Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

mindlight said:
This comment was devoid of content. You read like a snarky fan girl defending her team with ad hominem and fallacious dribble.

There are no facts to prove ToE. The scientific methodology runs it course in proving adaptation. The rest is joining the dots into an impressive model built on probabilities and assumptions.

Of course to admit this opens up all sorts of unpleasant questions. If science cannot explain origins what can? If Darwin was false to speculate in this manner what drove him and indeed you over that precipice to a faith in science that was not scientific. Why idolise something that cannot save, that offers no redemption from sins it does not accuse you of? Something which if true may excuse those sins and make any feelings of guilty pathos irrelevant.

And yet there is no reason to question why evolution cannot be used to explain macro-evolution. No-one has ever put out a good enough reason to.

You're asking questions that the theory of evolution wasn't created to answer. Evolution only explains why life became the forms that we see now and in the fossil record. It was never meant to explain how life began, nor will it ever explain how life began. It does not need to explain creation. And your attempts to turn it into a religious question are spurious and transparent.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
I have been following this thread for some time, but I’m still a little confused. Darwin’s micro-evolution seems to answer many questions about adaptation, but his macro-evolution is just speculation without evidence. The confusing part is The Theory of Everything. As far as I can tell, it is a whole host of very elegant mathematical attempts to reconcile general relativity and quantum mechanics that either don’t work or can’t be proven. They are useful in writing academic papers, getting published and retaining research grants, which I’m not against within limits. I understand that emergent laws might be used to explain macro-evolution, but it seems to be at the stage of hypothesis and not a refined theory. Do I understand this correctly?

No, you don't.
The theory of everything is speculative hypothesis in physics that physicists think they can come to. It has no bearing on evolution at this time since it's not even an actual theory. Macro-evolution, the change from one form of species to another, is what we see in the fossil record, since we see primitive fish evolving into primitive reptiles, we see primitive reptiles evolving into the various forms of other reptiles and mammals that we see.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
No, you don't.
The theory of everything is speculative hypothesis in physics that physicists think they can come to. It has no bearing on evolution at this time since it's not even an actual theory. Macro-evolution, the change from one form of species to another, is what we see in the fossil record, since we see primitive fish evolving into primitive reptiles, we see primitive reptiles evolving into the various forms of other reptiles and mammals that we see.

We agree on two things: The theory of everything is merely hypothesis, and micro-evolution is useful. The evidence I have read about for macro-evolution is still pretty speculative, much like creating whole stories about items found in archeology. For example, they find something and don’t know what it is, so they say it is probably ritualistic. There is nothing wrong with speculating, because it helps find truth. Phylogenetics seems the best bet for proving macro-evolution, but it could still be a kind of pareidolia with massive numbers of ways to interpret a massive amount of seemingly unconnected data. The logical flaw seems to be that if the same amino acids are found in two species, then they must be related. The same argument can be made for all organic compounds. The argument can also turn the other way: My car and a battleship are made of the same things with some of the same processes; therefore, similar beings designed both. Maybe super computers will help, but macro-evolution is still just a theory.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
We agree on two things: The theory of everything is merely hypothesis, and micro-evolution is useful. The evidence I have read about for macro-evolution is still pretty speculative, much like creating whole stories about items found in archeology. For example, they find something and don’t know what it is, so they say it is probably ritualistic. There is nothing wrong with speculating, because it helps find truth. Phylogenetics seems the best bet for proving macro-evolution, but it could still be a kind of pareidolia with massive numbers of ways to interpret a massive amount of seemingly unconnected data. The logical flaw seems to be that if the same amino acids are found in two species, then they must be related. The same argument can be made for all organic compounds. The argument can also turn the other way: My car and a battleship are made of the same things with some of the same processes; therefore, similar beings designed both. Maybe super computers will help, but macro-evolution is still just a theory.

Your argument really is just you throwing words around and trying to make things stick.

