<p>Sorry I’ve been taking longer than usual to respond. I haven’t had as much time for this site as I used to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mendelian genetics shows that unless something introduces new genes/alleles, variation is limited within a certain range.</p>
<p>Prior to its discovery, it was believed that environmental factors could cause hereditary changes, and there was no reason to believe that there was some inherent limit to the process.</p>
<p>If, as Lamarck believed, an animal that stretched its neck could pass on a longer neck to its descendants, then evolution would be inevitable. This would be similar to producing a movie by showing it to audiences, getting their reactions, and then putting more of the things that they like into the next version.</p>
<p>If, as Darwin believed, stress to the reproductive organs caused traits in the offspring to change, then evolution would be quite plausible. This would be similar to producing a movie by showing it to audiences, and making changes to the plot if the audiences disliked it.</p>
<p>Mendelian genetics teaches that variability is inevitable within a given range, but that to exceed this range new genes/alleles must be added to the species’ gene pool. The only known mechanism for this is mutations, which are changes to the code, not to the traits themselves. This is similar to making a movie by showing to audiences, then choosing a letter in the script at random and replacing it with another random letter, or choosing a sequence of letters at random and moving it to a new place at random, then finally showing both movies to audiences and keeping the more popular one.</p>
<p>This is something I do not find plausible. However, the only alternative is that the original gene pool was created, and some people find this option to be even more implausible. I do not.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m puzzled as to how you interpreted that in that way. That’s like saying “if you believe that the Earth is flat, then you can’t believe that the space program really happened” means that the speaker is inherently biased in favor of the Space Program, because they think that their believing in the Space Program makes their Round Earth beliefs that much easier.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Alright then. Can we then agree that it is pointless to say “X percent of Christians say this” or “Y percent of scientists say that” and stick to what we personally believe?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m going to be a computer science major, not a biology major, so no. I find the subject interesting, so when I see something new I usually research it, but increasingly I find that the new discoveries are all the same.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>All of this may be true, but I have only your word for it. Every time I ask for specific examples, I get inadequate ones, and when I read actual science of the issue, I’m usually surprised by the lack of evidence rather than otherwise.</p>
<p>It seems to me that the vast majority of this research is done by people who have already accepted evolution as true, and are now researching things that are useful given that.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have I ever stated that is was?</p>
<p>The theory of evolution is changed all the time, as new information creates problems in older versions of the theory. This is true of all science, but most scientific disciplines eventually reject the old, ever more difficult theory in favor of a new, unified one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Have I ever stated that?</p>
<p>Most evolutionary biologists are, as far as I know, honest people trying to make sense of the world. You don’t have to be crooked to be mistaken: many brilliant minds believed Geocentric Theory, Newtonian Mechanics, and Euclidean Space also.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That question is irrelevant here, but yes.</p>