Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/evo_53There are several ways such complex novelties may evolve:
Advantageous intermediates: It's possible that those intermediate stages actually were advantageous, even if not in an obvious way. What good is "half an eye?" A simple eye with just a few of the components of a complex eye could still sense light and dark, like eyespots on simple flatworms do. This ability might have been advantageous for an organism with no vision at all and could have evolved through natural selection.

A Planaria flatworm with its light-sensitive eyespots.
Co-opting: The intermediate stages of a complex feature might have served a different purpose than the fully-fledged adaptation serves. What good is "half a wing?" Even if it's not good for flying, it might be good for something else. The evolution of the very first feathers might have had nothing to do with flight and everything to do with insulation or display. Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions.

Those are more examples of natural selection how DNA can store info for later use. It does not explain how random mutations provided the correct information over and over.

The words "might have" its possible""could still" are used throughout the article. Those are woulds describing probabilities. They are statements that have no mathematical analysis sighted to back it up.

In that case it makes the proposition, " Natural selection is an excellent thief, taking features that evolved in one context and using them for new functions" a faith based view about "a thief" I do not believe you've provided enough evidence for me to believe in..

one of the very first systems of animals to occur as the "Cambrian Explosion" progressed is BILATERAL SYMMETRY. Its very rare to find many species with radial symmetry, some do exist but these were seemingly served up by a common ancestor of coelenterates and sponges who appeared around the cryogenian period evrything else in the animl kingdom has bilateral symmetry . From the Silurian and on weve seem=n a fairly complte fossil record of the evolution of wings on such classes as coleoptera
after it was explained ad nauseum you still deny or dont understnd?? .You seem to try to argue for the position that all evolved fetures had to start from SCRATCH eh??

No, you said that. I said I haven't seen any evidence in the form of a model or a real time example of complex information entering any system from a random source whether, it is a computer generated system, or a biological system. The only system we have observered that we can prove is human generated. I have never seen a human start from scratch without learning, storing, organizing, and then planning a complex idea which he then executes. So no, i have not witnessed an idea appearing from scratch anywhere, probably not even in my mind unless you count learning and discovery as from scratch. I don't.

Did you see any problems in the logic of my previous post to you?

I wouldn't even know where to start.

animal kingdom bilateral symmetry
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/arthropods_04

now you seem to be devolving into "word salads">

I wish you well on your journey of understanding. I think though, that your "default" position seems to be robbing you of looking at various forms of evidence."Multiple hypotheses until it becomes overwhelming " is something on which practitioners in my science seem to honor above all else.

Common ancestry does not "Wipe out" all previous genetic variability. I think maybe thats where your hangups live. In fact, whenever a spcies wvolves to a single "signature" species, its more on th road to extinction than further evolution. Think of all the variou ceratopsian spcies that gradually let their fossils through the mid K. So, only 2 spcies were left by the end of the K (when a more complex hypothesis of the "death of the dinosaurs" has been a recent working model)

I'm not a specialist. You'd have to study these things by yourself. But evolution models do exist.

Could you give me an example of a word salad, and please pull a quote from my post. Maybe I can clarify it. I am open to random mutations providing the new info for complexity. I just haven't observed it or have I seen a model that did prove it could be possible. I asked for a model, and you gave me a model that I believe was a model of reverse engineering, with an explanation of why thought so.

You made no comments on my explanation of the model that you provided. And, you accuse me of devolving into word salads without providing evidence that I did so. I on the other hand quoted your model extensively. Your models and questions are full of technical terms that only an expert or, somebody that is willing to do the research can comment on. (Some people might call that word salad.) Are you accusing me of word salad because I am using the same terms used in the model and I am using them wrong? (If so, I apologize, ask for your patience and please help me correct it) So, would you have a little more patience with me, I think we could at least agree what the evidence is saying, and then have a little discussion on our interpretations of the evidence. I respect your views and expertise, and have learned a lot from you, leadfoot, fresco, and Olivier, and others. I do realize that Leadfoot and I might not ever agree with your interpretation of the evidence but, right now I believe we aren't agreeing on how your model pertains. Could we discuss, how the data in the model you provided, pertains to what I think is trying to be proven by you which is, "random mutations can supply the new information in a way that natural selection can actually use it and, do its job, which is helping to provide a model for complex evolution. Would you agree with that?

