Guided evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Obviously none of my points will be addressed.

Nobody will even comment on the simple fact that even the word "evolution" is a circular argument. "Evolution" does not drive "change in species". All change in life is sudden and no evidence for gradual change exists. Darwin looked at fossils and saw "evolution" but this revolutionary circular argument was simply wrong and it was highly unscientific. It is Look and See Science at its worst and nobody ever bothered to call him on it.

More than 150 years of science has failed to show any significant gradual change in species. Perhaps it would be found if anyone looked for it since several possible means exist, but we rarely try to prove our assumptions and "evolution" is an assumption. It is a foundational assumption so goes unchallenged and untested.

Except when we observe it directly today or when we go up a strata of chalk or many other examples.

You won't see the refutations if you keep denying them.

 

[rational experiences]

I am familiar with the idea of "guided evolution"

That humans are the product of evolution, but that evolution has been "guided" so that intelligent humans ended up being evolved

The fact of evolution is thus reconciled with the notion that God created humans - that he created us through evolution

Is this something people believe in?

It makes sense to me

A human who evolved their own DNA mutation is stated medically advised as self guidance. Reasoned evolution as a self-conscious identity.

Water X mass existed with which we live within.

Microbes in water mass. Humans living with same water as separate microbes. But have microbes inside their use of water mass.

Not evolution.

Nature present water mass ground present radiation levels microbes as bio food why we exist.

Origin creative thinker a human who tells theories.

Theories that design science invention machines is where science is correct.

Medical science highly correct in self present human body evaluations.

A whole human says origin in consciousness my own self.

Self de evolved DNA mutation as I increased radiation levels.

All other naturally present bodies not any evolution existed As natural forms.

Extra radiation is all that was introduced owning change causes and effects.

Which was not evolution it was attack and sacrifice of presence. In all bodies.

Evolution was not real for why any separate form present in its owned form existed.

Why it was preached against. Not to say science by medical reasoning was wrong. Science by occult theorising wrong when it introduced machine reaction.

The reasoning for devolution.

De evolution states what re evolved had been changed.

Thesis. Cooling allowed a revolving planet to maintain balances a human teaching.

Words named any state or presence by a human.

A word is not power

Description of and with word use says.....described script ion.

Says fus ion.
Says fis s ion.

Said science reactions holy ion by descript of ion.

Words never owned ion in it for if you say a tree is a tree it is. To describe a tree you say it is wood.

Theorists inferred human words owned the description of power. When it never did.

Evolving of self was a self healing. When extra radiation was removing its presence allowing cooling and oxygenation and water presence its natural place in life.

If you teach a human is spiritual.
A human is holy as..... Father as a mother as a baby. Meaning son and daughter then you did.

If you quote conscious awareness is lost and gained as a self teaching them you did. If you said a human thinking stole from the God body as sciences you did.

As inventive extra radiation science.

Evolution in a human life explained as the evolution regain of a healthy human life. The only status evolution by human sciences as conscious self guidance.

 

[rational experiences]

What makes you think that I cannot do that?

No, just because you do not understand something does not mean that others are assuming. In fact you have never shown anyone to assume anything yet. You have only claimed that people assume things.




Of course I do. The problem is that you do not even understand what is and what is not evidence. So here is the definition of evidence. You probably will not understand it:

Scientific evidence is evidence that serves to either support or counter a scientific theory or hypothesis.

There was never science.
There is no scientific evidence.

Science is owned controlled as a human practice.

Science said life exists due to light. Yet life lives in darkness also. Studied by choice. All reasoning chosen.

Science says earth O evolved it's own burning gas heavens. Evolution as a theory it cooled.

Yet cooling is not relative. It is conditional.

O God earth heavens owned science man statement was not burning was immaculate

Said a sun reset it alight. Blasting event first theory. Yet earth owned gas burning light first. Life living in darkness that proof.

Not sun radiation in other words. Regarding earth gases burning light.

Conversion of earth mass was by a level mass of sun radiation.

Science already proven wrong.

Microbes living in water mass as their own life form. Microbes. Not human consciousness. Consciousness human imposed it's status. Why feedback thought reflection today proves it reflects incorrectly.

Man theist.

Man theist takes water from water mass and studies it under microscope.

Concludes life is in water....self included. Self a human.

Ask him what he lied about...including the other human life body that owned continuance of human baby life a female. In that thesis as one self is only discussing water and microbes.

