Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If you call it a trope, then you should be able to defend your belief. Though simply dismissing it shows you may need to do a little more HS biology

There is a massive irony in this commentary coming from you, I have to say.

 

[1Tonne]

I don't. BUT for the purpose of this thread I will accept that he did. Because it's irrelevant. One either accepts the evidence and calls it a natural process. OR one accepts the evidence and calls it divinely ordained. The critical aspect of those two positions is that one accepts the evidence.

You're not doing that. Because you have a fundamentalist position in that you hold that Genesis is literally true. You are not arguing this from a scientific position. You are wasting your time, and ours. By simply repeating facile arguments that you have read in creationist literature and which we have all heard very many times before.

Thanks for the honesty. But let’s be clear: accepting “the evidence” isn’t the same as accepting a specific interpretation of that evidence. That’s where the real debate is.
We’re all looking at the same fossils, same genes, same world. The question is how to interpret that data. Saying evolution is “just science” while design is “just religion” is a false dichotomy. I’m pointing out that certain features of life, like irreducibly complex systems, the sudden appearance of body plans, and the lack of clear transitional forms, don’t align well with the naturalistic framework, but do align with intelligent design. That’s a scientific critique of a scientific model.
And yes, I do believe Genesis is true. But I’m pointing to the limits of what Darwinian mechanisms can actually explain. If my arguments are “facile,” then show that with evidence and logic, not by dismissing them because you’ve heard them before. Hearing an argument many times doesn’t make it invalid; it might mean it still hasn’t been answered.
If you're confident in your position, you should welcome scrutiny, not try to shut down the conversation by labelling people as fundamentalists and telling them they’re wasting your time. That’s not science. That’s gatekeeping.

 

[Bradskii]

If you're confident in your position, you should welcome scrutiny, not try to shut down the conversation by labelling people as fundamentalists and telling them they’re wasting your time. That’s not science. That’s gatekeeping.

Hey, this ain't my first rodeo, buddy. I've been discussing evolution on forums like this for very many years indeed. Now and then I come across someone who is scientifically literate as regards the topic and argues their position on its merits. That interests me because it encourages me to dig deeper and learn more.

But mostly it's people who are fundamentalists who think they have zingers of arguments from a scientific perspective but only illustrate their ignorance of the topic and repeat the same old junk we've all heard for years.

You aren't in the former group.

I think we're done.

 

[BCP1928]

Is this a Christian forum? Correct?
I am not pitting Christianity against science. I am pitting it against a theory that has no biblical backing or any hard evidence. It is all speculation.

That's interesting. We had assumed from your posts that you were merely pitting your interpretation of scripture against a straw man version of the theory of evolution.

Jesus even spoke against evolution, but you choose not to believe Jesus. That makes Jesus into a liar.
This is what the Christian Forums are for. Discussion.
Would you rather I be quiet?

The designer is not unknown. I know Him.

I believe that there are many here who think that they know Him, and they may even go to church and worship Him, but, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. - Evolutionists give credit for creation to the animals and man. They say we evolved, and therefore they take the Glory from God and give it to the creatures of the earth. So, in effect, they worship the creature more than they do the creator.
(Sorry if this post seems a little harsh. It is simply the truth. Give God the Glory.)

"The collection of data through observation and experimentation."
To be considered scientifically proven, a theory must be observable, testable, repeatable, and able to be proven wrong if the evidence goes against it.
Darwinian evolution, by definition, cannot be directly observed or repeated, especially when it is said to happen over millions of years. No one has ever observed one kind of animal slowly turning into another with a new body plan. At best, we observe small changes within species (microevolution), but the kind of large-scale transformation required by Darwinian theory (macroevolution) is assumed, not observed.
It is not scientific. It is a belief system.

That’s a fair point. Sometimes, what appears to be designed can have a natural explanation. But this is exactly why examples from nature that exhibit functional complexity are so compelling. Some biological systems show a level of interdependent design where all parts must be present and functioning for the whole to work. In other words, their complexity can't be explained by simple step-by-step processes.

Take the human eye, for example. It requires a retina, a lens, an iris, tear ducts, optic nerves, and a visual processing centre in the brain. Remove or disable any one of these, and the system doesn’t function properly, if at all. The eye is an incredibly sophisticated tool, capable of focusing, adjusting to light, and processing millions of signals per second. It doesn’t behave like something that emerged gradually through random mutation—it looks more like something engineered for a purpose.

This leads to the concept of irreducible complexity, which suggests that certain biological systems are composed of multiple interdependent parts, all of which must be present for the system to function. Here's a concrete example:

The Circulatory System: An Irreducibly Complex System

1. The Heart pumps the blood, but without blood, it has nothing to move.
2. The Blood carries oxygen and nutrients, but it would be pointless without a pump to circulate it.
3. Blood Vessels direct the blood, but they’re useless without both blood and a pumping heart.

These components are co-dependent. You can't build up to a functional circulatory system one piece at a time; it has to be complete from the beginning, or it doesn’t work at all. And if it doesn’t work, the organism doesn’t survive.

Another striking example is the bombardier beetle, which defends itself by firing a boiling, chemically reactive spray at its predators. This beetle stores two separate chemicals-hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide-in its body, along with enzymes that trigger an explosive reaction when the chemicals mix. It even has a special valve system to safely control the reaction and aim it with precision.
Now, if the chemicals had mixed too early during the beetle’s development, it would have destroyed itself. If just one component was missing, the storage system, the enzymes, the reaction chamber, or the safety valve, the defence mechanism wouldn't work and could be fatal. All the parts must be present and properly coordinated from the start. Again, this points toward intelligent design rather than gradual, trial-and-error evolution.

These systems don’t behave like the result of undirected processes; they bear the hallmarks of planning, foresight, and function. In everyday life, we recognise this kind of arrangement as a sign of intelligent causation. Why should we abandon that reasoning when we look at nature?


