[Gore3000:] And evolution does not do any of that.
It does do enormous amounts of that, I've watched the field do that over many decades.
If you think it doesn't, then I submit that you've paid as little attention to what really goes on in evolutionary science as you do to the evidence and arguments and rebuttals presented to you on these threads.
Look at the present article - kids writing a video game is all that this is.
Yes, I'm sure that's what it looks like to you.
It is not digging facts and doing dirty work. Look at the works of Gould and Dawkins - neither of them a scientist, neither of them involved in experimentation, or research.
From this article about Gould's life:
"I am deeply saddened to learn of the death of Stephen Jay Gould," said Harvard University President Lawrence H. Summers. "The Harvard community and the world of science have lost a brilliant scholar whose research helped redefine our notion of who we are and where we came from. He was also a gifted teacher who brought important scientific ideas vividly to life for his students and for the wider public. We will miss him greatly, and we will continue to learn from his work for generations to come."[...]Richard Lewontin, Alexander Agassiz Research Professor of Zoology and research professor of biology, was a friend and colleague of Gould’s for 25 years; they taught a course on evolution together. "Steve’s importance was twofold. He was very creative and original in his studies of evolution. He was an expert at taking new discoveries and applying them to an understanding of evolution. Steve had a good feeling for the complexity and variation involved in evolution. He never tried to simplify it to a cartoon," [*cough* - Ich.] said Lewontin.
[...]Gould's research focused on invertebrate paleontology, specifically the growth and form of land snails. His work brought him frequent honors, including the Schuchert Award for excellence in paleontological research for a paleontologist under age 40 in 1975.
I doubt that either even owned a microscope.
"In 1971, I spent an academic term as a visiting researcher at Oxford University. I received a cranny of office space on the upper floor of the University Museum. As I set up my book, fossil snails, and microscope, I noticed a metal plaque affixed to the wall, informing me that this reconfigured space of shelves and cubicles had been, originally, the site of the most famous public confrontation in the early history of Darwinism."Don't you ever get tired of being so easily proven wrong?-- Stephen Jay Gould, "The Lying Stones of Marrakech, pp. 251-252
Darwin did not either.
"My object in coming here was to see the great beds of shells, which stand some yards above the level of the sea, and are burnt for lime. The proofs of the elevation of this whole line of coast are unequivocal: at the height of a few hundred feet old-looking shells are numerous, and I found some at 1300 feet. These shells either lie loose on the surface, or are embedded in a reddish-black vegetable mould. I was much surprised to find under the microscope that this vegetable mould is really marine mud, full of minute particles of organic bodies."Care to try again?
-- Charles Darwin, "The Voyage of the Beagle", Chap. 12, entry for August 14th
These people are rhetoricians, not scientists.
You are, again, mistaken.
Darwin spent 20 years writing and zero doing science.
Also: http://www.sc.edu/library/spcoll/nathist/darwin/darwin7.html. Excerpts:
The barnacle turned out to be very odd indeed, and barnacles themselves had just been newly recognized as crustaceans, rather than mollusks. Darwin found himself deferring his grand theory on natural selection and embarking instead on an eight-year project to describe all species of the barnacle family, fossil and living. He became especially fascinated by what barnacles (cirripedia) suggested about the process of sexual differentiation in the tiny creatures. ... Together, the four volumes in which Darwin eventually published his barnacle research would remain standard scientific references for more than a century.The scope of your ignorance is truly vast.[...]The Royal Society, the premier scientific body in Britain, has two major annual awards for research, the Royal Medal and the Copley Medal. Darwin eventually won both, but this report of the President's speech in awarding him the Royal Medal makes clear the reputation he had built up as an original researcher in two distinct fields, geology and marine biology, before he took up the risky project of explaining natural selection to his scientific colleagues.
[...]Among the practical experiments that Darwin undertook in the 1850s for his work on species was a study of how pigeon-fanciers selected and exaggerated particularly-desired features for exhibition through successive pigeon generations, until quite distinct varieties of pigeon (pouter, carrier, and fantail) had been developed.
His followers do the same.
Your vacuous slander is duly noted.
Yes, I'm sure that's what it looks like to you.
There is no research at all in the article, just playing around with numbers, so yes, it is nonsense. It says it is a model. You cannot make models to prove what you do not know. A model to be worthwhile has to be based on reality and that requires that the variables be known. You cannot model the unknown. So yes, the article is garbage, it is not science, and it is not hard work, it is charlatanism. It is indeed a video game with no more claim to truth than any other video game.