His study was mass of water having life in it. No other status at all.

All bio life existing as multi forms other than microbes natural awAreness not thesis says by communication imaged feedback living in microbe water mass also. But not a microbe.

Consciousness introducing fake thinking by choice began to lie.

Then visionary thesis. O earth totally flooded after sun conversion. Mountain peak above water line. Few mountains by height only. Heavens. Natural light one body and not natural UFO mass.

Reasoning human. Knew it was naturally formed as UFO but not earth natural.

Not natural to earth....attacked earths stone mountain peak converted it to flat top mountain.

Owned all evidence as theist UFO was destruction. Naturally self formed but not natural to earth.

Lied about it and still today is possessed by his original lies.

Even said A lie N.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It simply doesn't matter what words you use. Words are just going to be interpreted differently by every reader anyway. "Only the fit survive" is no more or no less nonsensical than "species evolve because individual which are less adaptable are less likely to reproduce". The first statement in no more right or wrong than the second because they are equally false.

This makes no sense at all and one has to wonder how you can say such a thing without blinking.

It's so simple....

Consider 2 individuals of the same predator species that compete over limited resources.
One is a faster / better runner then the other.
Which one will be more likely to catch his prey?
Which one then, will be more likely to be well-fed?
Which one then, will be more likely to live and reproduce?

It's not rocket science.

Species do not evolve through any means at all; they change.

This is an epic facepalm moment..............

Evolution = change over time

And all change is sudden like a volcano rather than plate movement.

No. As every single evolutionary experiment and agricultural program in the history of mankind has shown, change is gradual. Change accumulates over generations, step by step.

This is the case in slow evolution in times of environmental stability and it is also the case in "rapid" evolution in times of environmental instability (punctuated equilibrium). The "rapid" is not "rapid" as in overnight. It is "rapid" in terms of geological time.

The "cambrian explosion", which creationists like to cite as "evidence against evolution" because it is said that evolutionary change was "sudden" or "rapid", still spanned a time period of 50 million years.

Rapid in the great scheme of a 3.8 billion year history of life. Not exactly "rapid" in the sense that it happened in a handful of generations, because it didn't. Not even by a long shot.

I've cited extensive evidence and logic over the years to support this

All you did, was expose your ignorance on the theory you are religiously motivated to argue against.

You have no evidence for "evolution" because all of the evidence supports my theory.

This is delusional, rooted in a deep ignorance on what evolution really is all about and how it really works.
Every comment you make on the topic, contains evidence that you don't even understand the very basics.

This doesn't prove you are wrong, merely that the "theory" of evolution" is a belief.

And your use of quotes here, hints that your ignorance isn't limited to biology alone, but extends to all of science and how science is done.

In science, a theory is not "merely" some theory. It is TRIUMPHANTLY a theory. A theory is the highest possible rating an idea in science can get. It's the graduation stage of a hypothesis.

I literally believe the belief in "guided species change" makes more sense than "evolution".

You can believe whatever you want. You can also believe the world and everything it contains, including our memories of having lived our entire lives, was created just 5 minutes ago.

Beliefs are a dime a dozen. What matters is what you can support with evidence. But before you can support your idea with evidence (or disprove it), you are going to have to define your idea in testable, verifiable and falsifiable ways.

You have not yet done so.

So please, tell us all how your idea of "guided evolution" can be tested and potentially falsified.

I suppose we can agree a great deal of change in species is the result of sudden mutations.

Genetic change is the result of mutations, yes. Not sure what you mean by "sudden" though. That's pretty meaningless wording in this context, it seems to me.

I doubt we'll agree on the cause of these mutations. You believe in random chance whereas I rarely do.

Mutations are caused by a variety of things.
Your second sentence once again exposes your ignorance on the topic.

The randomness concerns random with respect to fitness. It has nothing to do with the causes of mutations.

Do you claim that mutation is NOT random with respect to fitness? Then how do you explain harmful mutations?

Or do you claim that some mutations are not random with respect to fitness?
If yes, then please mention examples of such mutations and present your evidence concerning how they aren't random to fitness

 

[cladking]

There was never science.
There is no scientific evidence.

Science is owned controlled as a human practice.