If you haven't seen a model, how do you know they exist. Are you basing your belief system on hearsay or faith in other peoples opinions?

How does that link support your conclusion that random mutations can provide the new information for natural selection to chose from?

see your above pot. It misuses some terms out of normal discussions,

You seem to be totally enamored at the veracity of "models" Remember that ALL models hve you pick your assumptions, not all of hich have been observable.

As far as YOU not observing "random mutations" HOW MANY YEARS you been in the field ??

I haven't seen any evidence that random mutations can provide the correct information in the correct way for natural selection to occur. Instead of using the phrase,

brianjakub said, I should have clarified the word "it" by saying "scientific evidence". I have been looking for that for years. The model you provided did not provide the necessary evidence either. I believe, your model is a model substitutes intelligence for random mutations, by assuming all parameters were met by random mutations at each node on a decision tree, without providing mathematical data from modeling, to support that position. Could we just discuss the model you provided, and assume you and I can with through our errors in grammar and syntax along the way. With a little effort I think the discussion will eventually get to logic and facts, and less grammar and syntax.

think what you wish. I dont think youre as familiar with models as much as you seem to want us to believe> WE DONT EVER "PROVE" ANYTHING WITH A MODEL, we try to simulate occurences and most likely probabilities based upon our assumptions that we input.

You should begin youre journey with field and genetics data.

Well yes. Wikipedia usually gets things by and large ok. If they say models exist and they provide all manners of quotes and sources, I would tend to believe them.

Ok so your world view is based on unresearched Wikipedia. Can you show me a quote from Wikipedia saying a model exists?

Are you unwilling to discuss the paper you told me to read? Then why does everyone talk like biolological evolution produced by natural selection of random mutations is proven, and ID is not even a valid option. I was using the word proof loosely. I see a lot of "could haves", and "might haves" in a lot of science journals, Wikipedia, science magazines, and books, with no mathematical data determining the probabilities of those "could haves" and might haves". Everything is possible. Foe example, because, of the uncertainty principle and how it applies to Shroedinger's equation(which are two things I would consider as something that is almost proven), it is mathematical possiblity that all the electrons in my body will appear on Jupiter tomorrow. For that reason, if I do appear on Jupiter tomorrow can I say it could have happened randomly, without the help of somebody building me a space ship, flying me there, and pushing me out the door. Because, we KNOW we don't have spaceships like that. So why investigate a spaceship as a possibility.

I can't find any data to discuss the probabilities you are proposing that random mutations are capable of, except from the ID community. I have been looking in mainstream science for years. It appears to me that you and Olivier are sending me on a wild goose chase, that neither of you want to go on because, you both have made up your mind and are willing to take all of the "could haves" and "might haves on faith". Or, maybe you read the scientific discussions of the probabilities, agree that they support your theory but just do not want to share it for personal reasons? What is so annoying is that Aetheistic evolutionists seem to think that their point of view is so much more intellectually sound than ID. Maybe it is more intellectually sound. But, if it's more intellectually sound than ID that, should be easier to prove because we don't have to search for an ancient pre historic intelligence. (Though for now I don't care who that intelligence is as much as, should we make the need for the search scientifically based?). All you need for proof of your argument is sighted articles discussing the probability of random mutations providing the new information for evolution. Don't tell me what I need to study to understand the article (like field and genetics data), just sight the article, I will make sure I understand it as well as you and then we can discuss quotes from it like I did with the other article you provided me to read, but you are not discussing.

"Unresearched?" Is that anything like your opinions? LOL
Wiki is an open forum where contributors come from academia, students and the general public. Mistakes are corrected when observed. If you know of any info on Wiki being wrong, please identify them. Otherwise, your criticism is meaningless.