So, I take it that you are not Christian.

That is not up to you to decide and it has no bearing on the question at hand. Keep in mind that you don't own the Christian faith or the Bible and have no right to dictate to other Christians what they must believe about it.

We do not have clear, step-by-step intermediate fossils that Darwin himself said would be necessary if evolution occurred gradually.
When we look at the fossil record surrounding the Cambrian Explosion, we don’t see the detailed transitional sequences that would connect the simple, pre-Cambrian organisms to the sudden appearance of fully formed, complex body plans in the Cambrian. Yes, there are a few candidate fossils like Kimberella or Dickinsonia from the Ediacaran period, but these are relatively simple and lack the anatomical complexity, such as eyes, nervous systems, or articulated limbs, that we see in Cambrian organisms like trilobites, early arthropods, and chordates.
In fact, even many evolutionary palaeontologists acknowledge that the transition from pre-Cambrian to Cambrian life forms is abrupt. The new body plans appear without a clear sequence of gradual modifications leading up to them. We're talking about entirely new phyla, not just variation within a species. These leaps include multiple tissue layers, organs, symmetry types, and complex systems that seem to appear fully formed rather than slowly developed.
As Stephen Jay Gould once wrote, “The Cambrian Explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life.”
So, the issue isn’t whether there are any fossils before the Cambrian, it's whether there are enough clear, functional intermediates to plausibly explain how evolution gradually constructed the highly integrated body plans of Cambrian animals. So far, the fossil record doesn’t seem to support that level of detail.

I take it that you are also another person who is not a Christian.

True. It is blind faith.

You said you can create a real leaf by planting a seed, but you didn’t create the leaf. You planted something that already contained an immense amount of encoded biological information and machinery capable of producing that leaf. That’s like pressing “print” and claiming you authored the book. The seed is not simple; it’s a self-replicating system packed with genetic instructions, cellular machinery, and a built-in energy system to initiate growth.
This isn't "incredulity"; it's pointing out that even the simplest components of life, like a leaf, are mind-bogglingly complex. Photosynthesis alone involves multiple protein complexes, light-harvesting systems, electron transport chains, and precisely regulated chemical reactions, none of which happen by accident or in isolation.
The fact that we, with all our scientific and technological advances, still cannot design and build a functioning biological leaf from raw materials should give us pause. It doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does highlight that life is far more than just chemistry plus time. Simply saying "it's not magic" doesn’t make complexity disappear. The burden is not on me to accept that blind processes produced such marvels, it's on you to show, step by step, how they came to be without guidance.

This list doesn’t demonstrate that fish turned into cats, or any other specific macroevolutionary pathway. What it does is assume common ancestry and then point to similarities and transitional-looking fossils as evidence for that assumption. But similarities in genes or bones can just as easily point to common design as they can to common descent.
Let’s take your examples one at a time:
1. Bones in fins – Sure, some lobe-finned fish have structures similar to tetrapod limbs, but similarity isn't the same as a mechanism for transformation. A similar bone layout doesn’t show how random mutation and natural selection built the massive anatomical, physiological, and genetic changes needed to go from a fish to a mammal.

2. Genetic similarity – Again, this is expected if you believe in common ancestry, but genetics can’t tell us how or if complex new structures and functions arose by undirected processes. Cats and fish sharing genes is not proof that one turned into the other over time—especially considering that all living organisms share many genes (even bananas and humans are ~60% genetically similar).

3–5. Transitional forms – These are always presented as “many, many,” but when you look closely, you find scattered fossils interpreted after the fact as intermediates, but no clear, continuous sequence of small, incremental changes that Darwinian evolution requires. The supposed transitions from therapsids to mammals are hotly debated even among evolutionary biologists, and the so-called “ear bone evolution” story is filled with gaps, assumptions, and reinterpretations.

The burden of proof isn't to just show that you can line up fossils in a rough order or point to general similarities. The burden is to show a clear, step-by-step, mechanistic pathway by which unguided processes created vast new genetic information and functional complexity, like the leap from aquatic respiration to mammalian lungs, or scales to fur, or cold-blooded to warm-blooded regulation, all while keeping the organism viable at every stage.

So yes, I’m happy to look at more evidence, but I’m not asking for more similarity; I’m asking for a detailed explanation of how large-scale transformations actually occurred by natural processes. That’s what’s missing.

Thank you for sharing your beliefs.
So, you are OK that in the beginning He made them male and female and did not make them slime that evolved into male and female.

Gravity can be tested and seen. Tell me, who do you know that has lived and seen the evolutionary process over millions of years?

I asked the question as it would be interesting to see how many atheists are on these forums defending their blind faith.

NOTE: Sorry if I take a long time to answer. I am one person arguing that the Bible is correct, while there are about 8 opponents who give honour to evolution. So, there are many questions that are being thrown at me and I am struggling to find time to answer them.

You would do better to spend your time learning what the theory of evolution actually claims instead of setting up a straw man. Cutting and pasting old creationist talking points that you don't understand well enough to defend isn't going to cut it. Neither is denouncing Christians who don't embrace your interpretation of scripture. Do better.

 

[NxNW]

I am not pitting Christianity against science. I am pitting it against a theory that has no biblical backing or any hard evidence. It is all speculation.

This is a completely false statement. There is plenty of hard evidence for evolution. But precious little for creationism.

Jesus even spoke against evolution, but you choose not to believe Jesus. That makes Jesus into a liar.

Or maybe he never spoke the words attributed to him. Or maybe his existence is doubtful.

"The collection of data through observation and experimentation."
To be considered scientifically proven, a theory must be observable, testable, repeatable, and able to be proven wrong if the evidence goes against it. Darwinian evolution, by definition, cannot be directly observed or repeated, especially when it is said to happen over millions of years.

You need to understand what a forensic science is. If someone murders you and leaves evidence behind, hopefully that can be used to prove who the killer is, even if I can't recreate the murder.

