Evidence for macro-evolution

[mindlight]

Untrue.

We have the genetic patterns of extant species and the fossil that demonstrate diversification and macro evolution in a compatible way.

There's also the fact that the entire Ark narrative is completely impossible without extensive miraculous intervention at every level to create the extra genetic diversity, fossils, geologic formations, heat sinks and flat extra plants and animals.

Compatible analogous patterns are not proof however consistently and rationally you weave them into a grand model. Life is a miracle.

 

[Shemjaza]

Compatible analogous patterns are not proof however consistently and rationally you weave them into a grand model. Life is a miracle.

In the colloquial sense, it is absolutely proof. Scientific evidence is consistent and useful.

 

[Astrid]

Creationists do not object to speciation. There were not 20-plus species of Sparrow on the Ark. Type-to-type evolution is what is impossible and unproven.

According to creos. The use of " type" or
" kind" is cute, as neither word means anything.

 

[mindlight]

According to creos. The use of " type" or
" kind" is cute, as neither word means anything.

To whom?

 

[Astrid]

To whom?

You suggested being honrst about methodlogy/ science.

However, your use of fanciful trrms like
" macro evolutionn theory" and , like " kind" or
" type" which have no defined meaning in
biology suggest that you dont know any better,
or are playing some word game.

In either event, your advice about being honest
seems observed only in the breach, by you.

So what are the correct words to have used?

 

[BCP1928]

Compatible analogous patterns are not proof however consistently and rationally you weave them into a grand model. Life is a miracle.

Still looking for "proof" in science? You won't find it.

 

[Astrid]

Still looking for "proof" in science? You won't find it.

But in it we find powerful evidence that those
who speak of proof are scientific illiterates.

On the level of someone saying algebra cant
be math coz it uses letters.

 

[BCP1928]

But in it we find powerful evidence that those
who speak of proof are scientific illiterates.

On the level of someone saying algebra cant
be math coz it uses letters.

In fairness, they are not used to science. Theology proceeds by deductive logic and does provide "proof" in that sense and they are unfamiliar with the inductive logic of science. Moreover, the deductive logic of their theology begins with premises regarded as absolute and objective truth thus bequeathing the same on their theological conclusions. Creationists are often baffled by those of us who would reject the absolute truth of creationism for the mere provisional truth of science.

 

[Astrid]

In fairness, they are not used to science. Theology proceeds by deductive logic and does provide "proof" in that sense and they are unfamiliar with the inductive logic of science. Moreover, the deductive logic of their theology begins with premises regarded as absolute and objective truth thus bequeathing the same on their theological conclusions. Creationists are often baffled by those of us who would reject the absolute truth of creationism for the mere provisional truth of science.

Granted all the above, underlining as it does some pf
the ressons for the illiteracy I referred to.

Another reason is laziness, i suppose.
Study takes work.

So much more satisfactory to just know
more than any scientist on earth, with no
effort at all.

Like magic.

 

[mindlight]

You suggested being honrst about methodlogy/ science.

However, your use of fanciful trrms like
" macro evolutionn theory" and , like " kind" or
" type" which have no defined meaning in
biology suggest that you dont know any better,
or are playing some word game.

In either event, your advice about being honest
seems observed only in the breach, by you.

So what are the correct words to have used?

The biblical language works well enough among many Christians that I hang out with. Since science cannot prove what it says with the scientific method its conclusions are just academic to most of these people regarding origins. I respect science when it brings verifiable results, speculative models like evolution, Big Bang, and abiogenesis are interesting discussion points that have little to do with real life. I do not doubt the passion with which origins scientists use their established vocabulary. No doubt in a hundred years, a new batch of scientists will argue with equal passion with a completely new dictionary to inform them.

 

[mindlight]

Still looking for "proof" in science? You won't find it.

Then it is not science. You can prove the Earth goes round the sun and is broadly spherical. Evolution does not have the same level of certainty at all.

 

[mindlight]

In fairness, they are not used to science. Theology proceeds by deductive logic and does provide "proof" in that sense and they are unfamiliar with the inductive logic of science. Moreover, the deductive logic of their theology begins with premises regarded as absolute and objective truth thus bequeathing the same on their theological conclusions. Creationists are often baffled by those of us who would reject the absolute truth of creationism for the mere provisional truth of science.

There are different ways of understanding things and I fully appreciate the value of the scientific method. What can be empirically proven is a boundary I am not prepared to cross. I will not argue for a flat earth or a geocentric view of our solar system for example because science can demonstrate otherwise.

Theology argues based on different kinds of revealed certainties and within the parameters of doctrine and biblical knowledge.

