"Observed" changes in the variant forms of the same genes, you say? By whom, exactly? By you? In what organism? By natural selection and random processes favoring one form of an allele over the other as a matter of "improved" genetic utility? Let's see your data. A little lacking in this regard? Thought so. What's the matter? Not enough time to actually "observe" anything happening with any frequency per se? At your age, who's really surprised.
"...over time," you say? "Observed" over the intervals of time your evolutionary premise requires? Or do you just punctuate your data and pick and choose your time points at a whim like the late SJ Gould thought he could?
And who exactly do you propose was performing the intellectually cognizant act of "observing" your presumed naturally selected allele changes, say -- 5000 years ago, when man is at least known to have been around, or better yet -- as only a materialist's fanciful imagination might speculate -- 1,000,000 years ago, when neither mankind nor his eyeballs according to you evo's was even there to "observe" presumed allele changes?
Seems your definition of evolution is not only inaccurate, but also painfully simplistic.
The scientific method studies observable and testable phenomena. Evolution is neither observed nor is it testable as a designed experiment to measure an event of natural selection as it might randomly occur in nature. Evolution has no rational basis to predict anything -- least of all a random "beneficial" (now there's a subjective term) event -- it simply is not science. Evolution is a premise, and a series of speculations which form a worldview.
Unwittingly, you have just lurched uncontrollably into some of the most glaring flaws in your whole premise -- allele changes by evolutionarily presumed processes of natural selection, allegedly giving rise to what are at best only intellectually perceived subjective claims to allele "improvements," -- a phenomenon which has never been observed to occur at any time in nature!
By definition no one's been around long enough to make any such "observations" about natural selection "over time," as the scientific method would require. Secondly, your materialistic premise of natural selection discounts intelligence as a moving force. Subjective value judgments about deficiencies an organism perceives about its current gene-pool are somehow made. This also somehow leads the organism to subjectively require enhancements to its gene-pool to effect necessary subjective advancements for its survival. This however, is a patently self-contradictory position. Only organisms manifesting some form of rational intelligence subjectively "select" anything.
Your scientifically naive word choices have essentially falsified your position, and you did it all by yourself and for all to see!
But you're likely still a novice in these areas, I suspect. Just promise us all that you actually intend to complete 6th grade, OK, grasshopper?
All evolution has ever been is a premise and worldview which proceeds from it. Nothing more.
" "Observed" changes in the variant forms of the same genes, you say? By whom, exactly? By you? In what organism? By natural selection and random processes favoring one form of an allele over the other as a matter of "improved" genetic utility? Let's see your data. A little lacking in this regard? Thought so. What's the matter? Not enough time to actually "observe" anything happening with any frequency per se? At your age, who's really surprised.
"...over time," you say? "Observed" over the intervals of time your evolutionary premise requires? Or do you just punctuate your data and pick and choose your time points at a whim like the late SJ Gould thought he could?
And who exactly do you propose was performing the intellectually cognizant act of "observing" your presumed naturally selected allele changes, say -- 5000 years ago, when man is at least known to have been around, or better yet -- as only a materialist's fanciful imagination might speculate -- 1,000,000 years ago, when neither mankind nor his eyeballs according to you evo's was even there to "observe" presumed allele changes?
Seems your definition of evolution is not only inaccurate, but also painfully simplistic.
The scientific method studies observable and testable phenomena. Evolution is neither observed nor is it testable as a designed experiment to measure an event of natural selection as it might randomly occur in nature. Evolution has no rational basis to predict anything -- least of all a random "beneficial" (now there's a subjective term) event -- it simply is not science. Evolution is a premise, and a series of speculations which form a worldview.
Unwittingly, you have just lurched uncontrollably into some of the most glaring flaws in your whole premise -- allele changes by evolutionarily presumed processes of natural selection, allegedly giving rise to what are at best only intellectually perceived subjective claims to allele "improvements," -- a phenomenon which has never been observed to occur at any time in nature!
By definition no one's been around long enough to make any such "observations" about natural selection "over time," as the scientific method would require. Secondly, your materialistic premise of natural selection discounts intelligence as a moving force. Subjective value judgments about deficiencies an organism perceives about its current gene-pool are somehow made. This also somehow leads the organism to subjectively require enhancements to its gene-pool to effect necessary subjective advancements for its survival. This however, is a patently self-contradictory position. Only organisms manifesting some form of rational intelligence subjectively "select" anything.
Your scientifically naive word choices have essentially falsified your position, and you did it all by yourself and for all to see!
But you're likely still a novice in these areas, I suspect. Just promise us all that you actually intend to complete 6th grade, OK, grasshopper?
All evolution has ever been is a premise and worldview which proceeds from it. Nothing more." Agamemnon
Careful now. "patrickhenry" may come after you when they ping him and paste 10 pages from talkorigins.com.
I`m still awaiting his reply as to how exactly the first protein invented itself.