Evolution is not science

[Split Rock]

More on the evoutionists faith:

''The account of the origin of life that I shall give is necessarily speculative; by definition, nobody was around to see what happened.'' - Richard Dawkins The Selfish Gene (1989) p.14

[On invertebrates] ''And we find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.''
- Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.229

You guys really do see "faith" as some kind of an insult. How sad for a supposed "Christian."

The problem I have with macro-evolution is that it is claimed to be science, yet it is not observable, testable or repeatable. Therefore by definition it is not science.

What do you know about science? Have you ever done any science? Do you do science for a living? Do you really think you can tell scientists what science is and is not?

Note that I am NOT saying creationism is science either - it cannot be observed either. Historical events by definition are one-off and non-scientific, unless there were direct observers. Therefore neither evolution or creation should be taught in science classes - both are a religion.

You want parity you have not earned. That is why you try and drag us down to your level.

My belief in creation comes from my faith in the Bible, the evolutionists faith lies also in non empirical science, what cannot be observed, and atheistic naturalism.

Is that why so many people of widely varying faiths (and those who have none) all accept common descent?

 

[ThinkForYourself]

Sorry, but google searches do not turn up anything to suggest that anything resembling a new KIND of creature has ever been created by experiments with fruit flies. ...

Is there a definitive list of "kinds" published somewhere? Creationists constantly use the term, but I've never seen a complete list published, without which it is a meaningless term.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sorry, but google searches do not turn up anything to suggest that anything resembling a new KIND of creature has ever been created by experiments with fruit flies.

Since there is no working or applicable definition of KIND, it is a meaningless claim.

 

[Loudmouth]

The problem I have with macro-evolution is that it is claimed to be science, yet it is not observable, testable or repeatable.

The problem we have with creationists is that they don't know how the scientific method works.

Macro-evolution is most certainly testable. One of the most oft cited potential falsifications is finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian. Other potential falsifications involve numerous and obvious violations of the nested hierarchy for complex metazoans, such as a fossil with a mammalian skeletal structure and feather impressions. Macro-evolution is testable.

Next, you claim that the theory is not observable or repeatable. This is nonsense. You don't observe a theory. You TEST a theory. For macro-evolution, this means testing the theory against observable and repeatedly measured DNA sequences and fossils. The observable and repeatable requirements in the scientific method refer to the experiments that are used to test the theory, not to the theory itself.

Please try to learn about how science works before lecturing us on it.

Historical events by definition are one-off and non-scientific, unless there were direct observers.

However, historical events can leave evidence that survives into the present, and we can use that evidence to construct hypotheses of what happened in the past, and use that evidence to test those hypotheses. That is entirely scientific.

 

[gungasnake]

Starting from a fruit fly, any of the following being produced would easily satisfy the requirement of a new kind: an ant, a bee, a wasp, a hornet, a butterfly, a moth, a mantis, an aphid, a cockroach, a spider, or basically any of the creatures listed here other than a fruit fly:

A-Z of Insects

The reason all such fruit fly experiments failed is that our entire living world is governed by an information system (DNA/RNA) and the only information there is to be had in a fruit fly, ever, is the information for a fruit fly.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Inventory?

You could not follow my link back to the quotation of you?

Sorry, information, not inventory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Starting from a fruit fly, any of the following being produced would easily satisfy the requirement of a new kind: an ant, a bee, a wasp, a hornet, a butterfly, a moth, a mantis, an aphid, a cockroach, a spider, or basically any of the creatures listed here other than a fruit fly:

A-Z of Insects

The reason all such fruit fly experiments failed is that our entire living world is governed by an information system (DNA/RNA) and the only information there is to be had in a fruit fly, ever, is the information for a fruit fly.

There is a problem with this redefining of "kind" of yours. That is bigger group than the ape group. So according to this definition that you are currently trying to use all apes, including man, are one kind.

This is why you must properly define a word, if you don't it will trip you up.

 

[Loudmouth]

Starting from a fruit fly, any of the following being produced would easily satisfy the requirement of a new kind: an ant, a bee, a wasp, a hornet, a butterfly, a moth, a mantis, an aphid, a cockroach, a spider, or basically any of the creatures listed here other than a fruit fly:

A species does not evolve into an already existing species. What you are proposing would falsify evolution.

Our shared ancestor with chimps was a primate. WE ARE STILL PRIMATES.

Our shared ancestor with bears was a mammal. WE ARE STILL MAMMALS.

Our shared ancestor with fish was a vertebrate. WE ARE STILL VERTEBRATES.

Until you understand how biology and evolution works, you will continue to make a fool of yourself. You always stay within the same classification as your ancestors were in. That is how evolution works. The descendants of fruit flies will always be fruit flies. However, over time the variation of fruit flies will increase just as we see many divergent species of mammals that all sprang from a single species of mammal, and yet still remain mammals.

The reason all such fruit fly experiments failed is that our entire living world is governed by an information system (DNA/RNA) and the only information there is to be had in a fruit fly, ever, is the information for a fruit fly.

Could you actually cite these experiments and show us what the experiments were supposed to be testing? Added to your woeful misunderstanding of how evolution works, you also seem to have some fantasies about scientists trying to evolve birds from fruit flies. Can you show me a single scientific paper where their stated goal was to evolve a new species from fruit flies that was no longer a fruit fly?

 

[Heissonear]

Since there is no working or applicable definition of KIND, it is a meaningless claim.

Of course. Kind after kind means nothing. It is meaningless. There is no working definition. Dare it means what it means, like corn after corn, sheep after sheep, and moose after moose. We cannot except straight word meaning for life forms! We skate past everything!

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course. Kind after kind means nothing. It is meaningless. There is no working definition. Dare it means what it means, like corn after corn, sheep after sheep, and moose after moose. We cannot except straight word meaning for life forms! We skate past everything!

The reason that definition is meaningless is that it supports evolution too.

Chordates always bring forth chordates, vertebrates always bring forth vertebrates, tetrapods always bring forth tetrapods, mammals always bring forth mammals. Simians bring forth simians. Apes bring forth apes and people allways bring forth apes. That does not stop us from being humans, apes, simians, mammals, tetrapads, vertebrates and chordates.

You do not have a definition of "kind" that supports creationism.