No one has ever observed one kind of animal slowly turning into another with a new body plan.

Why would anyone expect to see that? Are you under the impression that evolution claims such a thing happens>

At best, we observe small changes within species (microevolution), but the kind of large-scale transformation required by Darwinian theory (macroevolution) is assumed, not observed.

Speciation is a fact, and that's all evolution requires to function.

Take the human eye, for example. It requires a retina, a lens, an iris, tear ducts, optic nerves, and a visual processing centre in the brain. Remove or disable any one of these, and the system doesn’t function properly, if at all. The eye is an incredibly sophisticated tool, capable of focusing, adjusting to light, and processing millions of signals per second. It doesn’t behave like something that emerged gradually through random mutation—it looks more like something engineered for a purpose.

And yet, the eye evolved dozens of times independently in nature. Calculations have shown that a few hundred thousand generations are all it takes, starting from a single light-sensitive cell. A blink of an eye (heh), in geologic terms.

This leads to the concept of irreducible complexity, which suggests that certain biological systems are composed of multiple interdependent parts, all of which must be present for the system to function. Here's a concrete example:

The Circulatory System: An Irreducibly Complex System

1. The Heart pumps the blood, but without blood, it has nothing to move.
2. The Blood carries oxygen and nutrients, but it would be pointless without a pump to circulate it.
3. Blood Vessels direct the blood, but they’re useless without both blood and a pumping heart.

These components are co-dependent. You can't build up to a functional circulatory system one piece at a time; it has to be complete from the beginning, or it doesn’t work at all. And if it doesn’t work, the organism doesn’t survive.

You're assuming to much. You're assuming the 'functions' all stay the same at all times. There's no reason one component can't evolve with a different function first, and then, via mutation, assume a different function in combination with another component.

But for a specific counterexample: take the ice fish. They have a heart, but instead of blood, they have a clear liquid with no hemoglobin.

"The 1954 examination of the fish revealed the absence of hemoglobin in the blood of the fish. Hemoglobin 'had been found in every living vertebrate. Indeed, no other case of bloodless vertebrate has ever been discovered outside of the fifteen or so species of icefish now known.' ...the two genes that normally contain the DNA code for the globin part of the hemoglobin molecule have gone extinct. One gene is a molecular fossil, a mere remnant of a globin gene - it still resides in the DNA of the icefish, but it is utterly useless and eroding away, just as a fossil withers upon exposure to the elements. The second globin gene, which usually lies adjacent to the first in the DNA of red-blooded fish, has eroded away completely. This is absolute proof that the icefish have abandoned, forever, the genes for the making of a molecule that nurtured the lives of their ancestors for over 500 million years.

...the icefish has managed to change its whole engine while the car was running. It invented a new antifreeze, changed its oil (blood) to a new grade with a remarkably low viscosity, enlarged its fuel pump (heart), and threw out a few parts along the way - parts that had been used in every model of fish for the past 500 million years." It makes clear the fact that evolution has taken place that made a major change in species - from a red-blooded fish to one without hemoglobin, so that would have to be considered to be macroevolution."

At the other end of things, insects have an open circulatory system. So they lack the blood vessels that you claim are necessary.

We do not have clear, step-by-step intermediate fossils that Darwin himself said would be necessary if evolution occurred gradually.

Oh, but we do. You seem to claim that an arbitrary number of fossils must be discovered, without specifying that number.

When we look at the fossil record surrounding the Cambrian Explosion, we don’t see the detailed transitional sequences that would connect the simple, pre-Cambrian organisms to the sudden appearance of fully formed, complex body plans in the Cambrian.

From The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge. p42-44

A puzzle: Why are some of the oldest forms of animal life that are found in the fossil record also some of the most complex? Thus was born the riddle of the Cambrian explosion...

...there are sequences of sedimentary rock that lie below fossiliferous Cambrian rocks. These really ought to produce forerunners and precursors to the abundantly preserved hard-shelled invertebrates that show up in such profusion in Lower Cambrian rocks. And sure enough, diligent searching, has -- as we would predict from the simple idea of evolution-- shown that there was complex life before the Cambrian trilobites, brachiopods, mullusks, and sponges burst upon the scene...

...we have beguin to fill in the gaps; we now know that the advent of complex multicellular animal life did not occur overnight (nor in a single biblical day), but rather took place in a succession of events spanning 160 million years. But what of the relatively sudden, abrupt appearance of trilobites and other complex forms at the base of the Cambrian

First impressions -- including those of early geologists--see this an an instantaneous explosion of a vast assortment of invertabrate life forms. We now know that the trilobites and other sorts of Cambrian life did not show up absolutely all at the same time all over the world; rather, it apparently took a good 10 million years for the familiar faunas of the lowermost Cambrian rocks to become fully established.

You said you can create a real leaf by planting a seed, but you didn’t create the leaf. You planted something that already contained an immense amount of encoded biological information and machinery capable of producing that leaf. That’s like pressing “print” and claiming you authored the book. The seed is not simple; it’s a self-replicating system packed with genetic instructions, cellular machinery, and a built-in energy system to initiate growth.

So what's your point? That I have to create matter from thin air? We know how leaves are formed. There is no supernatural force involved.

This isn't "incredulity"; it's pointing out that even the simplest components of life, like a leaf, are mind-bogglingly complex. Photosynthesis alone involves multiple protein complexes, light-harvesting systems, electron transport chains, and precisely regulated chemical reactions, none of which happen by accident or in isolation.
The fact that we, with all our scientific and technological advances, still cannot design and build a functioning biological leaf from raw materials should give us pause. It doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does highlight that life is far more than just chemistry plus time.

What else is involved other than natural forces?

Simply saying "it's not magic" doesn’t make complexity disappear.

Complexity is not magic, nor does it require magic.

The burden is not on me to accept that blind processes produced such marvels, it's on you to show, step by step, how they came to be without guidance.