People can believe virtually any kind of claptrap and nonsense whatsoever. Look at all the crazy beliefs and woo now days. We simply choose to believe what gives us pleasure or that coincides with what everyone else believes. These beliefs are always being reinforced because everything we see is interpreted and seen in terms of those beliefs. If you believe in UFO's the odds are pretty good you'll eventually interpret strange lights or odd phenomena as being the result of flying saucers. If you believe in "evolution" then this is what you'll see and when evidence is presented that there is no evolution you will not be able to see that evidence. You won't even be able to understand the argument if you accepted that evidence. People now days want to be "right" so instead of thinking we tend to pick sides with most going to the side that seems most likely to be right. This is why "Science" is the fastest growing religion and why anything called "science" is gobbled up by an increasingly gullible public. If it looks like fossils mustta evolved then it mustta been caused by "survival of the fittest". Nevermind that no science supports it because it's what Darwin wanted to believe. It was the right theory at the right time because people were being oppressed all over the planet and the oppressors needed justification: If other people were less fit then they would not have survived anyway. It was likely a favor to the oppressed descendants to be brought into the modern world but it was sure as hell no favor to those being oppressed or enslaved.

We live in a strange world where experts can just look and see what's real and what is not and then half the population kowtows to whatever nonsense they invent.

We live in the third millennium but there are no courses on how or why science works and no critical oversight of experimental interpretation in terms of our axioms and definitions. We have wholly lost sight of what science is and replaced it with "Science" that upsets all of our infrastructure and the entire human economy (outside China) because of some strange computer game called "Global Warming". We are led by the self loathing and the self serving and call it "liberty".

19th century "science" (Look and See Science) lies at the heart of all our ills. We bought into nonsense from Darwin to Marx, to Freud and think we are at the pinnacle of creation and evolution. This thinking is going to lead to our extinction because individually and collectively humans are what they believe.

 

[cladking]

All you did, was expose your ignorance on the theory you are religiously motivated to argue against.

And herein is the problem. Your religion says that axioms and definitions are sacrosanct. Your religion says there can be only one religion; Science. Your religion excludes all things that are unknown and all things that can't be reduced to experiment. Your religion holds that nature is a set of laws and processes that are knowable and can be reduced to our definitions while they remain axiomatic and in agreement with all current knowledge and theory. Your religion holds "theory" as truth rather than current state of the art in experiment interpretation.

I have no religion. I try to not have any beliefs at all and to view all of reality as a set of probabilities in the context of what appears to be true, is true. I don't see any experiment as ever being the final word on any theory at all. I examine definitions and axioms regularly seeking simpler ways to explain all knowledge. Simpler ways to explain an event, process, or experiment are valuable but the most valuable is simpler ways to explain all reality or simpler frameworks and perspectives in which to see it.

I doubt you understand any of this at all. You are a devout "scientist" and can never entertain any fact or observation that flies in the face of your beliefs. As such this post will simply be as incomprehensible to you as it would to a butterfly in China.

The ONLY point of any science is to predict but your religion is incapable of making predictions outside of controlled conditions. Like a savage predicting his poisoned dart will kill the monkey after it's hit your predictions are only of use in machines and in the lab. You have nothing but beliefs and 400 years of experiment that is generally misunderstood. Otherwise you could present some fact, some observation, or some experiment that supports your belief that "evolution" exists. Like all life on all levels and of all types species change, they do not evolve. This is confusion and Look and See Science. It is not real science which has meaning only when it's dissected and understood in terms of metaphysics.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Your religion says that axioms and definitions are sacrosanct. Your religion says there can be only one religion; Science.

Science is a method of inquiry, not a religion.

Your religion excludes all things that are unknown and all things that can't be reduced to experiment

science doesn't exclude anything.
Instead, it only includes things for which there is evidence. Be it evidence from experiment or otherwise.

Your religion holds that nature is a set of laws and processes that are knowable and can be reduced to our definitions while they remain axiomatic and in agreement with all current knowledge and theory.

No. Science does not demand things must be in agreement with current knowledge.
In fact, the best science is the science that shows current knowledge to be wrong. That's when progress is made.

Your religion holds "theory" as truth rather than current state of the art in experiment interpretation.

No. Science holds theories merely as the current best explanation which accounts for the evidence.
It does not consider it "truth".

I don't see any experiment as ever being the final word on any theory at all.

Who does?
Certainly not science / scientists.
Not me either.

You are a devout "scientist"

I'm not a scientist. I'm a software engineer.

and can never entertain any fact or observation that flies in the face of your beliefs.

I don't do "beliefs". I have no emotional investment in any particular answer to any question.
I go where the evidence leads.