Okay, first off: you need to understand that in science, a theory means that something is incredibly well supported by every bit of evidence going for it. Hence why it's called the theory of evolution, nuclear theory, germ theory, etc.

Secondly, as I said, we have evidence of macro-evolution, the changing of species from one type to another. It's clear as day in the fossil record. As I said: Macro-evolution, the change from one form of species to another, is what we see in the fossil record, since we see primitive fish evolving into primitive reptiles, we see primitive reptiles evolving into the various forms of other reptiles and mammals that we see.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Your argument really is just you throwing words around and trying to make things stick.

Okay, first off: you need to understand that in science, a theory means that something is incredibly well supported by every bit of evidence going for it. Hence why it's called the theory of evolution, nuclear theory, germ theory, etc.

Secondly, as I said, we have evidence of macro-evolution, the changing of species from one type to another. It's clear as day in the fossil record. As I said: Macro-evolution, the change from one form of species to another, is what we see in the fossil record, since we see primitive fish evolving into primitive reptiles, we see primitive reptiles evolving into the various forms of other reptiles and mammals that we see.

I fully understand what scientific theory means. Your stating that my “throwing words around and trying to make things stick” is just a rude way of belittling me and inflating your own ego. This is a Christian forum, and a little more politeness is expected. You used the phrase “we see” four times in your reply, and I’m just saying that you might be seeing what you want to see and not what is really there. It used to be a fact that one could see evolution in the development of an embryo. Everyone said they could see it, but they have been proven wrong.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
I fully understand what scientific theory means. Your stating that my “throwing words around and trying to make things stick” is just a rude way of belittling me and inflating your own ego. This is a Christian forum, and a little more politeness is expected. You used the phrase “we see” four times in your reply, and I’m just saying that you might be seeing what you want to see and not what is really there. It used to be a fact that one could see evolution in the development of an embryo. Everyone said they could see it, but they have been proven wrong.

If you do, then why did you say that 'macro-evolution is just a theory'? Kind of seems like you're admitting it's fact. And you were throwing words around though. Amino acids are found in every thing that has DNA, so of course they're going to be found in things. It's not the amino acids themselves but the patterns and makeup the amino acids are found in that tell us that macro-evolution is a thing.

The conflation of Haeckle's drawings of embryos with the stages of comparative evolution might have been proven to not be 100% correct, but they are still fundamentally correct. But it's a good thing that we don't deal with only one singular line of evidence in science. Macro-evolution, or speciation as it's more accurately called, is a real thing.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
If you do, then why did you say that 'macro-evolution is just a theory'? Kind of seems like you're admitting it's fact. And you were throwing words around though. Amino acids are found in every thing that has DNA, so of course they're going to be found in things. It's not the amino acids themselves but the patterns and makeup the amino acids are found in that tell us that macro-evolution is a thing.

The conflation of Haeckle's drawings of embryos with the stages of comparative evolution might have been proven to not be 100% correct, but they are still fundamentally correct. But it's a good thing that we don't deal with only one singular line of evidence in science. Macro-evolution, or speciation as it's more accurately called, is a real thing.

Phylogenetics is looking for patterns of amino acids, but the patterns are fragmented and seemingly disorganized. I was just wondering if they are seeing patterns that are not there. There are several scientists who question their found patterns, admittedly they are mostly creationists, but scientists just the same. All vertebrate have four limbs (maybe a tail), which is a pattern, but it doesn’t follow that they are all decedents of one prototype. Simply moving the argument to the microscopic scale doesn’t make it more valid or less valid.

Haeckle's drawings merely illustrate that people see what they want to see and Haeckle helped them along a little. I have no problem with macro-evolution being a theory, but I don't have to accept it as fact. It is not even in the same category as math and physics theories. It is much closer to theories in social sciences.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
Phylogenetics is looking for patterns of amino acids, but the patterns are fragmented and seemingly disorganized. I was just wondering if they are seeing patterns that are not there. There are several scientists who question their found patterns, admittedly they are mostly creationists, but scientists just the same. All vertebrate have four limbs (maybe a tail), which is a pattern, but it doesn’t follow that they are all decedents of one prototype. Simply moving the argument to the microscopic scale doesn’t make it more valid or less valid.