That's not how it works.

This list doesn’t demonstrate that fish turned into cats, or any other specific macroevolutionary pathway.

Nobody is claiming that fish turned into cats.

What it does is assume common ancestry and then point to similarities and transitional-looking fossils as evidence for that assumption.

If they are predicted to exist, and then found when and where there were predicted (as the Tiktaalik was), that's very strong evidence.

So yes, I’m happy to look at more evidence, but I’m not asking for more similarity; I’m asking for a detailed explanation of how large-scale transformations actually occurred by natural processes. That’s what’s missing.

See the ice fish passage above. There is no question whatsoever that it happened.

Gravity can be tested and seen.

The force can be observed and measured, but can you explain the mechanism behind it?

If not, then how can you be sure it's not supernatural?

Tell me, who do you know that has lived and seen the evolutionary process over millions of years?

Nobody has seen a star live its entire lifetime of billions of years, but we've seen all the steps along the way and made correct predictions about what happens, so we have pretty strong evidence that our understanding of stars (and the Big Bang) is in the ballpark.

We make predictions about what we find, and those findings are consistent with the theory of evolution.

I asked the question as it would be interesting to see how many atheists are on these forums defending their blind faith.

It's not blind faith when there is strong evidence.

 

[Buzzard3]

He said, "In the beginning God made them male and female."

In the "beginning" of what?

 

[Buzzard3]

This is going to be fun..

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[Buzzard3]

the eye evolved dozens of times independently in nature. Calculations have show that a few hundred thousand generations are all it takes, starting from a single light-sensitive cell.

Yes, well, the scientists who came up with those calculations really know what they're talking about, having observed the eye evolve from a single light-sensitive cell.

 

[Hans Blaster]

You've come in hot with lots of arguments. You are not the only "new poster" in this section recently and before I gave fulsome responses I needed to know what kind of poster you were. You clearly know your creationist apologetics and talking points. Dealing with the firehose and superluminal goalposts will take time. I will not be responding to all of this right now.

But it needs to be observable, testable, repeatable, and able to be proven wrong if the evidence goes against it. Evolution does not meet this standard, and therefore it is not science. Only a theory.

I see you are still repeating your blinkered notion of how science works with evidence and have added the "just a theory" trope as a bonus. Do you not know what a theory is in science?

I used the biblical backing wording as there are Christians on this thread.

Exactly. But creation was spoken of. Jesus said, In the beginning God created them male and female. Not sludge that evolved.

Again, the claim made in this thread is that evolution is a scientific theory in crisis. Theology is not part of science and is therefore irrelevant. I will not discuss it further.

I’m more than happy to argue in good faith; that’s exactly what I’ve been doing.

We'll see. So far we've gotten (including later in this post I am responding to) a layered response where one claim when the counter is made is followed by several more detailed claims to be refuted. It screams of a tactic.

I’ve responded directly to the questions that have been asked, often in detail, and I’ve done so without resorting to dismissive language.

You have posted lots of creationist talking points, I can agree with that statement.

If anything, I’ve taken the time to thoughtfully engage with multiple people at once, which I hope shows that I’m here to have a serious discussion, not to troll or mislead.
If you believe some of what I’ve said is incorrect, I’m open to correction, but simply labelling my posts as "content dumps" or “not true” without addressing the substance doesn’t move the conversation forward.

Unlike some people here and elsewhere, I don't take particular pleasure in "the fight". I see no point in dealing with pre-canned creationist talking points. That is not discussion. If I wanted to debate a creationist and their prepared points, I would book an auditorium and invite a professional to town.

Dismissing a position because it’s well developed or challenges deeply held assumptions isn’t a rebuttal.
I understand that responding thoroughly takes time, that’s fair. But if a group of several committed individuals needs to pause to figure out how to reply to one person, that may say more about the strength of the evidence than the style of delivery.

It's called a Gish Gallop and it is *entirely* a style of delivery. A lot of what I have seen in your "detailed" replies on this thread amounts to nothing more than incredulity about the evidence that is available. There is also a lot of dismissal of the techniques used in the various fields of science. On the nature of scientific inquiry, I don't see any actual understanding in your posts.

I’ll keep engaging respectfully as much as possible and honestly, and I hope the same will be extended in return.

I live in hope.

Sure, I agree that science involves hypothesis testing and data analysis. But when it comes to evolutionary claims, especially large-scale historical ones like common ancestry, the origin of body plans, or the transformation of major life forms, we run into serious limitations that don’t apply to experimental sciences like chemistry or physics.

Common ancestry is *well* attested by laboratory experiments.

Why? Because we're dealing with non-repeatable, unobservable events in the distant past, not real-time processes we can directly observe, test, or replicate under controlled conditions.

You state this as if there aren't whole fields of perfectly normal science that has to work with these issues. That you try to make everything a "repeatable experiment under controlled laboratory conditions" betrays your lack of knowledge of how most science actually works.

In fields like palaeontology or evolutionary biology, we are often piecing together fragmentary evidence and trying to reconstruct ancient environments, ecosystems, genetic information, and population dynamics based on inference, not direct observation.
And the truth is, those ancient conditions can't be fully recreated or verified. Environments change, genetic pathways mutate, and selective pressures fluctuate over time. We can’t go back and test the climate, the oxygen levels, the predator-prey relationships, or the mutation rates at every supposed step of evolution. We can only guess based on present-day proxies and scattered fossil or molecular data.

Since you seem extremely caught up on this notion, I think we'll take a small diversion to explore it...

So yes, evolutionary hypotheses can be framed in scientific terms, but their testability is often limited by the fact that the key events and variables are locked in the unobservable past.

Though astronomy is notoriously about observing the past directly, there are places where your "hang-up" would come into play.