The ONLY point of any science is to predict but your religion is incapable of making predictions outside of controlled conditions.

Evolution literally makes gazillions of testable predictions. And not just predictions that can be tested in controlled conditions only.

For example, evolution predicts humans will share more ERV's (and other genetic markers) with chimps then with gorilla's. More with gorilla's then with oerang oetangs. More with oerang oetangs then with lions. More with lions then with birds. More with birds then with crabs.
And so on and so on. And that's just one category of predictions.

Like a savage predicting his poisoned dart will kill the monkey after it's hit your predictions are only of use in machines and in the lab.

Nope.
Fossils of previously unknown species are even found by prediction. Like Tiktaalik, which was found based on predictions coming from multiple scientific fields.

You have nothing but beliefs and 400 years of experiment that is generally misunderstood. Otherwise you could present some fact, some observation, or some experiment that supports your belief that "evolution" exists

I just gave you a couple in this post alone, which actually account for millions of individual predictions.

Like all life on all levels and of all types species change, they do not evolve.

Evolution IS change.

This is confusion and Look and See Science. It is not real science which has meaning only when it's dissected and understood in terms of metaphysics.

All this ranting and the making of claims, and yet not a single actual argument against evolution...

 

[cladking]

I doubt you understand any of this at all. You are a devout "scientist" and can never entertain any fact or observation that flies in the face of your beliefs.

If you do understand anything at all in the post you will ignore it just as you ignore the fact that there is no evidence of any major change in species that is gradual. You simply ignore the fact all known change is sudden and continue on with a belief in "evolution" driven by "survival of the fittest" that occurs over a very long time.

 

[cladking]

science doesn't exclude anything.
Instead, it only includes things for which there is evidence. Be it evidence from experiment or otherwise.

So if there were pink striped unicorns how would you include that? If there were a unified field theory to explain how gravity works, what would that be?

In fact, the best science is the science that shows current knowledge to be wrong. That's when progress is made.

Indeed! And you know science is on the wrong track when it fails to make good prediction like an accelerating universe.

No. Science holds theories merely as the current best explanation which accounts for the evidence.

Yes! Ideally! But few people understand this and take theory as gospel no matter how badly it fails to make prediction.

No. Science holds theories merely as the current best explanation which accounts for the evidence.

So, you don't believe in the laws of physics?

Fossils of previously unknown species are even found by prediction. Like Tiktaalik, which was found based on predictions coming from multiple scientific fields.

Before I bother to look this up are you claiming this fossil proves there was a gradual change? I'm sure it doesn't but I'll play along.

All this ranting and the making of claims, and yet not a single actual argument against evolution...

Exactly!

You just can't see arguments against evolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If you do understand anything at all in the post you will ignore it just as you ignore the fact that there is no evidence of any major change in species that is gradual. You simply ignore the fact all known change is sudden and continue on with a belief in "evolution" driven by "survival of the fittest" that occurs over a very long time.

I see that you have changed your demand. There is no reason to see the sort of evidence that you think should exist. And your claim is still wrong. There is no such evidence for land vertebrates. But then we do not expect to see it. You seem to have the mistaken idea that the fossil record is like a constantly running tape recorder. Land based fossilization is an extremely rare event. It is only because life has been around so long that we have as many fossils as we do. Entire species can exist without any examples being preserved. We can observe slow changes in action, but of course they usually do not amount to major changes since our direct observation is very limited in time of land based vertebrates. And the fossil record of vertebrates are more like examples of very rare photos turning up more than a motion picture.


What exactly do you expect to see? I can probably explain to you why your expectations are not based upon reality.

 

[rational experiences]

People can believe virtually any kind of claptrap and nonsense whatsoever. Look at all the crazy beliefs and woo now days. We simply choose to believe what gives us pleasure or that coincides with what everyone else believes. These beliefs are always being reinforced because everything we see is interpreted and seen in terms of those beliefs. If you believe in UFO's the odds are pretty good you'll eventually interpret strange lights or odd phenomena as being the result of flying saucers. If you believe in "evolution" then this is what you'll see and when evidence is presented that there is no evolution you will not be able to see that evidence. You won't even be able to understand the argument if you accepted that evidence. People now days want to be "right" so instead of thinking we tend to pick sides with most going to the side that seems most likely to be right. This is why "Science" is the fastest growing religion and why anything called "science" is gobbled up by an increasingly gullible public. If it looks like fossils mustta evolved then it mustta been caused by "survival of the fittest". Nevermind that no science supports it because it's what Darwin wanted to believe. It was the right theory at the right time because people were being oppressed all over the planet and the oppressors needed justification: If other people were less fit then they would not have survived anyway. It was likely a favor to the oppressed descendants to be brought into the modern world but it was sure as hell no favor to those being oppressed or enslaved.