I never said that anything was PROVEN, (thats for plane geometry and calculus). EVolution via nat selection is overwhelmingly EVIDENCED. You have an annoying habit of closing your mind to anything that smacks of evidence. Im kinda done with you and your "modelling".
All science models are based upon assumptions and are used mostly to test"what ifs". We alay state that most models are outcome based.
I never use models in mining forensics because I can usually tear em apart by evidence. I sometims use variograms , krigging, trend surfaces, and other stat models to define where we may wish to do test drilling. However, only test drilling is used to develop a mine. Its pretty much the same with ground water, bio models and chem models.
I suggest you read more about modelling and the various kinds of models out there.

.... Molecular phylogenetics methods rely on a defined substitution model that encodes a hypothesis about the relative rates of mutation at various sites along the gene or amino acid sequences being studied. At their simplest, substitution models aim to correct for differences in the rates of transitions and transversionsin nucleotide sequences. The use of substitution models is necessitated by the fact that the genetic distancebetween two sequences increases linearly only for a short time after the two sequences diverge from each other (alternatively, the distance is linear only shortly before coalescence). The longer the amount of time after divergence, the more likely it becomes that two mutations occur at the same nucleotide site. Simple genetic distance calculations will thus undercount the number of mutation events that have occurred in evolutionary history. The extent of this undercount increases with increasing time since divergence.....

Types of models

Main article: Substitution model

All substitution models assign a set of weights to each possible change of state represented in the sequence. The most common model types are implicitly reversible because they assign the same weight to, for example, a G>C nucleotide mutation as to a C>G mutation. The simplest possible model, the Jukes-Cantor model, assigns an equal probability to every possible change of state for a given nucleotide base. The rate of change between any two distinct nucleotides will be one-third of the overall substitution rate.[4] More advanced models distinguish between transitions and transversions. The most general possible time-reversible model, called the model, has six mutation rate parameters. An even more generalized model known as the general 12-parameter model breaks time-reversibility, at the cost of much additional complexity in calculating genetic distances that are consistent among multiple lineages.[4] One possible variation on this theme adjusts the rates so that overall GC content - an important measure of DNA double helix stability - varies over time.[28]

Models may also allow for the variation of rates with positions in the input sequence. The most obvious example of such variation follows from the arrangement of nucleotides in protein-coding genes into three-base codons. If the location of the open reading frame (ORF) is known, rates of mutation can be adjusted for position of a given site within a codon, since it is known thatwobble base pairing can allow for higher mutation rates in the third nucleotide of a given codon without affecting the codon's meaning in the genetic code.[27] A less hypothesis-driven example that does not rely on ORF identification simply assigns to each site a rate randomly drawn from a predetermined distribution, often the gamma distribution or log-normal distribution.[4]Finally, a more conservative estimate of rate variations known as the covarion method allows autocorrelated variations in rates, so that the mutation rate of a given site is correlated across sites and lineages.[29]

Choosing the best model

The selection of an appropriate model is critical for the production of good phylogenetic analyses, both because underparameterized or overly restrictive models may produce aberrant behavior when their underlying assumptions are violated, and because overly complex or overparameterized models are computationally expensive and the parameters may be overfit.[27] .......

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_phylogenetics

That journey imposes a boundary on the random mutations that are available to a small number of choices. Random mutations have no such boundaries. In reality this is not a paper that supports either point of view because the authors purposely avoided the topic of random mutations saying the necessary advantageous mutations are the only ones being considered. If all the mutations available to random mutations would have been considered, and that information would have been used to run a statistical analysis of the probability that random mutations can provide the information for evolution of the eye, this would be a model that proved or disproved your point. Since that was left out I agree it does not support ID, except that ID does not need as rigourous of statistical analysis because ID by its nature imposes strict boundaries on which mutations are available (depending only on how smart the designer is) for natural selection to choose from. For that reason, would you say it leaves ID open as a possible explanation of the origin of the new information provided by the mutations alongside random mutations?

. The discovery institute is the only place I can find detailed criticism. I put a link to his post, it is an extensive article. I have read all 3 papers and believe the authors critique is valid. Where do you think he went wrong is his extensive explanation of his assumptions?