First let us provide a specific definition to the theory of "Natural Selection" before trying to apply it to a fossil record or confusing it with what is known about the process of genetic mutability and transference.

Charles Darwin is the originator of the theory of natural selection which has its premise based on aspects of animal husbandry were animals of the same species are bred in order to produce more desirable and advantageous traits. Horses, for instance, would be bred for specific utility: race horses for racing, pack horses for carrying and plow horses for plowing. By this example we must understand that Darwin's original theory, based on the primitive observations at the time has transformed from his original concept into the completely different definition of today. Before providing criticisms or rebuttals to the overall theory we must understand what the difference is between the classic and the modern representations of natural selection and the reasons for that metamorphosis.

Charles Lyell laid the groundwork for Darwin's theory through his observations of geology and his theory of "uniformatarianism" which fundamentally stated that the earth is very old and transformed by current observable phenomenon, volcanoes and earthquakes. So Darwin's theory had to fit with that concept of a very old earth.

We have to understand that Darwin, although he provides limited observations for his theory, was very much motivated by his own reasoning and the works and observations of others in his day. I mention this so that we can understand that Darwin really did not have any real empirical evidence for his theory and that it is basically a thought exercise for him.

In reality it can be argued that Darwin actually got the impetus to publish his seminal work "Origin of Species" as a result of reading a paper written by naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace. Not to give credit to Russel, but only to invite inquiry into the evolution of evolution theory.

The four main parts of Darwin's theory;

1. Organisms have changed over time, and the ones living today are different from those that lived in the past. Furthermore, many organisms that once lived are now extinct. The world is not constant, but changing. The fossil record provided ample evidence for this view.
2. All organisms are derived from common ancestors by a process of branching. Over time, populations split into different species, which are related because they are descended from a common ancestor. Thus, if one goes far enough back in time, any pair of organisms has a common ancestor. This explained the similarities of organisms that were classified together -- they were similar because of shared traits inherited from their common ancestor. It also explained why similar species tended to occur in the same geographic region.
3. Change is gradual and slow, taking place over a long time. This was supported by the fossil record, and was consistent with the fact that no naturalist had observed the sudden appearance of a new species.
4. The mechanism of evolutionary change was natural selection. This was the most important and revolutionary part of Darwin's theory, and it deserves to be considered in greater detail.

*One of the prime motives for all species is to reproduce and survive. When species do this they tend to produce more offspring than the environment can support.
*The lack of resources to nourish these individuals places pressure on the size of the species population, and the lack of resources means increased competition and as a consequence, some organisms will not survive.
*The organisms who die as a consequence of this competition were not totally random, Darwin found that those organisms more suited to their environment were more likely to survive.
*This resulted in the well known phrase survival of the fittest, where the organisms most suited to their environment had more chance of survival if the species falls upon hard times. (This phrase if often associated with Darwin, though on closer inspection Herbert Spencer puts the phrase in a more accurate historical context.)
*Those organisms who are better suited to their environment exhibit desirable characteristics.

Consider that Darwin had no idea of inherited traits and had no clue of genes as the driver of change. In fact Darwin actually regretted using the term "Natural Selection", preferring "Natural Preservation"

As we will see the concept of Natural Selection had to be modified due to the discovery of inherited traits and subsequently "genes".

To be honest there is so much history in natural history that it is indeed difficult to know where to start. Suffice it to say that an in depth study of the history of the science which led to Darwin's theory could occupy a man for a lifetime. So while on this topic it would be interesting and helpful if others could supply clarification or insight to points made or not. In order for us, the layman but the interested, to make a poignant determination of the validity of Darwinism we must take the time to understand the history. The rational for this methodology is so we can re-explore and rethink what we think we know.

Let's put Darwin's theory as simply as possible aside from simply using the term "CHANGE";

Classical;
Evolution did occur; Evolutionary change was gradual, requiring thousands to millions of years; The primary mechanism for evolution was a process called natural selection (determined by an organism's ability to adapt to its environment); The millions of species alive today arose from a single original life form through a branching process called "specialization."

The process by which individuals’ inherited needs and abilities are more or less closely matched to resources available in their environment, giving those with greater "fitness" a better chance of survival and reproduction.

Illustrations of the Action of Natural Selection "Origin of Species" chap 4-In order to make it clear how, as I believe, natural selection acts, I must beg permission to give one or two imaginary illustrations.

This is an extremely intricate subject. A large amount of inheritable and diversified variability is favourable, but I believe mere individual differences suffice for the work. A large number of individuals, by giving a better chance for the appearance within any given period of profitable variations, will compensate for a lesser amount of variability in each individual, and is, I believe, an extremely important element of success. Though nature grants vast periods of time for the work of natural selection, she does not grant an indefinite period; for as all organic beings are striving, it may be said, to seize on each place in the economy of nature, if any one species does not become modified and improved in a corresponding degree with its competitors, it will soon be exterminated.

I point out the above mentioned abstracts from Darwin's book in order to illustrate that Darwin based his theory primarily on speculation and a large dose of imagination.

The use of the term "specialization" is important since we must extrapolate what Darwin meant as it is unclear in his writings. But we can either surmise that Darwin meant, on a small scale, specialized organs of traits, or on a larger scale traits which allowed a particular species to be better adapted to an environment than others. I tend towards the later since this is the gist of Darwin's argument in that chapter.

We can understand that Darwin saw more complexity in the biosphere as a whole and did not concentrate, as yet, on individual and separate structures let alone the cell. Darwin never discusses origin of life, his whole work is an attempt to answer origin of species.

The modern theory of evolution is a sort of combination of Darwinism and Mendelian science.

Yes Felix, good questions and important too. The ratio between favorable and unfavorable mutations is approximately 1:1,000,000, and its random too.

This discussion is rapidly entering into the realm of "what came first the chicken or the egg".

We can go round and round talking about "RNA" and "DNA" without having a good concept of how these two paradigms function properly.

First we can say that the crux of Darwin's theory is that all life was formed from a common origin meaning that a single, primitive, form of theorized life gave rise, through mutations of all life conceived on this planet through a process of reproduction. Further that this life "replicated" to reproduce itself.

For the evolutionist several problems arise in this consideration which correlates around "chirality" and "racemization".

These processes prove that undirected chemistry leads to death.

This can be noted with pharmaceuticals which must be able to synthesis correctly in order for them to work where chirality and racemization must be taken into consideration. This is a directed process. The creation of polymers which effect change must be directed since randomization always results in a drastic effect on an organism.

The right key for the right lock must be highly accurate and specialized for the lock to open!!!!

No Alun there is no mention of "abiogenesis" in my post!!

Only that what Darwinism and neo-Darwinism have in common is that life was formed from a single theorized organism and that organism reproduced to a point where enough "mutations" occurred to make all the life ever to have existed on this planet.

When we discuss information processing and transference which is what is necessary to accept that mutations give rise to an organism that is "improved" from the parent organism then this is the foundation of mutations.

But what about mutations then? What are they and how can they be "beneficial"? What decides which mutation is going to survive so that the organism survives? Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process. They effect one nucleotide base at a time and are called "point mutations".

What causes a mutation? A change in salinity? A change in PH? A change in atmospheric pressure? UV rays? UV rays that inhibit racemization necessary for a mutation to occur? Do you have any idea what it takes, how much specificity it takes, to keep a single amino acid functional? All the while this amino acid must just hang around until the time and place is just right for it to even effect the process of mutation to a millionth degree, let alone to begin to create whats necessary for the complexity of an eye or even a strand of hair.

Who or what defines a beneficial mutation? When that most finite of mutations is 10 billionth of what is necessary for the organism to recognize that it might, maybe possibly be beneficial, before it is, what "trashed"? Oh wait the organism doesn't just decide since evolution is an "undirected" process. This has been such a dilemma for the evolutionist that they had to add a new paradigm to the mystery being "punctuated equilibrium".

Consider for a moment that more than one mutation is necessary to effect a beneficial change necessary for the organism to survive. Given that not all mutations are beneficial then one deleterious mutation in a string of beneficial mutation would cause that organism not to survive. This is not what we see in the fossil record!!

What we see are anatomically correct organisms suited to their environment. We do not see experimentation of any kind. We see legs long enough, eyes clear enough and animals strong enough to reproduce exact copies of themselves.

Fine lets all accept evolution, but not as an undirected process. Sorry guys the evidence just isn't there to support that. All indications lead one to a directed process.

Unrealist42-So evolution is based on "incomplete" knowledge which is presented as fact?

I suggest you take a more careful read of my post.

Chirality, point mutations and racemization are very much science.

If you do not know what caused X, even though you know x occurred then either nothing is true or u,v,w,x,y or z may possibly be true!!! Yet the evolutionist will make concrete assessments from, as you suggest, very little evidence. Yet want to tell me that it is impossible that the process is "undirected" from the same limited set of "facts".

GIMME A BREAK!!!!!!

It may interest you to know that Sir Francis Crick, one of the discoverers of DNA compared his discovery to computer coding except he added that the coding in DNA was far more advanced and sophisticated than any computer language.

I bring up the precision necessary for complex strings of nucleotides to function and that is scoffed at as part of an "hypothesis of ignorance" because I assess that type of complexity as necessarily directed since no amount of undirected sophistication exists nor can it exist in any material reality no matter how much time an evolutionists can attach for a mutation to occur.

Tell me what caused the mutation that started all the multi-billion micro-mutations towards the development of the eye. Tell me how long did the condition which caused that initial mutation last? Was the same condition necessary to allow all the other, subsequent, mutations to occur?

You don't even ask the question of how an organism gained the ability to have successive, successful, mutations necessary to advance an organism. Instead answer, "just because we don't know doesn't mean that God did it". What is this Li'l Abner. You hide behind God more than a creationist does.

The question that I have asked is how could we possibly know the functionality of a mutation without knowing the functional effect of that mutation being asserted. If it is not directed then there is no way of knowing which specific mutation caused an effect or if that mutation may have caused numerous effects or have no effect at all, and what are the chances and frequencies of having one or the other or all three occur or not occur.

The problem here is that natural selection is grossly inefficient and ineffective. As Meleagar has pointed out on several occasions, natural selection does not explain how new functional information can be produced by random, undirected mutations.

Calling a theory which suggests, by reason and observation, that the mutation process that produces functionality must be directed, ignorant hypothesizing, is just a way evolutionist bury their heads in the sand against design probabilities.

If we consider the question of what came first we can then postulate organizational hierarchy. When we use these terms in relation to biology and specifically evolution then comes that question of how a sophisticated organism came to be wholly functional when complete integration is necessary for functionality.

In other words what does it take to coordinate functional mutations with all the other functional mutations.

For example; assume an amphibious animal ascended from a sea with eyes, digestive and nervous systems adapted to its water environment, the question then becomes what force is necessary to integrate mutations that spontaneously affect not only sight and brain but adjust the digestive system and nervous at the same time so that the animal can survive long enough to effect these changes through its reproductive abilities? Another question is; was it the same forces which motivated that animal to become what it ultimately became before leaving the water the same forces which adapted it to land?

Evolutionists need to start thinking out of the box, Man. You guys are still stuck in the 1800's.

Alun-You are wrong. Evolution (Darwinism and neo-Darwinism) emphatically states that all life started from a single organism which created, through a process of natural selection all life on earth, and that this process is "undirected" (random mutations and natural selection) and "random", occurring over a long, finite, amount of time. This amount of time is theorized to be about 4.5 billion years. This process also gives the "appearance" of "design". (But, is not).

If we consider that multiple coordination is necessary to effect beneficial functionality of a specific mutable organ in a complex biological organism, such as the evolution of the eye and the interpretive ability of the brain, or the oxygen carrying ability of a red blood cell from the lungs, or the ability of an organism to turn in the direction of the sun to attain UV benefits, and assess these processes against random mutability and natural selection then ask if that level of organizational coordination is possible considering that effects of a mutation are unknown and unpredictable and often deleterious without a directed mechanism assuring continued functionality throughout the process then we must ask if what we see is a complex organizational hierarchy of determined mutable functionality, or a random, unpredictable, possible hit or miss effects of theorized effective mutable functionality?

In order to create functional mutations which assure survival we need;

1. Organization
2. Coordination
3. Hierarchal imperatives
4. Continued (assured) functionality
5. Specificity??
6. Predictability??

Simply, for the Darwinian evolutionist (who wants it both ways) mutations occur out of necessity. This necessity is driven by the need for an organism to survive due to various changes, flux, to its environment, unpredicted forces which then drive the organism to create random, unpredictable and new information, which assist in, effective, functional, biologic change.

I continue to ask the question how, as a result of random mutation and natural selection, sex and gender distinctions, the appearance of male and female organisms, could have appeared naturally by the process of neo-Darwinian evolution, precisely due to hierarchal functionality. No one has yet attempted to explain to me how, or at what point, did the organism mutate into what amounts to two separate "species", male and female, without coordinated evolution resulting in effective, assured, mutual reproduction.

As Meleagar points out Alun you have not explained or demonstrated, you have simply asserted.

Alun-I take into consideration the ongoing debate presented in all the posts pertaining to this subject presented on this site. And, yes Alun I have read the opening post several times. What I can't overcome is the suggestion of the simplicity of the process.

Obviously there's a lot more to explain; specific events that are shown by the fossil record still need to be explained. For example, why is it that change seems to occur sporadically, instead of all the time?

We all need to ask questions. I just have more than my fair share!!!! Plus a healthy dose of skepticism.

Once again this is the problem with any discussion pertaining to the successive appearance of life on earth. When we use terms such as natural selection in conjunction with evolution then I must ask "evolution" from what? By this measurement I must ask, is natural selection the, "reasoned", mechanism for all evolutionary changes, and speciation, currently understood? For this reason I do not intend to remain in a box, or painted corner of general acceptance, since as stated the theories are themselves "evolving".

Natural Selection forms the basis of Evolution. A term formulated by Charles Darwin. Natural Selection involves numerous concepts from mutation, chemistry, molecular biology to the possibility of "Design".

Natural selection is a theory centered on "adaptability". The ability of an organism to adapt to changing environments. And, I only question whether or not this can be a "mindless" process. Then ask if a mindless process can be constructed and processed in an empirical sense as is being attempted here. In that sense is natural selection a known "conceptual" explanation being presented as orthodoxy or are there alternative "concepts" which can be considered.

We are not asking ourselves whether grape or strawberry jelly is better with peanutbutter here!! We are asking ourselves and attempting to answer the basis for the existence of all life. And, in that respect, for me at least, we had better get it right, dot every "i", cross every "t", tighten every nut and bolt, since the consequences of getting it right or wrong have far meaning consequences. So forgive me my well founded skepticism.

What is being attempted here is that we are taking natural selection at face value and applying it to speciation when what is observed is diversity within species. What can be said is that adaptability is an "inherent" design within an organism and cannot be suggested as part of the process towards speciation, as a result. The evidence suggests that small variations occur within a population. So we must ask ourselves, is natural selection a viable mechanism for the progression of all life from a single prokaryote to Man, given what is known today?

If you are going to tell me that an organism adapts to environmental flux then this does not sound to me to be random and is either a mechanism which evolved or an inherent ability built into the biologic design on a molecular level.

Unrealist42

I agree, it is impossible that such a process as evolution be undirected. In fact, it is observably directed by the natural environment.

If you are going to tell me that it took 20,000,000 years to get slight variation due to a "slight" change in temperature, you're going to have to do better than "natural selection".

OK, pick a leg.

Yours.LOL

well ordered sophisticated system that we are only beginning to understand.

This from an anarchist?????

Grossly inefficient and ineffective? Compared to what?
Mutation is the inception of new information, a somewhat random process but a producer of new information nonetheless. The functionality of this new information, its effect, can be determined by survival in the natural environment.

The fact that the acquisition of new information, necessary, to the continued survival of the organism as suggested by the theory of natural selection leaves very little, if any, room, for randomization and/or chance this is further suggestive that clarity of the process be understood.

What?
You can postulate organizational hierarchy into biological evolution but that is an exponent for the accretion of increasing sophistication in biological function. There is no need for fully functional new organisms to arise spontaneously in a hierarchical evolutionary scheme.

Nature, nature sorts it all out. Coordination is impossible, a ridiculous notion.

Take the formation of bone for instance. Not only is it necessary for the bone to be constructed but also all of its necessary connective parts. Coordination, "impossible", seems to be inherent.

Organizational hierarchy is a necessary schema for any engineering endeavor, even biological, as put forth in the example above. A free floating structure such as "bone" would serve no purpose unless all of its necessary connective structures are also a consideration in its formation and development.

Anti-evolutionists need to start thinking. Anti-evolutionary theory has not changed since the 1800s. It has been given a new set of clothes and a new ID and paraded about but underneath the shiny new clothes and the new ID is the same old tired creature. A creature that cannot accept the observations of people curious about nature.

The observations are suggestive of "design" as clearly as evolutionist state that "there is only the appearance of design".

For me Darwinian theories break down at the point where I try to attribute it to the evolution of "sexual reproduction". I have searched and continue to search for an explanation of how the appearance of separate biological organisms coordinate selective processes for the purpose of continued survival through reproduction could have occurred by natural selection let alone evolution. Try as might I cannot formulate a process by which this could "naturally" occur. So any discussion centered around a natural process and explanation for the appearance and divergence of life draws me to that one paradigm. No matter how much segmented portions of naturalistic explanations may make sense when applied to that single concept of sexual reproduction it loses its validity in my view.

Saying "what" sexual reproduction does, does not answer the question of how it came to be.

Belinda-When we examine the process which is presented here, natural selection, to explain to its fullest ramification, by taking the most innocuous developments into consideration such as the appearances of ancillary, necessary, structures in any evolving organism then we cannot just examine that single structure without taking into consideration the development of all other structures in relation to that structure.

For instance, as I have previously presented, the development of the eye, which not only affected the structures necessary for the operation of the eye itself but also surrounding structures such as the supra-orbital ridge and hair itself not withstanding brain size.

In the same way that an engineer must take numerous considered effects into consideration when designing an office building such as parks, parking and access roads so must the physiology of a biological organism during its development.

What we see here in an organisms physiological biological development, according to evolution is "hierarchal coordination" and organization, which is suggestive of purposeful design.

Belinda your argument on vestigial organs is grossly out of date. Many structures, once thought to be of no use, have been found to have significant uses. Just as much as the evolutionist tells me there is still so much yet to be discovered and understood I recommend that the jury on vestigial-ism remain open as the science improves.

Alun I am sure we need not rehash micro and macro evolution in relation to what is observed since we have had considerable debate on whether what is actually observed is micro or macro evolution, or that microevolution presents as macroevolution through any considered observations.

As I have stated, that the jump to be made in order to consider "natural selection" as a mechanism for macroevolution fails, in my view, so therefore is no reasoned explanation for speciation.

As I have stated, given the level of orthodoxy given to natural selection and evolution, in all its considered manifestations and concepts, it serves no purpose to accept any theory unless it lends credibility to all aspects in considering the appearance of life.

In this respect "natural selection" fails, on too many levels, to explain, as I have stated, the development of Man from a simple prokaryote. Especially in regard to the evolutionary development of sex distinctions.

Granted, the definition of "natural selection", on its face, does not implicitly correlate to evolution but it is subjectively implied as a mechanism for an evolutionary process. In this respect using the term "natural selection" in conjunction with "evolution" is a misnomer.

What natural selection as a precursor of evolution "hinges" upon is its ability to correlate and explain the most necessary aspects of the appearance of the diversity of life currently observed and known to have existed. For this reason we must admit its faults and this is not done in lieu of presenting it as orthodoxy.

When we examine the statement, "descent", with modification", as coined by Darwin, we note the attempt to correlate natural selection with evolution. "Common Ancestry" is a reference to biological diversity formed from generational descent. So to deign natural selection as a separate process from evolutionary tracts is dishonest.

As I have stated, the greatest schism to natural selection and evolution is gender distinction and sexual reproduction. Neither natural selection or evolution as a purely undirected natural process to explain that paradigm must admittedly fail when we do not give credibility to a process of design and purposeful descent.

The ability to "adapt" as a mechanism for "descent" should be viewed from two perspectives; Purposeful and designed, or natural and undirected. This is where the argument proceeds, and as you suggest, that we do not know all there is to know then forcing one degree of orthodoxy over another view is scientific malfeasance leaving the question of the appearance of life philosophy conjoined with any and all available historicity and causation applicable to science.

The question, as I have stated, is oft presented as far to simplistic. "Where did we come from and why are we here". This has been the philosophical quest that man has endeavored to glimpse since his intellectual dawning. When we turn it into some kind of an axiomatic test of will where the question becomes mute due to ideological indifference then the science, no matter how topically persuasive, is nothing more than a lie.

Sorry Alun, but natural selection is not the end all be all of the quest. The answer is that we are here, either by will or by accident so the science should, in all its aspects be presented as possibilities of both, until such time we know for sure.

Let me clarify: When I use the term, "appearance of life", I am referring to the way life is observed to have come the way it is today, by whichever considered mechanism.

The appearance of life doesn't mean how did life come to be or its origin but how did life appear to be the it is observed to be, taking everything that could be considered as part of that dilemma as possible.

Lets take a look at what "natural selection" would have me believe. That a mechanism inherent in all organisms, allowing each to survive given certain environmental conditions will then stop in some organisms favoring one organism over another.

When I say "appearance of life", I mean life as it is observed to exist and have developed to exist today. Sorry, but I don't mean "origin of life".

When speaking of hierarchal organization and coordination within biological systems and specifically self contained organisms termed "life" we are speaking of "morphology". More specifically the coordination observed and is necessary to determine evolution by natural selection, as a purely, considered, materialistic mechanism, considering mutation rates, mutation vitality, and gradualism.

Some seem to disagree with me that the totality of generational descent must be taken into consideration in order to formulate and understand the appearance of life understood and observed to date. While "origin of life" may not be considered as part of the discussion subsequent life processes proceeding from that event are, and consideration of whether or not natural selection was part of that initial chemical process should be considered, since understanding the development of a chemical process which may have produced a mechanism by which life appeared as currently observed can assist in further understanding a determined process versus a naturalistic process.

Considering whether or not natural selection was part of that initial chemical process as an inherent aspect determining generational descent begs the question of how such a chemical process remained unchanged for the 3.4 billion years or so that life has existed.

Considering such aspects of the process such as the Cambrian Explosion and the appearance of gender distinction and sexual reproduction within the schematic of the process must be a considered application to generational descent.

If we can view, as science does, "laws" embedded in any in any process which remains consistent then we must ask where do these laws originate and why do they remain consistent. Consistency suggests laws, such as gravitation laws and gas laws.

We understand that mutations occur at a molecular level, and if natural selection is the driving force behind evolution, and since life has had a successful progression from those first Prokaryotes to Man then natural selection must be considered a process inherent in the chemical processes from the beginning of the formation of life.

This avenue of investigation lends credibility to design theory.

When we consider hierarchal organization and morphological coordination as a necessary observed aspect of generational descent from a Prokaryote to Man then we can begin to understand the rational of design concepts.

NO!!!, since "natural" selection" is presented as a purely undirected, random process, denying that a "designer", or directed process is necessary to produce complex life from Prokaryote to Man, for example.

So, therefore, if it can be exhibited, by observation and investigation, that the "successful", (and lets not use the term, "evolution"), progression or generational ascent from a Prokaryote to Man presents the possibility of directed ascent then design theories must be a considered concept in order to more completely effectuate a "progress-able" understanding to better determine the effectiveness of biological science.

I have presented two assailable points of contention against a process of natural selections ability to explain the appearance of life as currently observed. One is the Cambrian explosion and the "mystery" of conjoined, consistent generational ascent of gender distinctions for reproductive and "philosophic" purposes.

I do not argue "complex traits" but "complex morphology". And, argue against the ability of a purely undirected process, as is presented by the theory of natural selection, to effectuate such a successful means for the appearance of life as currently observed.

As I have presented; If, in fact, we are to accept generational ascent, by means of natural selection, from Prokaryote to Man, as a means for the successful appearance of life, as is observed, then the chemical process which would allow for the determination of that process must have been inherent from the very first initiation of that process.

If, in fact, it is conclusive, as I suspect one must reason, by observation and investigation, that generational ascent cannot be a purely undirected process then any consideration that natural selection is the process by which, it can be determined, explains the appearance of life, as currently observed, then "natural selection" fails, and a new, improved, concept or theory must be actualized in order to better effectuate the responsibilities of biologic sciences.

What natural selection fails to do is account for the successful, successive progress of generational ascent as a purely random and undirected process.
Specifically what natural selection fails to explain or account for is the morphological, generational, ascent of complimentary, distinct, biological consistency for sexual reproduction and the appearance of these morphologic features.
Further an explanation of how a chemical process induced and predicted the necessity for generational ascent resultant of evident environmental fluxes.

It is not just a simple exercise in logic but reason.

The above post (Unrealist42) is filled with more contradictions than are usually statisticly allowed in most pro-evolution rhetoric.

Natural selection merely weeds out sickly, weak or crippled individuals, or those in the group that have failed to adapt to their surroundings. It cannot create new species, new genetic information or new organs.

What is "evolution" but the great unfolding of life as we currently know. Philosophic measures taken into account. Question; "What is Man?" Most assuredly the underlying theme contended.

Certainly it can be said that all primates come from the same information model, but why wouldn't a gorilla want to be more like a man the first time a man shot a gorilla. Certainly such an environmental impact on the gorilla would provide him with enough natural impetus to effect some mutational changes before extinction. (just a joke, but seriously)

Regardless of what some have implied in these posts directed towards discussing evolution, no where has there been shown, let alone proven, that "nature" provides the impetus for generational ascent. This is the fulcrum of "natural selection" as the precursor to evolutionary advantage. The strong survive!!!, even though all biological organisms attained the mechanisms by which they attained, what?, an evolutionary boundary?, only to fail to be fast enough to adjust and adapt compared to the next organism?

This is part of the reason why many here do not wish to discuss or include "origin of life" into the discussion as purely mechanical, nature driven occurrence capable of designing itself to survive. Imagine a sustained chemical reaction with the impetus necessary to adjust, internally, to unknown external factors effecting the very things which allowed it to be in the first place.

A process predisposed to self duplication and ingenuity, naturally adjustable?

Natural selection is proposed to be the stimulus that drives an "internal" mechanism which effects productive change in a biological organism. This stimulus can be presumed to be anything from a disruption in the food chain to atmospheric pressure to mothers who abandon thier offspring shortly after giving birth.

The most that can be said about natural selection is that it acts as a preserver. Natural selection preserves what an internal process initiates. But, natural selection, presented as a requiem for generational ascent from an unknown chemical reaction stretches the levels of imagination to give it credibility.

While we can accept the possibility that evolution occurred we cannot, either by experimentation nor extrapolation, determine and state that all life known to exist or has existed "evolved". The evidence, simply, does not support this view. As I have previously, on so many occasions, offered as examples; the Cambrian explosion and generational ascent of sexual reproduction.

In this sense does "Intelligent Design" make sense over "Natural Selection": Intelligent design uses mathematics, statistical modeling, probability, information technology, molecular biology, robotics, nano-technology and many emerging sciences such as quantum mechanics to strengthen its concepts, while neo-Darwinist depend on the direction of winds to quantify effective randomness and mimicry to quantify a failing paradigm. I offer, "Just because it gives the appearance of design doesn't mean it was designed", definition of mimicry?

I reiterate; There is no evidence, observed or by experimentation, which proves that natural selection can produce speciation or has produced speciation, No serious biological scientist will admit that speciation through natural selection has been proven. This is prominently noted in some the language now used by evolutionist calling "natural selection", "a basic "element" of evolution".

What strikes me about the evolution debate is how evolutionist now incorporate "behavioral" similarities to bolster the theory. As if the fighting for reproductive rights in a walrus herd is channeled through the knocking of horns in rams is enough mimicry to bolster natural selection as a variable genetic impetus. With the consideration that cavemen hit potential mates over the head, rendering them unconscious, it no small wonder that natural selection didn't produce woman born unconscious. (Ha Ha)

As I have stated; that considered mutational adaption is an internal mechanism for which natural selection attempts to explain as guided, or selected, by external forces. The key word here is "natural", that this process is a natural undirected force. Also, natural selection is dependent upon random mutations, in other way of saying that mutations occur for no particular reason, but can have the effect of advantageous adaptations for which nature then provides the impetus for reproductive vitality in those mutations most advantageous to the organism.

As I have further supplied that the information given in the OP is sorely simplistic since it does not take into account, through experimentation and observation, that mutations are always detrimental to the organism.
Natural selection weeds out those individuals who are weakest within a species, but does nothing to create new information within the species which would ultimately lead to the creation of a new, novel, species. Natural selection does nothing until the variation is in place, then weeds out the weaker "individuals" in the same species.

Pierre-Paul Grassé, "The Evolution of Living Organisms"

The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries! Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for millions of years]

An example here is the horseshoe crab. Evolved?? Created??, to withstand eons of mass extinctions and environmental destruction while other organisms, evolved from the same genetic ancestor developed no such, obviously successful, advantage, so that today we can study the horseshoe crab and develop pharmaceuticals derived from its iron rich blood.

Natural selections removes the "unfit" but cannot explain the generation of the "fit". It cannot explain the manifestation, appearance, of new genetic information which produces fitness, nor what the impetus is for an internal mechanism to coordinate and organize all ancillary components towards the development of a viable, successful, morphological systems within an organism.

Sure, Alun, you can dismiss my "armchair" meanderings without addressing my factual concerns but doing so will not alleviate the fact that natural selection cannot explain the appearance of such diversity of life nor any process which created such successful, purposeful, directed, continuity.

The purpose of natural selection, thus defended as orthodoxy, is to provide a materialistic possibility for the appearance of life. Without taking into consideration and examining its flaws we are not advancing science, but stalling understanding and science.

No "natural selection", by its own definition, is impossible to explain life. Consider, intelligence and information rather than matter as the process by which life is designed.

I don't believe you are reading my whole posts Alun. You and I have had an adversarial relationship on this issue for several months, and each of us has presented documentation in support of our positions, and, as a result I have moved past that form of argumentation into a more Socratic approach. Let's call it "common sense", providing the impetus to reason past the considerations of others even if it presented as science, in the case of natural selection orthodoxy.

Lets take a look at the main "theme" of natural selection. An organism survives which has developed the means to survive in its environment, therefore, those organisms which fail to produce attributes which allow it to survive fail. These "attributes" are processed through an internal mechanism.

Another "theme" of natural selection is that mutations, or variations to an existing organism build on its ability to survive.
Given that it has been proven that mutations are always detrimental to an organism we can surmise that some other mechanism produces or drives what is necessary to have a viable explanation to accept evolution.

Alun attempts to have us accept natural selection as a process which will eventually be proven correct by co-opting any dynamic which can or will support it, when the primary premise of natural selection is that it is a purely material process needing no extraordinary measures to progress.

Consider the following statement;

The new material on which evolution is to proceed comes mainly by accidents and mistakes.

What we have is an efficient, successful product in place. One that defies natural explanations making natural selection the means by which life appeared flawed and disposable, since it is premised on purely material methodology.