We live in a strange world where experts can just look and see what's real and what is not and then half the population kowtows to whatever nonsense they invent.

We live in the third millennium but there are no courses on how or why science works and no critical oversight of experimental interpretation in terms of our axioms and definitions. We have wholly lost sight of what science is and replaced it with "Science" that upsets all of our infrastructure and the entire human economy (outside China) because of some strange computer game called "Global Warming". We are led by the self loathing and the self serving and call it "liberty".

19th century "science" (Look and See Science) lies at the heart of all our ills. We bought into nonsense from Darwin to Marx, to Freud and think we are at the pinnacle of creation and evolution. This thinking is going to lead to our extinction because individually and collectively humans are what they believe.

Why human family was the only ever real true one group. One new group as an old group but one new group losing sense of self today totally aware.

Due to one fact of new from old life as a regain of atmospheric mass spatial conditions. We healed we evolved and we became aware. So did the scientist.

So we know we are watching our own end occurring right before our eyes.

Memories are what kept us warned and atmospheric new amassing natural owning a human science promise to not practice science nuclear ever again and allow the new world humanity to be regained. One United order family.

Only egotism by organisation said it was owned by a group when the origins of family the group spiritual was and is original.

We nearly made our promise and 100 years ago one life span aware before healing had it removed in nuclear reinvention.

Reason I know about it today. Memories. Recorded life. Life lived. Life experiences. Life choices. The false prophecies now in place.

2012 was what we hoped would succeed to spiritual human minds returning. Vacuum removal of the sun's nuclear mass amount science had been causing.

Lost to earth by heated space pressure change.

Removal of the form body of our earth God. The act of satanic theorising. The unnatural mother space womb over heating.

With Rome having ownership memory history status of the communal.world take over as the wealthy owners in the past causing irradiation attack of the past reasoning. As the commentary meaning. The elite in human past who controlled the technology causing it.

Abomination UFO irradiation causes of the space womb mother of earth God O. Memories. Psychic reckoning. Psychic reasoning.

Who also owned the reasoning of the promise.

So are we too late scientists?

 

[cladking]

We can observe slow changes in action, but of course they usually do not amount to major changes since our direct observation is very limited in time of land based vertebrates.

By George, you almost have it.

As I said there should be plenty of ways to find evidence of a gradual change but nobody is even looking since it's sufficient to merely ASSUME there is a gradual change in the fossil record to PROVE that species change through "survival of the fittest".

I haven't put a lot of thought into finding evidence for "evolution" because I never really "believed" in it. But I could look. This is really outside my paygrade; let a biologist find real evidence.

 

[cladking]

Reason I know about it today. Memories. Recorded life. Life lived. Life experiences. Life choices. The false prophecies now in place.

The disintegration isn't as large a threat to the species as those things the self loathing and self serving choose to implement. When wealth is destroyed for the benefit of the few there remains the ability to stop the destruction or to create brand new wealth. When families are destroyed through indoctrination and government programs to "help the poor" there always remain people who have the capacity to learn and grow. The problem is that some processes create a spiraling of destruction that can not be impeded. The human race no longer has the ability to survive without its machines and will become extinct if we continue on the current course as conditions change due to new thinking and new invention. We'd probably be extinct in less than a century if the economy is forced to collapse by a continuation of our wasteful habits or by trying to maintain our wasteful habits as the consequences are addressed. In any case there are new threats appearing on the horizon for which we are ill prepared. Our leaders no longer think of long term consequences because anything past the next quarter doesn't matter. Political leaders have no understanding of our science which has become too complex for the laymen so they just do what companies tell them to.

Humans have a knack for fighting our way out of tough spots but never before have beliefs been so inappropriate to the tasks at hand. We worship at the altar of Science and stumble blindly into the future.

 

[cladking]

We worship at the altar of Science and stumble blindly into the future.

And the saddest part of it is many believers will secretly applaud because they think the "fit will survive" and create a new super economy, or super culture immune to privation and religious belief or other bad thinking.

