, until his work was rediscovered in 1900.

By the times of 1930s and 40s, he was hailed as the father of modern genetics, and yet as a pioneer, he did it without knowing everything there is to know about genetics. Mendel didn’t know about nucleic acids, like RNA & DNA.

Likewise, Isaac Newton didn’t understand everything there were to all to know about motions, forces, gravity, astronomy, and calculus.

Some of these Newtonian physics were expanded by Albert Einstein with Special Relativity and General Relativity. Einstein have explored Quantum Mechanics with his work on Photoelectric Effect (1905), the only work in physics that won him a Nobel Prize. He tried to make General Relativity & Quantum Mechanics into a single theory, but failed.

There were other pioneers during the early 20th century, including Max Planck. They all contribute their parts in Quantum Mechanics, and not a single one of them were expected them to be all-knowing.

Michael Faraday and James Clerk Maxwell were both pioneers of electromagnetism. Maxwell was even hailed as “the second Isaac Newton”, and yet neither physicists knew everything there is to know about electricity and magnetism.

No one else - not Mendel, Newton, Einstein, Planck, Faraday, Maxwell, etc - have been singled out by creationists, for not knowing everything, or for making mistakes.

My points in all these examples, pioneers are not all-knowing deities in sciences, whether it be in the physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy.

What pioneers do, is to lay the foundations for future works and future discoveries in the respective fields.

You and other creationists like to single out Charles Darwin as being wrong, while ignoring anything and everything he did get right at the time. Darwin was only just one biologist, one piece of the whole puzzle in Biology. Evolution is still a strong theory that explained the biodiversity of life, not about the origin of first life, which is the hypothesis on Abiogenesis.

It is funny how creationists and yourself, tried to blame Darwin about things he didn’t do, like Abiogenesis and Social Darwinism, which he never took parts in. The absurdity and the ignorance and the arrogance of creationism and the misinformation (propaganda) are just staggeringly dishonest.

 

[gnostic]

You might think I don't understand but in reality I simply don't agree.

No, you don’t understand, and no one really care about your personal preference.

Evidence is what verified what is science and evidence is what refuted that are not science.

Personal preference or personal taste, like personal belief, personal opinion are just subjective without evidence, that lead to biases, misunderstanding and making false claims.

You have never operated or worked as a scientist in any field.

You called yourself a generalist and nexialist - the later don’t even exist except in science fiction story. You are nothing more than just armchair critic, who arrogantly think everyone should take your say-so as facts.

This is why I dislike most philosophies, who never study or work in any science fields, and yet expect everyone to heed them because they are “philosophers”.

 

[cladking]

And speciation don't occur at individuals' level.

Quirky individuals have quirky genes.

Likewise, Isaac Newton didn’t understand everything there were to all to know about motions, forces, gravity, astronomy, and calculus.

Nor do we today.

No one else - not Mendel, Newton, Einstein, Planck, Faraday, Maxwell, etc - have been singled out by creationists, for not knowing everything, or for making mistakes.

Irrelevant. What is relevant is just how very wrong Darwin was.

My points in all these examples, pioneers are not all-knowing deities in sciences, whether it be in the physics, chemistry, biology or astronomy.

I'm not the one who believes in Peers.

I know even peers can be wrong.

You and other creationists like to single out Charles Darwin as being wrong, while ignoring anything and everything he did get right at the time.

The only thing he got right is that change in species and the existence of man might be explicable in terms of science. He took mankind out of Genesis and put him under a telescope but AT THE WRONG END OF A TELESCOPE, where he should have used a microscope.

He got nothing right other than a feeble attempt to employ the scientific method.

...tried to blame Darwin about things he didn’t do, like Abiogenesis and Social Darwinism,...

The belief in survival of the fittest is the cause of much of the evil in the last two centuries. Toss in the nonsense about the "subconscious" and it's a wonder we are not yet extinct.

No, you don’t understand, and no one really care about your personal preference.

Just more empty words and rhetoric.

I've told you before I studied biology from a very young age, just never believed it.

You have never operated or worked as a scientist in any field.

If a scientist is someone who performs experiment then I am most certainly a scientist. I used to consider myself a scientist but now I am more a metaphysician.

You are nothing more than just armchair critic, who arrogantly think everyone should take your say-so as facts.

Yes, secondarily I am a critic.

This is why I dislike most philosophies, who never study or work in any science fields, and yet expect everyone to heed them because they are “philosophers”.

I've never considered myself a 'philosopher". I certainly have my own philosophy that I developed for myself but is not intended to be shared for the main part.

