Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

Considering that we have genetic and fossil evidence, two pretty massive bits of evidence in of themselves, what more do you need?

 

[Jerry N.]

Considering that we have genetic and fossil evidence, two pretty massive bits of evidence in of themselves, what more do you need?

Reliable and repeatable testing, like they have done with micro-evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Reliable and repeatable testing, like they have done with micro-evolution.

Such a comment makes no sense since macro-evolution, speciation, cannot be directly observed since it happens on a massive time span other many generations of creatures in a population. But what we have observed, in the fossil record and in comparative genetics of extant creatures related to extinct creatures, shows that speciation, aka macro-evolution, has occurred.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to test for evolution.

 

[BCP1928]

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.

Of course, scientific theories are never "proven." They are merely the best explanation of a phenomenon science can come up with at the present time based on existing evidence. In the absence of contrary evidence they will be provisionally accepted. That's the best it gets in science and that is the position of the theory of evolution. There is no contrary evidence and there is no viable alternative theory.

 

[Jerry N.]

Such a comment makes no sense since macro-evolution, speciation, cannot be directly observed since it happens on a massive time span other many generations of creatures in a population. But what we have observed, in the fossil record and in comparative genetics of extant creatures related to extinct creatures, shows that speciation, aka macro-evolution, has occurred.

There is more than one way to skin a cat, and more than one way to test for evolution.

Then make a virus into a protozoa.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Then make a virus into a protozoa.

You mean turn it into something it cannot be, forcing a microbe to become a single-celled organism. I'm just asking to clarify that is what you're asking.

 

[Jerry N.]

Of course, scientific theories are never "proven." They are merely the best explanation of a phenomenon science can come up with at the present time based on existing evidence. In the absence of contrary evidence they will be provisionally accepted. That's the best it gets in science and that is the position of the theory of evolution. There is no contrary evidence and there is no viable alternative theory.

I agree. Science cannot include the Creator increasing energy to overcome entropy and injecting design. It is not in their scope of study.

 

[Jerry N.]

You mean turn it into something it cannot be, forcing a microbe to become a single-celled organism. I'm just asking to clarify that is what you're asking.

How is it different from making a fish into an amphibian, except for time?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

How is it different from making a fish into an amphibian, except for time?

Look up a mudskipper.

 

[Jerry N.]

Look up a mudskipper.

It is still a fish.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

It is still a fish.

Which is amphibious. Under the right selection pressures and with enough time, such animals would have no problem evolving into amphibians proper. Which is what we see in the fossil record.

 

[Jerry N.]

Which is amphibious. Under the right selection pressures and with enough time, such animals would have no problem evolving into amphibians proper. Which is what we see in the fossil record.

Including metamorphosis of the young?

 

[Aaron112]

Is this true, folks?

Simply yes.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Including metamorphosis of the young?

Many fish undergo metamorphosis anyway, especially bony fish, the superclass of fish that mudskippers belong to.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Simply yes.

Simply no, it is not true at all.

 

[Jerry N.]

Many fish undergo metamorphosis anyway, especially bony fish, the superclass of fish that mudskippers belong to.

So when does it go from fish to amphibian?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So when does it go from fish to amphibian?

When it no longer needs gills to take in oxygen and is able to live on land for extended periods of time as well as still being able to live in water. That's the general definition for an amphibian.

 

[Jerry N.]

When it no longer needs gills to take in oxygen and is able to live on land for extended periods of time as well as still being able to live in water. That's the general definition for an amphibian.

Yes, but the mudskipper is still a fish, and bony fish don't do that. So where is the transition?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Yes, but the mudskipper is still a fish, and bony fish don't do that. So where is the transition?

Post #177.

 

[Jerry N.]

Post #177.

That is circular. What is the evidence?