Did you know that astronomers are trying to recreate the history of merging of small galaxies into our own? That they are trying to track the development of heavy elements to the present conditions? That they often spend great effort to work out how a particular event occurred, like an exploding star? For the latter it is typically done with out the ability to acquire new data since the event had to be observed when it happened. If the data was not taken there is no way to acquire it now.

Big physics experiments are much the same. Each run of a particle accelerator like the LHC collects a whole bunch of data, but it generally won't be run in the same configuration (energy, etc.) again. The collected data from a run or experiment is fixed and for LHC and many other experiments there is no going back to get more. Does that mean the Higgs isn't real?

I need to do other things. We'll pick this up later.

...

 

[River Jordan]

I am not pitting Christianity against science.

Yes you are. You're presenting people with a choice, either God and the Bible or the conclusions of science.

That false dilemma fallacy will drive some people away from the Christian faith. I've seen it happen.

I am pitting it against a theory that has no biblical backing or any hard evidence. It is all speculation.

No, you're wrong. I don't know why you think you know more about various fields of science than the actual professionals, but hopefully you have at least enough humility to understand that people aren't likely to figure evolutionary biology is all speculation just because you say it is.

Jesus even spoke against evolution

No He didn't. But He did speak against the sort of pride you're exhibiting here.

but you choose not to believe Jesus. That makes Jesus into a liar.

FYI I've reported your post. It's against the rules to question people's faith like that.

This is what the Christian Forums are for. Discussion.
Would you rather I be quiet?

I would rather you stop presenting people with the false dilemma of your own making, stop questioning people's faith, and learn some basic humility.

 

[BCP1928]

Thanks for the honesty. But let’s be clear: accepting “the evidence” isn’t the same as accepting a specific interpretation of that evidence. That’s where the real debate is.

We only have to accept those explanations which are able to account for all of the evidence and are contradicted by none of it, even if they are not complete. What have you got?

We’re all looking at the same fossils, same genes, same world. The question is how to interpret that data. Saying evolution is “just science” while design is “just religion” is a false dichotomy.

Of your making. The "design" which is not science is the "design" of Intelligent Design theory, which is definitely not science.

I’m pointing out that certain features of life, like irreducibly complex systems, the sudden appearance of body plans, and the lack of clear transitional forms, don’t align well with the naturalistic framework, but do align with intelligent design. That’s a scientific critique of a scientific model.

So you reject without understanding any explanation of why those things aren't problems for the theory of evolution. Got it.

And yes, I do believe Genesis is true. But I’m pointing to the limits of what Darwinian mechanisms can actually explain. If my arguments are “facile,” then show that with evidence and logic, not by dismissing them because you’ve heard them before.

Because you don't understand them yourself well enough to make sparring with you about them amusing. You have really not, yourself, answered any of our questions. That's no fun.

Hearing an argument many times doesn’t make it invalid; it might mean it still hasn’t been answered.
If you're confident in your position, you should welcome scrutiny, not try to shut down the conversation by labelling people as fundamentalists and telling them they’re wasting your time. That’s not science. That’s gatekeeping.

Have we mislabled you? You seem to be a Fundamentalist, but there are other fringe Christian sects who may embrace the literal inerrancy of scripture without necessarily accepting all of the other four tenets.

 

[expos4ever]

With no small amount of trepidation, I will wade into this. I will address what I believe to be an item of low-hanging fruit first. This is the matter what the term "theory" means. In common parlance, a theory is, as I understand it, highly speculative. Thus, for example, I might say "I have a theory that Jones is cheating on his wife". In so saying, I am not implying but I have any substantive evidence - I am simply putting forward a speculative hypothesis.

But the word is used very differently in the domain of science. In order to be called a theory, some model about how the world works must be robustly supported with evidence.

It is clear to me that some, repeat some, creationists intentionally blur this distinction, hoping to import the sense in which the word is used in common speech into the domain of scientific theory, where the meaning is entirely different.

 

[expos4ever]

A second point concerns the matter of what counts as science. It appears that at least one poster is expressing the view that in order for some model of how the world works to be labeled as science, the predictions of the model must be repeatable in the present.

While I do not have access to evidence to support my claim right now, I believe there is now widespread consensus that this is too limiting a definition. Let me illustrate by example: The Big Bang theory is a model, that model makes predictions, those predictions are not only about what we might see now, but what the historical record shows to have been the case. It is no less science in that respect; the important point is it makes predictions that are verifiable. The fact that we have to look into the past for the evidence does not make it any less "science".

 

[River Jordan]

A second point concerns the matter of what counts as science. It appears that at least one poster is expressing the view that in order for some model of how the world works to be labeled as science, the predictions of the model must be repeatable in the present.

While I do not have access to evidence to support my claim right now, I believe there is now widespread consensus that this is too limiting a definition. Let me illustrate by example: The Big Bang theory is a model, that model makes predictions, those predictions are not only about what we might see now, but what the historical record shows to have been the case. It is no less science in that respect; the important point is it makes predictions that are verifiable. The fact that we have to look into the past for the evidence does not make it any less "science".

You're correct. If the YEC argument was right, geologists couldn't conclude that a U-valley was carved out by a glacier unless they recreated the entire process from beginning to end.

That's obviously ridiculous.

 

[expos4ever]

A third point concerns the way evolution is described as random by some. Let me be clear, I have not carefully read this thread and perhaps no critic of evolution is making this argument. However, I believe it is easily understood that, in fact, it is a gross mischaracterization to call evolution random without further qualification. Yes, there is a random element, genetic mutations. However, the natural selection mechanism is not random at all - if a particular mutation confers survival value, that mutation will live on. Otherwise, it will not.

I certainly understand why it seems profoundly mysterious, and highly non-credible, that an entirely random process could generate the complexity of life forms we see today. But, again, evolution is not purely random process.

Let me conclude by saying I probably have less knowledge about evolution than most of you here, and if I have something fundamentally wrong, please point it out.