Haeckle's drawings merely illustrate that people see what they want to see and Haeckle helped them along a little. I have no problem with macro-evolution being a theory, but I don't have to accept it as fact. It is not even in the same category as math and physics theories. It is much closer to theories in social sciences.

Nope. Scratch that. Fell into the old blunder. Theories explain facts, they are not facts in of themselves.

But a theory explains the facts. So your commentary doesn't make sense.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Nope. Scratch that. Fell into the old blunder. Theories explain facts, they are not facts in of themselves.

But a theory explains the facts. So your commentary doesn't make sense.

You think that I don't make sense because you are starting with what you think are facts and trying to find a theory to support it. That is only slightly different from forming a theory to explain an observation, but it is not the same thing. You saw a fish turn into a frog, and you want to explain it, but it is just a theory until you can reproduce the process reliably. If I see meat producing maggots, I start with a very functional theory that meat makes maggots. Only reproducing the process under scientific conditions proves it wrong.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
You think that I don't make sense because you are starting with what you think are facts and trying to find a theory to support it. That is only slightly different from forming a theory to explain an observation, but it is not the same thing. You saw a fish turn into a frog, and you want to explain it, but it is just a theory until you can reproduce the process reliably. If I see meat producing maggots, I start with a very functional theory that meat makes maggots. Only reproducing the process under scientific conditions proves it wrong.

Comments like this do not lead me to believe that you want to have a serious discussion.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Comments like this do not lead me to believe that you want to have a serious discussion.

I am being a little lighthearted to keep things civil, but the example of the meat and the maggots was a real situation with real scientific experiments, and it was a beginning of scientific method.

Scientific theories are in a spectrum with Newton's law of gravitation on one end and various theories emotional intelligence at the other, with macro-evolutionary theories somewhere in the middle. Deductive theories with experimentation have more reliability than inductive theories of observation, and theories of evolution are inductive theories of observation, with micro-evolution having more credibility than macro-evolution. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong, but it doesn’t make them facts at this point.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
I am being a little lighthearted to keep things civil, but the example of the meat and the maggots was a real situation with real scientific experiments, and it was a beginning of scientific method.

Scientific theories are in a spectrum with Newton's law of gravitation on one end and various theories emotional intelligence at the other, with macro-evolutionary theories somewhere in the middle. Deductive theories with experimentation have more reliability than inductive theories of observation, and theories of evolution are inductive theories of observation, with micro-evolution having more credibility than macro-evolution. That doesn’t mean they are necessarily wrong, but it doesn’t make them facts at this point.

The definition I found of deductive theory is: "Deductive theory is a research approach that involves using deductive reasoning to test hypotheses, confirm or revise existing theories, or verify or challenge existing frameworks" That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. Comments like this show me that you don't understand what a theory means in scientific parlance and it does not lead me to conclude that you fully know what you're talking about.
I am aware of the history of spontaneous generation and how it highlights how a lot more goes on that meets the eyes with the world. So what?

You're right, theories aren't facts. Theories EXPLAIN facts, and the facts show that speciation, macro-evolution is a thing. If there weren't any facts for it, no scientist would have come up with it.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
The definition I found of deductive theory is: "Deductive theory is a research approach that involves using deductive reasoning to test hypotheses, confirm or revise existing theories, or verify or challenge existing frameworks" That's not a theory, that's a hypothesis. Comments like this show me that you don't understand what a theory means in scientific parlance and it does not lead me to conclude that you fully know what you're talking about.
I am aware of the history of spontaneous generation and how it highlights how a lot more goes on that meets the eyes with the world. So what?

You're right, theories aren't facts. Theories EXPLAIN facts, and the facts show that speciation, macro-evolution is a thing. If there weren't any facts for it, no scientist would have come up with it.