 

[gnostic]

Quirky individuals have quirky genes.

What a very dumb word to use - “quirky”.

Seriously, can you define a gene that’s quirky. It is certainly not in any biology paper.

Irrelevant. What is relevant is just how very wrong Darwin was.

I work better with animals than with other organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc), so I will illustrate Natural Selection, of some vertebrate, tetrapods animals.

Let say for 10,000 years, this single population of animals lived in a large region, on the east, is the lowland, and west highland (not necessarily mountainous), with a very wide river dividing east from west.

And this river keep both animals apart. But the soil the same, the vegetation are same (eg temperate), water are plentiful, and there are very little differences in climate and humidity between east and west.

And due to the same of everything, in east and west, both sides have 5 offspring.

Then something changed on the land in the west. Winters are longer in the west, more cold wind and snow than usual and less rain, the climate dryer, so that with each decades, vegetation became sparser.

If the conditions worsened every 50 years, than it becomes vital that animals in the west must have physical traits that are suited for these longer and colder conditions than the east, and less food than east.

In the east, everything remains unchanged. And due to unchanged conditions, the population don’t evolve.

In the west, the number of offspring for each parent goes from 5 to 1 - 2 offspring. They become smaller in height, but more stockier than their eastern cousins. Their paws are wider enabling better movements on snow, their fur thicker. After 5000 years, they have evolve enough to be recognized subspecies.

And let’s say that in the west, there is a group living near the bank that didn’t evolve at all, like the rest of inhabitants in the west. And in say, 30 generations, they died out because they didn’t adapt to their changed conditions.

Now this example of Natural Selection. I could have been more specific of animals evolving, but a number of times, I have brought up real example between the brown bears and polar bears in past threads, creationists seem to ignore them.

It is hell lot better illustration of what and how it happened, then your pathetic “quirky individuals” having “quirky genes”.

What does that even mean? How can genes be quirky? Is the DNA quirky too?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

What a very dumb word to use - “quirky”.

Seriously, can define a gene that’s quirky. It is certainly not in any biology paper.



I work better with animals than with other organisms (plants, fungi, bacteria, etc), so I will illustrate Natural Selection, of some vertebrate, tetrapods animals.

Let say for 10,000 years, this single population of animals lived in a large region, on the east, is the lowland, and west highland (not necessarily mountainous), with a very wide river dividing east from west.
And this river keep both animals apart. But the soil the same, the vegetation are same (eg temperate), water are plentiful, and there are very little differences in climate and humidity between east and west.

And due to the same of everything, in east and west, both sides have 5 offspring.

Then something changed on the land in the west. Winters are longer in the west, more cold wind and snow than usual and less rain, the climate dryer, so that with each decades, vegetation became sparser.

If the conditions worsened every 50 years, than it becomes vital that animals in the west must have physical traits that are suited for these longer and colder conditions than the east, and less food than east.

In the east, everything remains unchanged. And due to unchanged conditions, the population don’t evolve.

In the west, the number of offspring for each parent goes from 5 to 1 - 2 offspring. They become smaller in height, but more stockier than their eastern cousins. Their paws are wider enabling better movements on snow, their fur thicker. After 5000 years, they have evolve enough to be recognized subspecies.

And let’s say that in the west, there is a group living near the bank that didn’t evolve at all, like the rest of inhabitants in the west. And in say, 30 generations, they died out because they didn’t adapt to their changed conditions.

Now this example of Natural Selection. I could have been more specific of animals evolving, but a number of times, I have brought up real example between the brown bears and polar bears in past threads, creationists seem to ignore them.

It is hell lot better illustration of what and how it happened, then your pathetic “quirky individuals” having “quirky genes”.

What does that even mean? How can genes be quirky? Is the DNA quirky too?

I can't see the post you are responding to, but quirky genes and quirky individuals doesn't make any sense. Is "quirky" the name of a trait or a gene?

 

[gnostic]

I can't see the post you are responding to, but quirky genes and quirky individuals doesn't make any sense. Is "quirky" the name of a trait or a gene?

I have no idea what cladking mean by that.

He was responding to your post about bottleneck, when he started on this “quirky”:

I never suggested that every bottleneck results in speciation. If you select 100 random humans to breed they would never in a million tries create a new species. I am saying that when nature creates a bottleneck it is NOT IN ANY WAY RANDOM in most instances and in NO instances when speciation occurs. I am saying that when nature selects for quirky individuals these individuals are share genes that caused the unusual behavior and it's these genes that result in speciation.