 

[1Tonne]

Great. And as it turns out, we have discovered what laws and systems He created. We know how He did it. What's your problem with that? I mean, seriously. What is the problem there? Explain it to me.

My problem is with the arrogance of pretending we’ve figured out how God 'did it' just because we’ve observed a few mechanisms. Knowing that snowflakes form through crystallization under certain conditions isn’t the same as understanding the origin of those conditions, the constants that govern them, or the existence of the laws themselves. You’re mistaking map-reading for terrain-building.
Science can describe what happens and how it behaves once it's already in motion, but it doesn’t explain why the universe has intelligible, consistent laws in the first place. It doesn’t explain why there’s something rather than nothing. And it certainly doesn’t explain consciousness, purpose, or the moral dimension of reality.
So no, we don’t know 'how God did it' in any ultimate sense. We’ve merely scratched the surface of the mechanisms He allows us to observe. There’s a difference between reverse-engineering a few tools and claiming to understand the mind of the One who built the workshop.

Just...what? What's this fixation with fish and cats? You want something like a fish that breathes under water and is covered in scales to turn into something that climbs trees and is covered in fur? Fur is just a modified version of scales. So if there was an evolutionary benefit for that tree climbing 'fish' to evolve fur then, as per the process that you have discovered that God designed, then it would happen.

Ah, yes, fur is just modified scales, and hearts are just modified gills, I suppose? And tree-climbing mammals are just ambitious fish who wanted a better view. It’s always fascinating to see how confidently people assert that complex biological systems with wildly different structures, functions, and environments simply must have emerged through random mutations filtered by natural selection, all while dodging the mountainous gaps in the actual evidence.
You’re describing what might happen in a hypothetical cartoon universe, not what we observe in reality. Show me the real transitional forms, not artistic reconstructions, not educated guesses, not “we think this fossil was kind of amphibious,” but the detailed, testable, step-by-step genetic and anatomical transformations that turn a cold-blooded, gilled aquatic animal into a warm-blooded, furry, tree-leaping mammal.
Otherwise, your ‘God-designed process’ sounds a lot like a magic trick with a science label slapped on it.

And so, you're a Young Earth Creationist then? That explains why your 'commentary' is all over the gaff, disjointed and nonsensical.

And yes, my comment is just a dismissal of your claims because there's nothing substantive behind your claims. Your claims are nothing more than "People don't accept a literal reading of the Bible to be true, and I'm going to make that a problem for everyone else.

Yes, I am a Young Earth Creationist, and unlike you, I’m upfront about my worldview instead of hiding behind condescension and dismissive jabs. If you think labelling me that way is some kind of insult, it only shows your bias, not mine.
You still haven’t addressed a single argument. Instead, you've gone for lazy hand-waving and name-calling, as if ridiculing someone counts as a refutation. That’s not debate, it’s intellectual cowardice.
If my claims are so 'nonsensical,' it should be easy for you to dismantle them with reason and evidence, not sneers and sarcasm. But you won’t, because it’s much easier to attack the person than to deal with the substance. That’s the real reason behind your empty dismissal.

Except that just plainly isn't true, otherwise evolution wouldn't be a theory. Again: a theory is an explanation of facts and evidence in science. It is not just a guess.

You're right that a scientific theory isn't just a guess, but for it to qualify as scientific, it must be testable, falsifiable, and observable in the present. Molecules-to-man evolution fails on all three. It's a framework built on interpretation of past data, not direct observation. That’s philosophy in a lab coat, not science.

Hey, this ain't my first rodeo, buddy. I've been discussing evolution on forums like this for very many years indeed. Now and then I come across someone who is scientifically literate as regards the topic and argues their position on its merits. That interests me because it encourages me to dig deeper and learn more.

But mostly it's people who are fundamentalists who think they have zingers of arguments from a scientific perspective but only illustrate their ignorance of the topic and repeat the same old junk we've all heard for years.

You aren't in the former group.

I think we're done.

Of course, you're done - that's what people say when they don't want to be challenged anymore. You've mistaken repetition for wisdom and condescension for credibility. If you were truly interested in learning, you'd welcome a different viewpoint, not retreat behind your years on forums as if that’s a substitute for substance. Since you are done with the discussion. Blessings then and I hope one day you are blessed with new understanding.

That's interesting. We had assumed from your posts that you were merely pitting your interpretation of scripture against a straw man version of the theory of evolution.

Ah yes, when all else fails, reduce the other person's position to 'your interpretation' and accuse them of misrepresenting yours, without actually showing where the straw man is. Classic deflection.
I’m not misrepresenting evolution; I’m challenging the grand claims it makes without observational support. And I’m not twisting Scripture, I’m taking it at face value, the way Jesus and the apostles did. If that makes you uncomfortable, maybe it’s not my interpretation that needs review, but yours.

That's interesting. We had assumed from your posts that you were merely pitting your interpretation of scripture against a straw man version of the theory of evolution.

That is not up to you to decide and it has no bearing on the question at hand. Keep in mind that you don't own the Christian faith or the Bible and have no right to dictate to other Christians what they must believe about it.

You would do better to spend your time learning what the theory of evolution actually claims instead of setting up a straw man. Cutting and pasting old creationist talking points that you don't understand well enough to defend isn't going to cut it. Neither is denouncing Christians who don't embrace your interpretation of scripture. Do better.

I see, disagreeing with evolution now means I must be ignorant, unoriginal, and judgmental. That’s convenient for you, isn’t it? Saves you from actually engaging with the arguments.
I don’t need to parrot your understanding of evolution to recognize its shortcomings, and I don’t need to apologize for holding to Scripture as written. It’s not a 'straw man' just because I won’t baptize Darwin with a Bible verse.
You assume intellectual superiority, but all I see is recycled talking points dressed up with smugness. If you want real dialogue, drop the condescension. Otherwise, take your own advice: do better.

This is a completely false statement. There is plenty of hard evidence for evolution. But precious little for creationism.

