LOL. The experiment I described to you did not involve any backward extrapolation. Remember: start with organism(s) of your choice, manipulate environmental conditions, document changes in the gene pool. No backward extrapolation of any kind.
You seem to consider yourself quite an expert on the subject of evolution. Yet from your comments I find it difficult to believe that you have any formal training in biology.
LOL. As I explained way back in post # 53, "Well, the papers documenting the effects observed might have been based on the scientific method, but if the conclusions were 'evolution' then they are firmly based in logical fallacy as noted above."
Remember that you were going to provide a scientifically valid proof of evolution that does not rely on logical fallacy? You do not seem to understand that current observations are not scientifically valid proofs of 'evolution' unless you invoke one or several logical fallacies. You also do not seem to understand that by invoking fallacy you move into the realm of philosophy, not science.
"You seem to consider yourself quite an expert on the subject of evolution. Yet from your comments I find it difficult to believe that you have any formal training in biology."
You seem to consider yourself quite an expert on the subject of evolution. Yet from your comments, I find it difficult to believe that you have any training in critical-thinking skills.
Did they teach you what to think rather than how to think in biology class?