Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Fervent · 2025-07-04T00:13:28-0500

1Tonne said:
Both you and I know that you have a naturalist slant when it comes to science. You just do not want to admit it. Because if you do, then you are admitting that you are putting your slant on the results.

You're confusing two distinct things with statements like this. Science, by its very nature, is "naturalist"...but that doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, as "naturalism" in regards to science is about the epistemic approach and is not, in any way, opposed to theistic belief directly. It is simply a commitment to limiting the scope of inquiry to models that don't introduce questions that cannot be answered via observation and hypothesis testing. So anyone committed to science is going to be committed to naturalism in that sense, but it has nothing to do with whether or not God exists or ontological naturalism. It's not about "putting (a) slant on the results" it's about keeping the scope of inquiry to questions amenable to the kinds of tools that science has available to it.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T01:53:13-0500

1Tonne said:
I get that science is ongoing and technical, but if a claim is so complex it can’t be explained without 50 pages of jargon, then it’s not useful in a conversation like this. If you can’t summarize the core argument or evidence clearly, maybe it’s not as settled as you think. Also, the Bible isn’t “just a bunch of stories”, it makes testable claims about origins, morality, and truth. Science and Scripture both deserve serious thought, not dismissive comparisons.

That might be because by and large science is really technical and to argue against it, you need a serious understanding of science that cannot really be condensed down to simple summaries.

And yes, the Bible is a collection of stories, not "just a bunch of stories" (don't put words in my mouth), because that's what it is, and no, the Bible can't make testable claims about morality and truth since that's not how philosophy works and it certainly doesn't make testable claims about origins, otherwise the Bible would be used in science and history classes across the world. But it isn't.

Both science and Scripture do deserve serious thought but they are not comparable with each other in the slightest.

Fervent · 2025-07-04T01:59:04-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Both science and Scripture do deserve serious thought but they are not comparable with each other in the slightest.

And certain groups would rather mangle both to fit an overly simplistic and rigid view of the world. Both are challenging to the serious student, though in different ways.

Though he does have one thing right, the science isn't "settled" since science is never settled and is always open to revision.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T02:28:24-0500

Fervent said:
And certain groups would rather mangle both to fit an overly simplistic and rigid view of the world. Both are challenging to the serious student, though in different ways.

Though he does have one thing right, the science isn't "settled" since science is never settled and is always open to revision.

Though he is coming at it from the wrong angle. Just because something should be able to be explained in simple terms does not mean it's capable of doing so, nor does it mean that it's not... let's use the term settled for now.

The inability for someone to understand something clearly does not mean that it's not sound science.

AV1611VET · 2025-07-04T02:44:48-0500

Mountainmike said:
My detractors contend that there is a pathway to life via abiogenesis after which Darwinian process arrived at present life by more or less known route, instead of the REALITY as I have often said, that the void between the most complex non living structures we know to the simplest cell we know which is horrendously complex, is a vast unbridgeable chasm , and that there is not even conjecture that fills the gap.

They bridge that gap with a leap of faith.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T03:12:56-0500

AV1611VET said:
They bridge that gap with a leap of faith.

They really don't.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T03:13:56-0500

1Tonne said:
To be honest, I’m getting bored of this conversation. I’ve asked for clear, direct evidence, and instead keep getting long papers, deflections, and assumptions treated as facts. If this is the best evolution has to offer, it’s no wonder so many people remain unconvinced.

I really want to ask: what is your understanding of science at, specifically biology? High school, college level, university?

1Tonne · 2025-07-04T04:01:14-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I really want to ask: what is your understanding of science at, specifically biology? High school, college level, university?

I will not answer that. See, if I said I had higher education in biology than most here, then that would be an arrogant argument from authority. So, "I know more than you, and so you should listen to me". I wouldn’t want to do that.
If I said I had less formal education, yet I’m still pointing out problems like irreducible complexity, and asking for clear, step-by-step evolutionary pathways where every stage is functional and advantageous, and those questions remain unanswered by people with degrees, then, that would be embarrassing those who claim to have degrees in this field.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T04:24:46-0500

1Tonne said:
I will not answer that. See, if I said I had higher education in biology than most here, then that would be an arrogant argument from authority. So, "I know more than you, and so you should listen to me". I wouldn’t want to do that.
If I said I had less formal education, yet I’m still pointing out problems like irreducible complexity, and asking for clear, step-by-step evolutionary pathways where every stage is functional and advantageous, and those questions remain unanswered by people with degrees, then, that would be embarrassing those who claim to have degrees in this field.

No, what's embarrassing is that you're refusing to answer a simple question and yet you're acting from a position of self-subscribed superiority.

And again, you're not 'pointing out', you're just making claims.