That’s the claim, but claiming 'plenty of hard evidence' doesn’t make it so. Interpreting fossils, genetics, and geological layers through an evolutionary lens isn’t the same as directly observing molecules turning into men. The so-called 'evidence' is always interpreted within a worldview, and mine starts with Scripture and then I look at the evidence.
As for creation, it's not about stacking up human observations, it's about whether you take God's Word as your authority. I’m not asking science to prove Genesis. I’m asking why a Christian would feel compelled to reinterpret Genesis to fit a theory born from naturalism.

Or maybe he never spoke the words attributed to him. Or maybe his existence is doubtful.

That’s a pretty weak dismissal. The overwhelming majority of historians, including secular and sceptical ones, agree that Jesus of Nazareth was a real historical person. There are multiple sources outside the Bible, such as Tacitus, Josephus, and Pliny the Younger, writing within a generation or two of Jesus, that reference Him directly.
You don’t have to believe He was the Son of God, but denying His existence goes against both secular and Christian scholarship. If you're going to demand evidence in other areas, you shouldn't ignore it here just because it’s inconvenient.

You need to understand what a forensic science is. If someone murders you and leaves evidence behind, hopefully that can be used to prove who the killer is, even if I can't recreate the murder.

Forensic science relies on repeatable, testable principles applied to evidence in the present to reach conclusions about the recent past, and we can often verify those conclusions against eyewitness accounts, confessions, or known circumstances.
Darwinian evolution, on the other hand, makes claims about unrepeatable, unobservable events over millions of years with no direct witnesses, no testability in real time, and no ability to falsify the process as a whole. That’s not forensic science; that’s historical speculation dressed in scientific language. Big difference.

Speciation is a fact, and that's all evolution requires to function.

Speciation is not the issue. No one denies that populations can diverge and adapt, that's microevolution. But turning a single-celled organism into a human requires far more than variation and isolation. It requires the addition of vast amounts of new, functional genetic information, something we’ve never observed. Speciation explains variety within kinds, not molecules-to-man transformation. You're proving microevolution and calling it macro, that’s not evidence, that’s assumption.

And yet, the eye evolved dozens of times independently in nature. Calculations have shown that a few hundred thousand generations are all it takes, starting from a single light-sensitive cell. A blink of an eye (heh), in geologic terms.

Claiming the eye evolved multiple times independently doesn’t solve the problem, it multiplies it. Complex systems like the eye don’t get easier to explain with repetition. And 'calculations' aren’t evidence, they’re models based on assumptions. What we actually observe is an integrated system that breaks down if any part is missing. That points to design, not blind chance.

You're assuming to much. You're assuming the 'functions' all stay the same at all times. There's no reason one component can't evolve with a different function first, and then, via mutation, assume a different function in combination with another component.

But for a specific counterexample: take the ice fish. They have a heart, but instead of blood, they have a clear liquid with no hemoglobin.

"The 1954 examination of the fish revealed the absence of hemoglobin in the blood of the fish. Hemoglobin 'had been found in every living vertebrate. Indeed, no other case of bloodless vertebrate has ever been discovered outside of the fifteen or so species of icefish now known.' ...the two genes that normally contain the DNA code for the globin part of the hemoglobin molecule have gone extinct. One gene is a molecular fossil, a mere remnant of a globin gene - it still resides in the DNA of the icefish, but it is utterly useless and eroding away, just as a fossil withers upon exposure to the elements. The second globin gene, which usually lies adjacent to the first in the DNA of red-blooded fish, has eroded away completely. This is absolute proof that the icefish have abandoned, forever, the genes for the making of a molecule that nurtured the lives of their ancestors for over 500 million years.

...the icefish has managed to change its whole engine while the car was running. It invented a new antifreeze, changed its oil (blood) to a new grade with a remarkably low viscosity, enlarged its fuel pump (heart), and threw out a few parts along the way - parts that had been used in every model of fish for the past 500 million years." It makes clear the fact that evolution has taken place that made a major change in species - from a red-blooded fish to one without hemoglobin, so that would have to be considered to be macroevolution."

At the other end of things, insects have an open circulatory system. So they lack the blood vessels that you claim are necessary.

The icefish is actually a perfect example of loss of function, not the gain of new complex systems. Losing hemoglobin isn’t evidence of upward, information-building evolution, its degeneration, not innovation. And the fish only survives because of extremely specific environmental conditions, like oxygen-rich cold waters.
As for insects, having a different circulatory system doesn’t explain how complex systems like the closed human circulatory system evolved. It just shows that different systems exist. But showing two different designs doesn’t explain how one gradually turns into the other, especially not with step-by-step, observable, testable evidence.

Oh, but we do. You seem to claim that an arbitrary number of fossils must be discovered, without specifying that number.

The issue isn’t quantity, it’s quality. We don’t need 'an arbitrary number' of fossils; we need clear, step-by-step transitional forms that show the gradual development of complex systems. What we actually have are isolated fossils, often interpreted to fit evolutionary expectations, not an unbroken chain of transitions. Even evolutionists admit the fossil record is full of sudden appearances and long periods of stasis, which fits creation better than gradual Darwinian change.

From The Triumph of Evolution and the Failure of Creationism, by Niles Eldredge. p42-44

A puzzle: Why are some of the oldest forms of animal life that are found in the fossil record also some of the most complex? Thus was born the riddle of the Cambrian explosion...

...there are sequences of sedimentary rock that lie below fossiliferous Cambrian rocks. These really ought to produce forerunners and precursors to the abundantly preserved hard-shelled invertebrates that show up in such profusion in Lower Cambrian rocks. And sure enough, diligent searching, has -- as we would predict from the simple idea of evolution-- shown that there was complex life before the Cambrian trilobites, brachiopods, mullusks, and sponges burst upon the scene...