I responded only about how he view as “speciation” is not “speciation” at all, and that’s when he mentioned “quirky genes”:

What I highlighted in red, your example (your claim) have nothing to do with speciation or with Evolution.

And speciation don't occur at individuals' level.

Quirky individuals have quirky genes.

Like I have said, I don’t know what he meant by that. All I know he doesn’t understand what it mean by speciation. He just keep making up words that have nothing to do with Evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have no idea what cladking mean by that.

He was responding to your post about bottleneck, when he started on this “quirky”:

​

I responded only about how he view as “speciation” is not “speciation” at all, and that’s when he mentioned “quirky genes”:

​

Like I have said, I don’t know what he meant by that. All I know he doesn’t understand what it mean by speciation. He just keep making up words that have nothing to do with Evolution.

It is difficult to discuss science when all that is available is speculation and empty claims without any evidence. Redefining established terminology willy nilly serves no one. I gave up.

 

[gnostic]

It is difficult to discuss science when all that is available is speculation and empty claims without any evidence. Redefining established terminology willy nilly serves no one. I gave up.

He’d make up new meanings to words that no one else uses in sciences, and expect everyone to follow his lead.

All he is doing is creating confusion, not just for us, but to himself as well.

The irony he accuse everyone else being semantics, and yet he is the one is “playing word games”, twisting scientific terms with his own warped and “quirky” definitions that no one else would use.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Perhaps a few definitions will help any lurkers to this thread. Wikipedia is an excellent starting point to learn and understand the concepts relevant to evolution, their correct names and definitions.

A population bottleneck or genetic bottleneck is a sharp reduction in the size of a population due to environmental events such as famines, earthquakes, floods, fires, disease, and droughts; or human activities such as specicide, widespread violence or intentional culling, and human population planning.

Population bottleneck - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Given the confusion and misunderstanding over fitness and how it is used in biology and in relation to evolution, it seems appropriate to provide access to a definition for that as well. It isn't the general vigor of an organism and it isn't a step along the way to some idealized condition. All members of a population and an all organisms for that matter are not equally fit.

Fitness (often denoted {\displaystyle w}w or ω in population genetics models) is the quantitative representation of individual reproductive success.

Fitness (biology) - Wikipedia

 

[Dan From Smithville]

He’d make up new meanings to words that no one else uses in sciences, and expect everyone to follow his lead.

All he is doing is creating confusion, not just for us, but to himself as well.

The irony he accuse everyone else being semantics, and yet he is the one is “playing word games”, twisting scientific terms with his own warped and “quirky” definitions that no one else would use.

I agree. I found it very confusing. I'm hoping that posting some definitions and links will help any lurkers to this thread better understand the actual terminology, lest they too be confused.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I wanted to mention this, since it was brought up a couple of times on this thread. The ability of flies to land upside down is a rather ubiquitous trait among species in the order Diptera. It is unlikely one could claim to have selected for this trait in a very small population of flies in which the trait already exists. Sort of like claiming to have selected for hair in dogs or cats.

 

[cladking]

I responded only about how he view as “speciation” is not “speciation” at all, and that’s when he mentioned “quirky genes”:

Again, you are looking at this with the wrong end of a telescope where you should be using a microscope. This is the nature of the belief in Evolution; induction is easy since it is mostly semantics and we already "know" that reality is reducible to a simple equation so, of course life should reduce just as simply.

There is no simple equation to describe reality because reality is the interplay of infinite cycles, processes, and simple forces. Life is infinitely more complex still; life is literally reality on steroids.

I'm very sorry reality is too complex to understand and life is many orders of magnitude more complex still.

No individual is composed of a single gene. No gene of which an individual is composed is ever the be all end all of its existence and is typically nearly irrelevant to the way that individual's life plays out. Life is composed of sets of genes and their interplay and each individual has not only many many genes but needs them all to be a "fit" member of his species.

The argument about nature or nurture is just as irrelevant as the divide between brain/ body. Individuals are their genes but they are also their experience. The combinations of genes that can be very very quirky can lead to different experiences and different means, modes, or ways to think. A sparrow raised by starlings is a different bird than other sparrows and still different than starlings. You want to whip out a big cookie cutter and make sparrows each like another so that you can view them in your telescope. But YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCES between individuals rather than assuming no difference matters. Differences do matter. Every species has a unique understanding of reality and every individual in that species is different than every other caused by his genes and his experience. "Experience" is a short hand word that means "consciousness in the past tense". It is consciousness driven by reality, genes and experience that defines every individual.