Larniavc · 2025-07-04T04:26:19-0500

HBP said:
just kind of go all goofy when it comes to ID?

Yes.

Larniavc · 2025-07-04T04:26:53-0500

HBP said:
Their religious beliefs override their critical-thinking skills and they can't recognize bogus pseudoscience when they're swimming in it? Is that plausible?

Very.

AV1611VET · 2025-07-04T05:01:38-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
They really don't.

What do they bridge it with then?

(Please be specific, because all I ever hear is: "We don't know yet," and I'm getting tired of people telling me what things are not, without telling me what they are.)

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T05:11:43-0500

AV1611VET said:
What do they bridge it with then?

(Please be specific, because all I ever hear is: "We don't know yet," and I'm getting tired of people telling me what things are not, without telling me what they are.)

Saying "We don't know yet" is a perfectly legitimate, serious and truthful answer.

1Tonne · 2025-07-04T05:20:05-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, what's embarrassing is that you're refusing to answer a simple question and yet you're acting from a position of self-subscribed superiority.

Please show me where I claimed authority/superiority. Include a quote, please.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T05:35:23-0500

1Tonne said:
Please show me where I claimed authority/superiority. Include a quote, please.

Post #768:

1Tonne said:
If I said I had less formal education, yet I’m still pointing out problems like irreducible complexity, and asking for clear, step-by-step evolutionary pathways where every stage is functional and advantageous, and those questions remain unanswered by people with degrees, then, that would be embarrassing those who claim to have degrees in this field.

I am sorry but I can't see how you making those claims, which have been addressed in the thread and ignored by you because they're 'too technical', isn't self-subscribed superiority.

sjastro · 2025-07-04T05:51:53-0500

The progress of evolution from a hypothesis to a theory is the evolution of tests and observations which support it.

Time Period	Type of Test or Evidence	Key Discoveries / Examples	Significance to Evolution
1850s	Comparative Anatomy	Homologous structures (e.g., forelimbs in mammals)	Early evidence for common ancestry among species
1859	Naturalistic Observation	Darwin’s observations of finches, tortoises in Galápagos	Led to Darwin’s theory of natural selection
1860s–1900s	Paleontology (Fossil Record)	Transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx	Showed evolutionary transitions (e.g., reptile to bird)
1900s	Mendelian Genetics	Rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work on inheritance	Provided a mechanism for trait inheritance
1910s–1930s	Population Genetics	Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; mutation studies	Unified Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics ("Modern Synthesis")
1953	Molecular Biology (DNA Discovery)	Watson & Crick's DNA double helix	Revealed molecular basis of inheritance
1960s	Protein Sequencing	Comparing hemoglobin and cytochrome c across species	Showed molecular homology, reinforcing common descent
1970s	Radiometric Dating	Dating of fossils and rocks (e.g., carbon-14, uranium-lead)	Established timeline for evolutionary history
1970s	Cladistics and Phylogenetics	Tree-based evolutionary relationships using morphological and molecular data	Helped construct evolutionary trees and assess lineage divergence
1980s	DNA Hybridization	Measuring similarity between DNA of different species	Quantified genetic distances, supporting shared ancestry
1990s	Ancient DNA & PCR	Extraction of DNA from Neanderthals and extinct species	Allowed direct comparison between extinct and extant genomes
2001–present	Whole Genome Sequencing	Human genome vs. chimpanzee, mouse, and others	High-resolution view of shared genes and regulatory elements
2000s–present	Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Development)	Hox gene studies across animals	Shows how small genetic changes in development can produce large morphological shifts
2010s–present	CRISPR & Functional Genomics	Gene editing and expression testing	Allows direct testing of evolutionary hypotheses (e.g., gene function and selection)
Ongoing	Experimental Evolution	Lenski’s long-term E. coli experiment (1988–present)	Observes evolution in real time, including emergence of new traits under selection
Ongoing	Comparative Epigenomics	Differences in gene expression across species	Reveals how gene regulation, not just gene content, evolves

1Tonne · 2025-07-04T05:54:28-0500

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Post #768:

Where in it am I claiming superiority? I said that I would not tell you my background. If I did, then I could then claim superiority if I had a higher education. But I did not do that.
On the other side of the coin, if I have a lower education and am still making holes in your viewpoint, then this is not a claim to superiority; it is a claim that your arguments are weak.
So, this is not attacking you at all. It is attacking your theory and finding big unanswered holes.

Warden_of_the_Storm · 2025-07-04T05:59:41-0500

1Tonne said:
Where in it am I claiming superiority? I said that I would not tell you my background. If I did, then I could then claim superiority if I had a higher education. But I did not do that.
On the other side of the coin, if I have a lower education and am still making holes in your viewpoint, then this is not a claim to superiority; it is a claim that your arguments are weak.
So, this is not attacking you at all. It is attacking your theory and finding big unanswered holes.