Historical understanding argues from primary sources and witnesses

Experience is limited to what we know to be true but cannot necessarily demonstrate or argue to others.

Christianity can embrace all these modes of understanding. My argument here in this thread is simply that we have a whole bunch of scientists arguing something that they cannot demonstrate with the scientific method and therefore it is not real science however consistent and plausible the models articulated sound.

 

[BCP1928]

Then it is not science. You can prove the Earth goes round the sun and is broadly spherical. Evolution does not have the same level of certainty at all.

As you wish, but if the theory of evolution is not science then there is no credible explanation of evolution. What are you going to do now? What will you replace it with?

 

[mindlight]

As you wish, but if the theory of evolution is not science then there is no credible explanation of evolution. What are you going to do now? What will you replace it with?

Things change and I can live with uncertainty because I trust in God who oversees the process. I do not need to fill a don't know with made-up explanations. I do need to listen to what can be established, however. Origins science is like gossip about the universe, it fills the space with unsubstantiated rumors.

 

[BCP1928]

Things change and I can live with uncertainty because I trust in God who oversees the process. I do not need to fill a don't know with made-up explanations. I do need to listen to what can be established, however. Origins science is like gossip about the universe, it fills the space with unsubstantiated rumors.

Like what? Why are they worse than the 'unsubstantiated rumors' of creationism?

 

[AV1611VET]

According to creos. The use of " type" or
" kind" is cute, as neither word means anything.

Really?

What's this then?

Genus:

(Latin plural genera), 1550s as a term of logic, "kind or class of things" (biological sense dates from c. 1600), from Latin genus (genitive generis) "race, stock, kind; family, birth, descent, origin"

Source: Online Etymology Dictionary

Genesis 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Want more?

Genus: : a class, kind, or group marked by common characteristics or by one common characteristic

Source: Merriam-Webster Dictionary


A genus is a class of similar things, especially a group of animals or plants that includes several closely related species.
[technical]

Synonyms: type, sort, kind, group More Synonyms of genus

Source: Collins Dictionary

Let me guess:

Dictionaries can take a hike now, can't they?

 

[AV1611VET]

However, your use of fanciful terms like "macro evolution theory" and, like "kind" or "type" which have no defined meaning in biology suggest that you don't know any better, or are playing some word game.

-- Solid aurum.

 

[AV1611VET]

Still looking for "proof" in science? You won't find it.

Won't find what? the proof, or the science?

I'll agree with both.

(Unless, of course, they're made up.)

 

[AV1611VET]

As you wish, but if the theory of evolution is not science then there is no credible explanation of evolution. What are you going to do now? What will you replace it with?

Creation.

 

[driewerf]

Maybe we should first start by being honest about the methodology here.

Excellent suggestion. I am all in.

Science can observe fossils and geological layers.

Ouch. We just decided that we would be honest. And this is already a bad start. Science can observe much more. It can observe patterns of similarities and differences in genetics, anatomy, in geographical distribution. It can observe changes in genotype and phenotype happening in real time between different generations. It can unravel metabolic pathways. It can even set up controlled experiments. So it can do much more than what you suggest.

It can hypothesize on connections between these observed facts and come up with grand theories like those of common ancestry and evolution as a mechanism by which life develops over time.

And test these hypotheses. You forgot that science tests it's hypotheses. Again, I see a deviation from the previously suggestion to be honest.

We can observe generation-to-generation micro-evolutionary changes but no genus-to-genus change has ever been demonstrably proven using the scientific method. It cannot be because we cannot wait thousands of years in a controlled experiment to see the start and end of the experiment.

And we can see the result of these changes. We see species appear in geological layers that were complete absent from older layers. Unless we are going to postulate a perpetual creation (this as been suggested b biologists in the 19th century), there is no other conclusion possible than that these "new" species evolved from older ones. And these "new" species fit in the pattern of similarities and differences with the older species to confirm the ToE.

Since the scientific method cannot demonstrate macro-evolution then this is not a scientific discussion but rather one of my model versus your model. You may well consider your model more credible than mine but you cannot prove that credibility.

As is nearly all science. A clash of models. That is why in chemistry the phlogiston model has been abandoned for oxygen. That is why we now recognize benzene as a structure of resonating Pi orbitals instead of this structure:

That is why the Steady State model got abandoned for the Big Bang model, because the empirical evidence fitted better. That is how plate tectonics got adopted, why classical mechanics got replaced by General relativity, etc.
Because some models fit the empirical evidence better than others.

There is evidence and then there is the Theory of Macro-Evolution but the evidence cannot be used scientifically to prove Macro-Evolution because the time spans involved rule that out.

Good. Evidence and theory are two different things. And all the evidence support the ToE.