You're talking pure nonsense right here. There's plenty of evidence, even if you don't choose to acknowledge it, that mutations are the cause of what you call progressive forms. Here's a simple example of natural selection and the mutations that cause it:
1.
Antibiotics are used to control diseases caused by bacteria in humans and animals. The antibiotics mimic the normal food of the bacteria, and upon ingestion, the bacteria are killed. However, there have been increasing problems of bacteria showing resistance to our common antibiotics.
The graph above shows that the bacteria naturally have genes which show a lot of variation in terms of resistance to the antibiotic. Those at the left are easily killed by the antibiotic, while those at the right are only completely killed by higher antibiotic dosages.
2.
A low to medium dosage of antibiotics is given to the patient. This kills all the bacteria except those that are most resistant to the antibiotic to the right of the graph.
3.
These highly resistant bacteria reproduce. Some of their offspring will be less resistant to the antibiotic, but some will have mutations that allow them to be more resistant than their predecessors. The overall resistance to this antibiotic has shifted to greater resistance.
4.
An even higher dose of antibiotic is administered to the patient. This higher dosage kills many of the bacteria, but sometimes some of the highly resistant bacteria survive. If this happens, variation within the population will usually mean that some will be genetically less resistant, but others will be even more resistant.
If a new antibiotic is administered to the patient, many of these resistant bacteria will not have resistance to the new antibiotic, so they will die. Those that survive however, will have the ability to survive the new antibiotic. Thus, over time, antibiotics lose their ability to be effective to most bacterial pathogens.
Summary: "Bacterial populations show variation in resistance to antibiotics. When exposed to the antibiotic, only those with mutations allowing resistance survive. As the survivors reproduce, their young will show variation, but with slightly more with the resistance gene.
Again, only those that are resistant survive. Over many generations, the population gradually shifts so that most bacteria in the population have the resistance gene."
Looks like a lot of direct evidence for natural selection to me. I don't claim to be a scientist, but you do. So either you haven't really researched evolutionary theory as well as you'd like us to believe, in which case you should probably avoid making broad statements on something which you clearly know nothing about. Or you knew about this evidence and chose to discard it because it doesn't fit your pre conceived notions. Which one is it?
Neither, your logic is flawed. This first case you give, of antibiotics, shows that bacteria can adapt to their environment. However, this does not demonstrate forward natural selection. If there were mutations that resulted in new species, then you would have an argument. There are never new species that result from bacteria mutations. The only change is a variation within a species, which was well known to occur well before Darwin. It is certainly not evidence of natural selection to say that each human being looks different than one another. It is a simple variation, not a mechanism.
The other problem with the antibiotic example is the fact that the new strains of bacteria lose functionality with the mutation. In other words, they are actually less fit for survival. When they are returned to a normal environment, they fail. This is significant, because once again there is no demonstration of forward selection, where a feature is adding to the existing capabilities of the organism. The mutation is a variation, and it may temporarily allow it to survive, but it is destructive overall.
There are also debates about compensatory mutations which try and "fix" the damage of the original mutations, but there are not any examples where this population mechanism has worked to create a new superior organism. The mutated strain always fails. So I see a lot of hot air and bluster, but little science to back up your claims.
Also, if you read what I wrote, I never claimed to be a biologist. A "scientist" is not always a biologist, unless you are creating a new definition. But I have worked extensively with genetic programming, and more importantly, I can think scientifically. My specific expertise is in digital signal processing and super computers. In genetic programming you are mimicking the theoretical basis for natural selection. I can speak with great confidence in this arena. Genetic programming does not provide any new capabilities or functionality. What it does provide is a search function. In this case, it allows you to do a faster search and sort for criteria within the existing population. This is empirically the same result as all these bacteria and antibiotic experiments. There is nothing new developed, only variations within the existing population.
In summary, are you claiming that only biologists can determine what is true? They are your Gods, and you must take from them the commandments? If they declare natural selection to be true, then you act in faith to follow their decree? You see, you are proving my point with your post. You follow a religious practice based on faith.