The part I quoted, the bit after where I said post #768, which I'll even quote again to show what I mean:
"If I said I had less formal education, yet I’m still pointing out problems like irreducible complexity, and asking for clear, step-by-step evolutionary pathways where every stage is functional and advantageous, and those questions remain unanswered by people with degrees, then, that would be embarrassing those who claim to have degrees in this field."

That fully comes across as being self-subscribed superiority because the 'unanswered holes' you claim to exist have been answered in the thread but ignored by you.

I never said anything about you attacking me, which again is you putting words in my mouth, nor are you even attacking the theory of evolution. You're just making claims and ignoring what you are being told because the science is 'too technical' for you.

1Tonne · 2025-07-04T06:35:23-0500

sjastro said:
The progress of evolution from a hypothesis to a theory is the evolution of tests and observations which support it.

Time Period Type of Test or Evidence Key Discoveries / Examples Significance to Evolution
1850s Comparative Anatomy Homologous structures (e.g., forelimbs in mammals) Early evidence for common ancestry among species
1859 Naturalistic Observation Darwin’s observations of finches, tortoises in Galápagos Led to Darwin’s theory of natural selection
1860s–1900s Paleontology (Fossil Record) Transitional fossils like Archaeopteryx Showed evolutionary transitions (e.g., reptile to bird)
1900s Mendelian Genetics Rediscovery of Gregor Mendel's work on inheritance Provided a mechanism for trait inheritance
1910s–1930s Population Genetics Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; mutation studies Unified Darwinian evolution with Mendelian genetics ("Modern Synthesis")
1953 Molecular Biology (DNA Discovery) Watson & Crick's DNA double helix Revealed molecular basis of inheritance
1960s Protein Sequencing Comparing hemoglobin and cytochrome c across species Showed molecular homology, reinforcing common descent
1970s Radiometric Dating Dating of fossils and rocks (e.g., carbon-14, uranium-lead) Established timeline for evolutionary history
1970s Cladistics and Phylogenetics Tree-based evolutionary relationships using morphological and molecular data Helped construct evolutionary trees and assess lineage divergence
1980s DNA Hybridization Measuring similarity between DNA of different species Quantified genetic distances, supporting shared ancestry
1990s Ancient DNA & PCR Extraction of DNA from Neanderthals and extinct species Allowed direct comparison between extinct and extant genomes
2001–present Whole Genome Sequencing Human genome vs. chimpanzee, mouse, and others High-resolution view of shared genes and regulatory elements
2000s–present Evo-Devo (Evolutionary Development) Hox gene studies across animals Shows how small genetic changes in development can produce large morphological shifts
2010s–present CRISPR & Functional Genomics Gene editing and expression testing Allows direct testing of evolutionary hypotheses (e.g., gene function and selection)
Ongoing Experimental Evolution Lenski’s long-term E. coli experiment (1988–present) Observes evolution in real time, including emergence of new traits under selection
Ongoing Comparative Epigenomics Differences in gene expression across species Reveals how gene regulation, not just gene content, evolves

This chart is a nice historical overview of how tools and observations in biology have advanced, but it doesn’t actually demonstrate Darwinian evolution. It shows how evidence is interpreted through the assumption of naturalism and common ancestry. But major challenges, like the origin of new information, irreducibly complex systems, and massive gaps in the fossil record, remain unaddressed. Listing more tools and observations doesn’t solve those problems.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
You're just making claims and ignoring what you are being told because the science is 'too technical' for you.

I have not ignored. I have engaged you, and you have not given answers. Please show me clear, step-by-step evolutionary pathways where every stage is functional and advantageous.
If you do not show me, then it is not I who am ignoring, but you. (I know your answer to this. "But I have shown you". Though each time you have shown me no clear, step-by-step evolutionary pathways where every stage is functional and advantageous.)

AV1611VET · 2025-07-04T07:48:35-0500

AV1611VET said:
What do they bridge it with then?

(Please be specific, because all I ever hear is: "We don't know yet," and I'm getting tired of people telling me what things are not, without telling me what they are.)

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Saying "We don't know yet" is a perfectly legitimate, serious and truthful answer.

Thanks for the QED.

I'll take it with a grain of salt then, when I hear what creationism is not.

If academia wants to claim "that's not the way God did it," they'd sure better have something else to replace it with that doesn't contradict the Scriptures.

Darwinian evolution - still a theory in crisis.

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

I’m the best.

I’m the best.

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

SCIENCE CAN TAKE A HIKE

Similar threads