You hitched your wagon before the horse and are looking at the microscopic evidence through the wrong end of a telescope. You don't see the forest but you see the mites on the back legs of the bark beetles. Reality is countless trillions of times more complicated than you can even imagine. You don't even know what questions to ask or what formatting to use to understand how, why, and when species change. You start with the assumption that you and Darwin understand the basics and then induce the meaning of the evidence. The assumptions are wrong and "induction" is just like "evidence"; you see only what you expect. Induction is a trick of the mind. Eve when it sounds exactly right it can be completely wrong. Experiment has proven this countless times but you want to consider one experiment at a time rather than ALL OF THEM.

I don't know why you can't understand this other than simply being unwilling.

 

[gnostic]

Again, you are looking at this with the wrong end of a telescope where you should be using a microscope. This is the nature of the belief in Evolution; induction is easy since it is mostly semantics and we already "know" that reality is reducible to a simple equation so, of course life should reduce just as simply.

There is no simple equation to describe reality because reality is the interplay of infinite cycles, processes, and simple forces. Life is infinitely more complex still; life is literally reality on steroids.

I'm very sorry reality is too complex to understand and life is many orders of magnitude more complex still.

No individual is composed of a single gene. No gene of which an individual is composed is ever the be all end all of its existence and is typically nearly irrelevant to the way that individual's life plays out. Life is composed of sets of genes and their interplay and each individual has not only many many genes but needs them all to be a "fit" member of his species.

The argument about nature or nurture is just as irrelevant as the divide between brain/ body. Individuals are their genes but they are also their experience. The combinations of genes that can be very very quirky can lead to different experiences and different means, modes, or ways to think. A sparrow raised by starlings is a different bird than other sparrows and still different than starlings. You want to whip out a big cookie cutter and make sparrows each like another so that you can view them in your telescope. But YOU SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE DIFFERENCES between individuals rather than assuming no difference matters. Differences do matter. Every species has a unique understanding of reality and every individual in that species is different than every other caused by his genes and his experience. "Experience" is a short hand word that means "consciousness in the past tense". It is consciousness driven by reality, genes and experience that defines every individual.

You hitched your wagon before the horse and are looking at the microscopic evidence through the wrong end of a telescope. You don't see the forest but you see the mites on the back legs of the bark beetles. Reality is countless trillions of times more complicated than you can even imagine. You don't even know what questions to ask or what formatting to use to understand how, why, and when species change. You start with the assumption that you and Darwin understand the basics and then induce the meaning of the evidence. The assumptions are wrong and "induction" is just like "evidence"; you see only what you expect. Induction is a trick of the mind. Eve when it sounds exactly right it can be completely wrong. Experiment has proven this countless times but you want to consider one experiment at a time rather than ALL OF THEM.

I don't know why you can't understand this other than simply being unwilling.

More analogies.

Why not used real life examples of what you mean, and not using something that have nothing to do with evolutionary biology.

And besides all that, you have shown any examples of real experiments. You just keep making up claims that have no place in biology, as well as making excuses.

You keep saying there “COUNTLESS experiments” or “ALL experiments” support your claims, but not once, have cited one “real” experiment.

We go round and round, with you claiming that all experiments supported your claims, but never have you shown such experiments collaborated with your claims of having such experiments. You keep evasively moving the goalpost around, whenever anyone request that you show them these experiments.

Cite sources of experiments, that would provide the data that support your claims.

What do you citing mean, when people ask for your sources?

They are asking for sources, not for you to make more claims.

 

[cladking]

You keep saying there “COUNTLESS experiments” or “ALL experiments” support your claims, but not once, have cited one “real” experiment.

Every experiment ever done by man applies to everything in reality.

You can't pick and choose theories and experiments.

Why do you think it's impossible to predict the future? Why do you think I make a few predictions no one else has?

You want to ignore every gene but one as you study them. You want to ignore every part of the brain but one when you study it. You want to ignore every experiment ever performed as you look at something. Then you want to study dogs without ever understanding a single one of them or noting the differences or their causes. Some things can not be reduced by sciewnce and life is one of them because life is consciousness and consciousness can not be taken apart.

Long and short of it we must change the direction if we want to understand change in species. We must change the definitions and formatting of our knowledge; ie- change the interpretation of experiment: All of them and simultaneously. It will be a long hard road but it's the only one that leads to our destination.

 

[gnostic]

Every experiment ever done by man applies to everything in reality.

You can't pick and choose theories and experiments.

I am not asking you for some random experiments of something that have nothing to do with Evolution, I asking for YOU TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU HAVE SAID & CLAIMED about individual speciation, about sudden evolution, about this (idiotic) "quirky" genes.

If you are going to keep claiming that "all the evidence" or "all the experiments" support your position, then -

1. either you show these evidence, or
   
2. you cite your sources.

And at no time did you ever show either one.

So your claims of "HAVING EXPERIMENTS" are just empty assertions.

Do you even understand the English language?

You cannot keep making more claims of their being evidence/experiment, without supporting your claims.

That's all you ever done - make claims and never show any way to support it.

Either cite some of your sources, or stop lying to us that you have experiments/evidence to support your weird concepts.

 

[rational experiences]

As a human born by human sex. I know my place in life. It's natural.

My brother memory changed mind rich man scientist is a long long way aways from my natural thinking.

He says I'm trying to find God.

Why. What caused biology to be ourselves a human. I ask why. I'm proven psychic.

He says so he can remove us.

Made sense to me why a human keeps researching what they aren't. As not a human.

So I asked myself what is wrong in thinking status

I learnt. Humans looked back. They wanted to time shift their body anywhere any moment to everywhere else.

To have the experience.

So I thought about it again. Really tired of being daily attacked biological mind hurt by his machines studies.

Pretending it's operations are the same as earths mass.

The answer said as transmitters he uses for invention are outside in space as inside. It caused him to want to be the transmitter as his personal experience.

Hope he learns soon.

 

[cladking]

So your claims of "HAVING EXPERIMENTS" are just empty assertions.

Do you even understand the English language?

You are mistaken. You are conflating two different things.

First and foremost I am saying that every experiment ever done by man from rolling cars down inclined planes to experimenting about the nature of the operation of the brain applies all the time. You are not allowed to pick and choose what reality applies to you or to something you are studying because ALL REALITY APPLIES TO EVERYTHING and every single thing we know about reality devolves not from expertise or Peers but from EXPERIMENT. I don't know where you got the notion that evidence determines reality but it is poppycock.

Second and very importantly it is my contention that every single experiment that is related to Evolution is actually support for my theory and not for Darwin's nonsense. Since it supports me then it is on you to show one that contradicts me OR shows Darwin was right.

Yet in all this time you haven't done. One poster made a good attempt but didn't really succeed. I believe this is because there is no gradual change caused by survival of the fittest so of course you can't show that there is.

I understand English goodly. You don't understand science.

 

[gnostic]

You are mistaken. You are conflating two different things.

First and foremost I am saying that every experiment ever done by man from rolling cars down inclined planes to experimenting about the nature of the operation of the brain applies all the time. You are not allowed to pick and choose what reality applies to you or to something you are studying because ALL REALITY APPLIES TO EVERYTHING and every single thing we know about reality devolves not from expertise or Peers but from EXPERIMENT. I don't know where you got the notion that evidence determines reality but it is poppycock.

Second and very importantly it is my contention that every single experiment that is related to Evolution is actually support for my theory and not for Darwin's nonsense. Since it supports me then it is on you to show one that contradicts me OR shows Darwin was right.

Yet in all this time you haven't done. One poster made a good attempt but didn't really succeed. I believe this is because there is no gradual change caused by survival of the fittest so of course you can't show that there is.

I understand English goodly. You don't understand science.

What an arrogant and evasively dishonest response!

If so many experiments or evidence AS YOU HAVE CLAIMED THEY ALWAYS DO, then you really shouldn’t have any problems with citing & showing your sources of these experiments to support your claims in regards to YOUR VERSION of Evolution.

As a claimant of having so many experiments, your refusal to name a single experiment - a source or more - to back your version of Evolution, only demonstrate you are dishonest person, who have really have nothing but excuses (excuses are just making more claims), which including “shifting the burden of proof”.

I am not the one who being a “claimant”, you are.

And btw, cladking. I am not accepting Darwin’s model of Natural Selection, I have accepted the current model or modern model of Natural Selection as it is taught today, not the 19th century model.

You do understand the concept that any field of sciences can advance? It is called progress.

Natural Selection, the modern model is the standard model for this mechanism. But there are 4 other mechanisms in the theory of Evolution (eg Genetic Drift, Mutations, Gene Flow & Genetic Hitchhiking), and each one have been tested.

The current or modern model, included all the evidence and tests that not only support Natural Selection, but also to other fields that worked with Evolution, for examples: modern genetics, biochemistry & molecular biology, human biology, zoology, botany, both biological classification systems (eg phylogenetics, and the modern cladistics), etc.

Biologists don’t just rely on the 19th century Natural Selection. Natural Selection has been updated to the 21st century. The modern theory of Evolution have all being updated for 21st century.