Please consider the definition you quoted a little more carefully. It is perfectly correct and not hypothesis. Also consider your statement, "a lot more goes on than meets the eyes with the world" in relation to observations of evolution.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
Please consider the definition you quoted a little more carefully. It is perfectly correct and not hypothesis. Also consider your statement, "a lot more goes on than meets the eyes with the world" in relation to observations of evolution.

"Deductive theory is a research approach that involves using deductive reasoning to test hypotheses, confirm or revise existing theories, or verify or challenge existing frameworks". That does not describe a scientific theory at all. In fact, even typing 'deductive theory' into Google shows that you are talking about is deductive reasoning. So no, not a theory at all, nor even a hypothesis. So again, you clearly show that you don't know what a theory is.

And yes, I am aware of what I said, otherwise I wouldn't have written it. If you want to explain anything about it, it's all yours.

In the end, this is off-topic and does not add anything else to the OP topic which @Joseph G has abandoned and didn't even bother touching on, that no, Darwin was not a fraud and cannot be called a fraud by any definition of the word.

Frank Robert · Nov 17, 2024

mindlight said:
The jump to large-scale evolutionary changes from the evidence for adaptation is speculation. There is no way to verify such a claim with the scientific method. Uniformitarianism and a lack of supernatural intervention cannot be assumed, a naturalistic methodology cannot verify itself. The model can be comprehensive and indeed quite exhaustive in detail and still wrong.

This would not be the first time that scientists have made such bold claims. The scientific consensus at the time of the black death was that planetary alignments caused the plague. Scientists in Europe clung to the Ptolemaic system for many years, which was also able to predict the movement of planets and stars and yet was conceptually flawed. They sounded so convincing that parts of the church even allied themselves with this scientific consensus much as many have done today with evolution. That scientists now think that they are immune from such monumental errors is merely hubris.

They are NOT bold claims. The scientific method confirms that macroevolution is supported by a vast body of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines like paleontology, genetics, comparative anatomy, and molecular biology.

You can easily look up the scientific method and macro evolution for yourself. You are welcome to disagree with the science and call macro evolution "speculation" but the only agreement that you will find that it is speculation is speculation by creationists.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
"Deductive theory is a research approach that involves using deductive reasoning to test hypotheses, confirm or revise existing theories, or verify or challenge existing frameworks". That does not describe a scientific theory at all. In fact, even typing 'deductive theory' into Google shows that you are talking about is deductive reasoning. So no, not a theory at all, nor even a hypothesis. So again, you clearly show that you don't know what a theory is.

And yes, I am aware of what I said, otherwise I wouldn't have written it. If you want to explain anything about it, it's all yours.

In the end, this is off-topic and does not add anything else to the OP topic which @Joseph G has abandoned and didn't even bother touching on, that no, Darwin was not a fraud and cannot be called a fraud by any definition of the word.

I agree that Darwin was not a fraud, because his relatively small group of peers would have known if he was on the Beagle or not. In relation to deductive reasoning to test scientific theories, maybe somebody following this thread can explain it better than I have.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
I agree that Darwin was not a fraud, because his relatively small group of peers would have known if he was on the Beagle or not. In relation to deductive reasoning to test scientific theories, maybe somebody following this thread can explain it better than I have.

If you can't explain it well, why bring it up in the first place?

Tinker Grey · Nov 17, 2024

Tinker's axiom: All axioms are arrived at inductively, including this one.

The heart of deduction is induction.

Frank Robert · Nov 17, 2024

Jerry N. said:
The evidence I have read about for macro-evolution is still pretty speculative, much like creating whole stories about items found in archeology.

You have given us your personal opinion. Everyone is welcome to their personal opinions.

Jerry N. · Nov 17, 2024

Frank Robert said:
You have given us your personal opinion. Everyone is welcome to their personal opinions.

Thank you. I read both sides of the argument, and I lean toward the speculative side. I might be wrong, but there seems to be evidence that the theory is unproven and requires more evidence.

Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Wanderer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency