When evolution is discussed, I get the impression from the proponents that the current model of evolution is already perfect and there are zero conceptual problems. This is unique to science. If that is true, that means there is no need to fund any additional evolutionary related studies, since it is already perfect, as is. There is nothing more to be done, with continued funding more like a gravy train.
Another thing I notice is the only people putting things on the table for discussion are those who do not believe in the theoretical perfection of evolution as written in the bible of evolution. The proponents of evolution act as critics, trying to defend perfection, without ever providing logic or data as a means to refute ideas. It is always appeal to emotion or lumping all ideas into a version of creationism, which is erroneous and irrational. There is no other area in science that circles the wagons in this way. This behavior told me, there was something wrong and that the perfection deluison needed to be challenged. Enough nagging.
One of the unwritten assumptions of statistics is there is sufficient energy to achieve full randomization. If we fully shuffle a new deck of cards, each hand has given odds. But say I cut a new deck of cards once (not enough energy for full randomization), the odds are totally different. If someone played cards and only wanted to cut the deck once between hands, and not fully shuffle the deck, they could cheat and/or alter the apparent odds.
The DNA does not fully randomize each shuffle. It is well documented that certain areas of the DNA change faster than others. The dice are loaded to some extedn. The unwritten assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization is not correct, which is why some people are not comfortable with the odds applied to evolution.
Another thing I notice is the only people putting things on the table for discussion are those who do not believe in the theoretical perfection of evolution as written in the bible of evolution. The proponents of evolution act as critics, trying to defend perfection, without ever providing logic or data as a means to refute ideas. It is always appeal to emotion or lumping all ideas into a version of creationism, which is erroneous and irrational. There is no other area in science that circles the wagons in this way. This behavior told me, there was something wrong and that the perfection deluison needed to be challenged. Enough nagging.
One of the unwritten assumptions of statistics is there is sufficient energy to achieve full randomization. If we fully shuffle a new deck of cards, each hand has given odds. But say I cut a new deck of cards once (not enough energy for full randomization), the odds are totally different. If someone played cards and only wanted to cut the deck once between hands, and not fully shuffle the deck, they could cheat and/or alter the apparent odds.
The DNA does not fully randomize each shuffle. It is well documented that certain areas of the DNA change faster than others. The dice are loaded to some extedn. The unwritten assumption of sufficient energy for full randomization is not correct, which is why some people are not comfortable with the odds applied to evolution.