Of course there are genetic characteristics that can improve or worsen an individual's chances of reproducing many or no viable off spring. Obviously a smarter, faster, larger, or greener rabbit could have a slightly better chance of surviving any given event. Of course, as well, any of these attributes could reduce the odds of survival. Without studying these specific characteristics and how they play out in the real world of a changing environment we are just guessing at what leads to survival and then we are guessing that the new fossils are representative of what was effective in a population where we don't understand a single case of an individual failing or succeeding. Of course some adaptations in the past and in the lab have very apparent causes and require very little extrapolation. If you kill 90% of a species with a toxin it's hardly surprising the next generation is more fit in terms of surviving that toxin. You could even dissect each victim and see exactly what killed it and study how some individuals actually got slightly more or less poison. You could get a lot of genetic insight into why each survivor didn't die by studying them. So?
You need to show that the characteristic that is represented was actually more likely to be represented and that all these many characteristics that are represented are actually what drives the changes observed. We can't really do that. We have merely extrapolated common sense in terms of our beliefs and a few experiments.
You seem to be focussing on the pixel and losing track of the bigger picture in the process.
Natural selection is an inevitable consequence of the condition of living. That's the larger point.
A second point, is that every newborn comes with a set of mutations. These mutations are random with respect to fitness. They might have no effect on fitness or they might reduce or increase it.
Natural selection in turn, is dependend on the selection pressures in the niche a population inhabits. That niche can stay stable and it can also change. If it changes, the selection pressures change as well.
When selection pressures stay the same, natural selection will favour the status quo.
It means species enter what is called the "local optimum" in genetic algorithms.
It essentially means that there are no obvious pathways left towards further increased fitness. If selection pressures change, new pathways might open up. This is when evolutionary change accelerates. Natural seleciton no longer favours the status quo. This is when species either "rapidly" change or go extinct (quotes, because we are talking about geological time here...).
These are well tested and observed principles that work so well that they are even used in optimization modules called "genetic algorithms".
This is the process of evolution. And it makes predictions. Predictions that can be tested. And when tested, they are confirmed. A generic prediction is that life is organized in nested hierarchies. And lo and behold, multiple indepent lines of evidence (genetic record, fossil record, distribution of species, distribution of fossils both geographically as well as chronologically, comparative anatomy, distribution of genetic markers,...), all converge on the same nested hierarchy. Aka a family tree.
This kind of evidence is sufficient to determine that you and your sibling are siblings, when all we have are DNA samples. It is sufficient to determine you and your cousin are actually cousins. It is sufficient to distinguish your cousin from your sibling from your parents from random people. All just by comparing anonymous DNA samples.
We can do this, because we understand how DNA works.
It allows us to determine kinship and common ancestral links. Small and large scale, the underlying principles are the same. It makes no sense to say it works for one but not the other.
If all we had was DNA of extant species, that alone would already be sufficient to determine that we share ancestry with the other species. But we have a lot more then that. We also have access to their anatomy, their geographic wherabouts and the fossil record. And all this independent lines of evidence all converge on the same answer we obtain from the genetic evidence.
When you have multiple independent lines of evidence all converging on the same answer and no data to contradict it, that's when you have an extremely solid case.
And one of those axioms is that populations are relatively stable even over the long term.
Huh? Who says that?
Considering that the consensus is that 99% of all species that ever lived are extinct today, I'ld say that that is clearly false.
One of our assumptions is that behavior has little to do with animal survival.
Who says that?
Of course that plays a role. Not the only role, obviously.
One of our assumptions is that we are much smarter than animals.
Although this might depend on how you define "smart", I think it's safe to say that we are quite intelligent and likely the most intelligent of species currently on this planet.
One of our assumptions is that By taking nature apart and studying a species we can extrapolate what is found to every individual.
No idea what you mean by that.
One of our assumptions is that animals don't even have consciousness
Obvious falsehood. Great apes even pass the "spot test", demonstrating that they are self-aware.
Although again, this might depend on how you are defining and using that word.
Perhaps you need to define it first.
and it's hardly necessary to know what a rabbit is thinking as it's being eaten by a rabbit.
I'm not aware of any rabbits eating other rabbits though. Having said that, I have no idea what you mean by this or how it is supposedly relevant.
EVERYTHING WE KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION IS ONLY VALID WITHIN THOSE ASSUMPTION.
Seeing as several of these claimed assumptions are obviously false, I'm inclined to disagree.
What we know about evolution is based in fact, observation and verifiability.
To the degree any of these assumptions is wrong our conclusions can be wrong.
Literally nothing in evolution theory is dependend on the nonsense you spewed there.
I believe there are massive problems with these assumptions.
So do I. For starters, they are not at all assumptions that are relevant to evolution.
They are so massive that we even interpret experiment incorrectly.
Just for the fun of it, please explain that with an example.
Most people have lost sight of the foundations of modern science so they don't know what they know.
look who's talking.................................