...we have beguin to fill in the gaps; we now know that the advent of complex multicellular animal life did not occur overnight (nor in a single biblical day), but rather took place in a succession of events spanning 160 million years. But what of the relatively sudden, abrupt appearance of trilobites and other complex forms at the base of the Cambrian

First impressions -- including those of early geologists--see this an an instantaneous explosion of a vast assortment of invertabrate life forms. We now know that the trilobites and other sorts of Cambrian life did not show up absolutely all at the same time all over the world; rather, it apparently took a good 10 million years for the familiar faunas of the lowermost Cambrian rocks to become fully established.

Thanks for the quote, but all it really does is confirm my point. Even Eldredge admits the sudden appearance of complex animal forms remains a 'riddle,' and the so-called 'precursors' are vague, fragmentary, and nothing like the fully formed body plans we see in the Cambrian. A 10-million-year window may sound long, but in evolutionary terms, it’s a blink, and it’s nowhere near enough to explain the origin of entirely new phyla, organs, and systems with no clear ancestral line.
Saying 'we’ve begun to fill in the gaps' just shows the gaps are still there, and massive. That’s not an answer; it’s an admission that the fossil record doesn’t match Darwin’s prediction of gradual, step-by-step change. That’s why even some evolutionists now appeal to sudden leaps and punctuated equilibrium, because the fossils simply don’t cooperate with the slow-and-steady story.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, I am a Young Earth Creationist, and unlike you, I’m upfront about my worldview instead of hiding behind condescension and dismissive jabs. If you think labelling me that way is some kind of insult, it only shows your bias, not mine.
You still haven’t addressed a single argument. Instead, you've gone for lazy hand-waving and name-calling, as if ridiculing someone counts as a refutation. That’s not debate, it’s intellectual cowardice.
If my claims are so 'nonsensical,' it should be easy for you to dismantle them with reason and evidence, not sneers and sarcasm. But you won’t, because it’s much easier to attack the person than to deal with the substance. That’s the real reason behind your empty dismissal.

I'm sorry but your commentary gets the responses it deserves. When I see something of value worth answering, then I'll answer it.

You're right that a scientific theory isn't just a guess, but for it to qualify as scientific, it must be testable, falsifiable, and observable in the present. Molecules-to-man evolution fails on all three. It's a framework built on interpretation of past data, not direct observation. That’s philosophy in a lab coat, not science.

See, it's claims like this that make out that you think you know what you're talking about but you clearly don't. Science does not purely work on direct observation to gain data, and it can build data while looking backwards through stuff like genetics, DNA, fossil evidence and the like.

You don't know what science is, plain and simple.

 

[1Tonne]

So what's your point? That I have to create matter from thin air? We know how leaves are formed. There is no supernatural force involved.

My point is that understanding how a leaf grows from a seed doesn’t explain the origin of the intricate information system within the seed. Saying 'we know how leaves are formed' is like saying you understand how a 3D printer works, but ignoring where the software, design, and engineering behind it came from. Complex, information-rich systems don’t arise by accident, and pretending they do isn’t science, it’s blind faith in materialism.

If they are predicted to exist, and then found when and where there were predicted (as the Tiktaalik was), that's very strong evidence.

Finding a fossil where you expected it doesn’t prove the assumption of common ancestry, it just shows you’re good at predicting where sedimentary layers might preserve certain types of organisms. Tiktaalik is often called a 'transitional form,' but it’s still a fully formed creature with no clear, testable steps before or after it. Labelling it a transition is an interpretation, not an observation. Similarity and placement aren't the same as proof of descent.

See the ice fish passage above. There is no question whatsoever that it happened.

You keep pointing to the icefish, but again, that’s a loss of function, not a step-by-step gain of new, complex structures. Losing hemoglobin isn’t evidence for how a fish becomes a land-dwelling mammal, or how eyes, wings, or new organs arise from scratch. Devolution is not evolution. I’m still waiting for a detailed, testable explanation of upward transformation, not adaptation through loss.

The force can be observed and measured, but can you explain the mechanism behind it?

If not, then how can you be sure it's not supernatural?

We can measure and predict gravity’s effects precisely, even without fully understanding its mechanism yet, that’s real, testable science. But gravity consistently follows natural laws and is observable in real time.
Supernatural claims, on the other hand, are unfalsifiable and lack testable evidence. The difference is between exploring a natural phenomenon through evidence versus invoking an untestable explanation to fill gaps in understanding.

Nobody has seen a star live its entire lifetime of billions of years, but we've seen all the steps along the way and made correct predictions about what happens, so we have pretty strong evidence that our understanding of stars (and the Big Bang) is in the ballpark.

We make predictions about what we find, and those findings are consistent with the theory of evolution.

Observing star lifecycles through indirect evidence and predictions is different from claiming we understand the origin of complex life through evolution. With stars, we can observe physical processes unfolding over human timescales, like star formation in nebulae, and test those observations repeatedly.
Evolutionary theory relies heavily on interpreting ancient history without direct observation or repeatable experiments, making its claims far less certain. Consistent predictions about fossils or genetics are interpretations, not direct evidence of molecules-to-man evolution.

It's not blind faith when there is strong evidence.

Calling it 'strong evidence' doesn’t make it so. Interpreting data through an evolutionary lens isn’t the same as observing molecules becoming men. Real science involves observation and repeatability. Evolution relies on assumptions about the unobservable past. That’s not evidence-based confidence; that’s faith in a framework. You may call it science, but it still rests on belief.

 

[BCP1928]

Complex, information-rich systems don’t arise by accident, and pretending they do isn’t science, it’s blind faith in materialism.

But they can arise through random variation and selection, which can be demonstrated mathematically

 

[NxNW]

Yes, well, the scientists who came up with those calculations really know what they're talking about, having observed the eye evolve from a single light-sensitive cell.

You seem to be incredibly gullible when it comes to science. Think about purchasing a BS-detector.

If you read it, it's a very pessimistic calculation. It likely happened faster.