 

[Subduction Zone]

By George, you almost have it.

As I said there should be plenty of ways to find evidence of a gradual change but nobody is even looking since it's sufficient to merely ASSUME there is a gradual change in the fossil record to PROVE that species change through "survival of the fittest".

I haven't put a lot of thought into finding evidence for "evolution" because I never really "believed" in it. But I could look. This is really outside my paygrade; let a biologist find real evidence.

Oh we find evidence of slow change all of the time. You simply pretend that evidence does not exist.

And you still cannot support your false claim that scientists assume that there is slow change.

 

[ratiocinator]

As I said there should be plenty of ways to find evidence of a gradual change but nobody is even looking since it's sufficient to merely ASSUME there is a gradual change in the fossil record to PROVE that species change through "survival of the fittest".

This appears to be nothing more than your own little fantasy. It bears no relationship with reality in which gradual evolutionary change is directly observed and the evidence for the theory of evolution by natural selection is found from multiple sources apart from the fossil record - genetics being a major example, from which we could make the entire case for the theory without reference to any of the other evidence (fossils included).

BTW "survival of the fittest" can be a very misleading term. It means survival of those best fitted to the environment of the population, i.e. those whose characteristics make it more likely that they survive and reproduce in said environment. It's practically a truism.

I haven't put a lot of thought into finding evidence for "evolution" because I never really "believed" in it. But I could look. This is really outside my paygrade; let a biologist find real evidence.

They have done. They've found copious amounts of evidence. What's more, it's not secret; it's out there for anybody to see. There are endless explanations at all levels of detail and aimed at all sorts of different levels of knowledge and understanding. Do you need help to use google?

 

[cladking]

which gradual evolutionary change is directly observed

How many such million year long changes have you directly observed?

fossil record - genetics being a major example

I am aware of no "genetics" prior to the mastodon a mere 10,000 years ago.

BTW "survival of the fittest" can be a very misleading term. It means survival of those best fitted to the environment of the population, i.e. those whose characteristics make it more likely that they survive and reproduce in said environment. It's practically a truism.

No matter what words you use to say it it is an ASSUMPTION and it is FALSE.

Anyone can "look and see" survival of the fittest but nobody has any evidence of gradual change caused by it. It is just another circular argument.

If there were such a thing as survival of the fittest it would be more accurately called "survival of the most conscious" but this isn't how things work. All change occurs suddenly and you have no evidence or experiment that shows otherwise.

What's more, it's not secret; it's out there for anybody to see.

Why don't you mention one bit of it. I don't need no stinkin' links or detailed research; just mention one thing you believe supports a gradual change in any species. Nobody has ever managed to address this question. JUST TYPE OUT A SIMPLE SENTENCE.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How many such million year long changes have you directly observed?



I am aware of no "genetics" prior to the mastodon a mere 10,000 years ago.



No matter what words you use to say it it is an ASSUMPTION and it is FALSE.

Anyone can "look and see" survival of the fittest but nobody has any evidence of gradual change caused by it. It is just another circular argument.

If there were such a thing as survival of the fittest it would be more accurately called "survival of the most conscious" but this isn't how things work. All change occurs suddenly and you have no evidence or experiment that shows otherwise.



Why don't you mention one bit of it. I don't need no stinkin' links or detailed research; just mention one thing you believe supports a gradual change in any species. Nobody has ever managed to address this question. JUST TYPE OUT A SIMPLE SENTENCE.

Why do you have such a fixation on direct observation? It is not required to confirm evolution.

 

[cladking]

Oh we find evidence of slow change all of the time.

Why don't you mention one bit of it. I don't need no stinkin' links or detailed research; just mention one thing you believe supports a gradual change in any species.

And you still cannot support your false claim that scientists assume that there is slow change.

Darwin specifically proposed that populations over the long term were stable thereby slamming the door on the actual cause of change in species. The very word "evolution" assumes the conclusion. Obviously someone sought a descriptive term but people are misled by it because the reality is all life changes and all change is sudden. People don't get married over billions of years and no off spring ever required millions of years to emerge, hatch, or be born. People die and species change but nothing "evolves". There isn't even such a thing as "species" because all life is individual.

You believe you can reduce reality to words and statistics and induce reality. This is a religion rather than science because all true science is based on experiment not looking and seeing.

 

[cladking]

Why do you have such a fixation on direct observation? It is not required to confirm evolution.

I agree. What is your stinking evidence?