Originally Posted by CTD
You focus on interpretation rather than actual evidence.
Yes. I am focusing on your interpretation of the implications of the research and experiments they did. Their take on it is that the statistical analysis done by mainstream biology does not accurately predict the sites of natural selection. Since their experiments do accurately identify the sites of natural selection, I don't see how you can say this research is an invalidation of the theory of evolution. What is it in the article that leads you to that conclusion?

Quote
Death occurs. Nobody has discovered a demonstrable way to predict any pattern. The observed pattern of death does not match the predicted pattern of death. It is always so, when predictions are made in advance. Unless of course, someone interferes to ensure a desired pattern.
??? Is this your reasoning as to why natural selection doesn't occur? Are you saying, for example, that death will occur to a group of faster predators at the same percapita rate as it will occur to a group of slower predators who hunt the same speedy prey? In this case, natural selection will allow the group of predators that can get food better to have more offspring. More offspring means a higher percentage of the predator population will be the faster predator (in this case).

Perhaps I don't fully understand your version of "natural selection" and why it cannot occur in your reality.

A faith that connot survive collision with the truth is not worth many regrets. -- Arthur C. Clarke