For all of you who have already accepted that microevolution is a reality, just hear me out here.......The theory of evolution, as defined by ToE -- whether micro or marcro -- is a complete fairytale. Read on for the challenge.

Charles Darwin, who died over 100 years ago and was ignorant about genes, cells, and basically every biological process, claimed that natural selection (differential breeding success) was the CAUSE of adaptation and evolution....that any variation that arose was just a crazy accident in a single lucky individual and therefore his beloved NS got the credit for proliferating this accident, thus slowly swaying populations in adaptive directions via reproduction. This still is, to this day, the theory of evolution.

So in order to qualify as "evolution" -- whether it be micro or macro -- natural selection must be the cause. Not only that, but in order to qualify as "evolution" natural selection must select from a randomly-arising genetic event (mutations)....in this way evos would have an explanation of how genomes came to be: the selection of random genetic events. If natural selection is not the cause of a genetic adaptive trait, then it is not, by definition, "evolution," as it is not an example of how how a genome (or part of a genome) could come to be accidentally.

Here is Talk Origins' confirmation that in order to qualify as "evolution" that natural selection must be the cause.


http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html


Natural Selection: "Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection. Natural selection is the only mechanism of adaptive evolution;"

Dobzhansky:

"The process of mutation supplies the raw materials of evolution, but the tempo of evolution is determined at the populational levels, by natural selection in conjunction with the ecology and the reproductive biology of the group of organisms"

Simpson:

"Adaptation has a known mechanism: natural selection acting on the genetics of populations

Haldane:

"Variation is in some sense random, but natural selection picks out variations in one direction, and not in another

Mayr:
"It is most important to clear up first some misconceptions still held by a few, not familiar with modern genetics: (1) Evolution is not primarily a genetic event. Mutation merely supplies the gene pool with genetic variation; it is selection that induces evolutionary change."


Gould:

"The essense of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies the raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change."


So back to my assertion that microevolution is a fairytale:

In order for microevolution to occur, what Science needs to show is an example of what their theory actually says, which is that randomly-arising genetic changes get proliferated by natural selection.

I have yet to see a single example. Of course evos will peer into the genome and observe that genomes change on cue in the face of environmental threats, but that does NOT prove their theory -- all that proves is that the genome can somehow restructure itself upon need. There is no proven randomness, there is no spontaneity, there is no selection, there is no death, there is no differential breeding success, there is nothing to prove "evolution," as defined by the theory.

Likewise they'll look out into nature, observe a populational change in organisms, and just blindly give the credit to "evolution," despite the fact that there is no scientific evidence that "evolution" did it...and there is often no confirmation that the adaptation was even genetic. They just blindly proclaim "evolution" and hope people buy it. Yet it's never -- ever -- validated.

What's worse, evos are afraid of conducting the types of controlled experiments on animals that would validate their silly selectionist theory because they KNOW what would happen: what would happen is that each individual who was placed in an environmentally-stressful situation would respond purposefully, adaptively either during development or during its lifetime after conception. Not only that, but the change very well may not be genetic, which leaves open the question of what actually caused the change in the first place...(aka "mind," "Intelligence," "purposful response," etc)

So the challenge here, is for evos to present me even ONE example -- one controlled scientific experiment -- of microevolution, macroevolution or any other sort of evolution that demonstrates that natural selection has caused a genetic adaptation via the selection of a random genetic event in the animal kingdom. You must show the mutation and you must show that natural selection proliferated it.

This stuff IS science, right?

have fun with that one.