Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is circular. What is the evidence?

Do you know how to use Google? Use that to search for your answers.

 

[Jerry N.]

Do you know how to use Google? Use that to search for your answers.

I'll look it up, but why can't scientist reduplicate it in a lab with simple single celled creatures?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'll look it up, but why can't scientist reduplicate it in a lab with simple single celled creatures?

Because, as I said in post #163: macro-evolution, speciation, cannot be directly observed since it happens on a massive time span other many generations of creatures in a population.

But an even better question is: even if they did do as you suggest, showing macro-evolution, would you accept it as evidence of such?

 

[BCP1928]

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

Right, because there is no evidence of either one.

 

[dlamberth]

One of these days you , warden and others will take an interest in the science not scientism

If ever you do you will discover there is no single “ theory of evolution” , which is an atheist myth,

For this Lover of God, it is through evolution that God Creates life forms.

You can’t because it “ the theory of evolutin” doesn’t exist. It never has,

One Truth found in this Creation is "change". There is absolutely nothing in this physical existence that does not change. The earth evolves, the stars, the universe, the cosmos, it all changes and evolves over time. That includes all Life Forms.

I seemingly know more than most of you!

This statement speaks volumes.

 

[BCP1928]

Then make a virus into a protozoa.

It's not clear what it is that you would be testing, or what natural process that would be analogous to.

 

[Jerry N.]

Because, as I said in post #163: macro-evolution, speciation, cannot be directly observed since it happens on a massive time span other many generations of creatures in a population.

But an even better question is: even if they did do as you suggest, showing macro-evolution, would you accept it as evidence of such?

I have to wait and see.

 

[Jerry N.]

Right, because there is no evidence of either one.

I assume you mean no scientific evidence that can be tested.

 

[Jerry N.]

It's not clear what it is that you would be testing, or what natural process that would be analogous to.

Macro-evolution.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I have to wait and see.

Entirely fair and honest answer.

 

[Shemjaza]

I assume you mean no scientific evidence that can be tested.

Genetic comparisons can be tested.

The same principles for examining patterns of genetic similarity that let you infer paternity and family trees can be applied to separate extant species. This has been repeated for large and small scale variation.

Common ancestry and evolution would have to create a nested hierarchy, where as there is no reason for common design to create this pattern and even Lamarckian evolution or Lysenkoism would likely not have the same kind of remnants we find consistent with conventional evolution.

 

[Jerry N.]

Genetic comparisons can be tested.

The same principles for examining patterns of genetic similarity that let you infer paternity and family trees can be applied to separate extant species. This has been repeated for large and small scale variation.

Common ancestry and evolution would have to create a nested hierarchy, where as there is no reason for common design to create this pattern and even Lamarckian evolution or Lysenkoism would likely not have the same kind of remnants we find consistent with conventional evolution.

BCP1928 seemed to be questioning God’s intervention in evolution, and I was simply affirming that he could only say that God’s intervention could not be proven with scientific testing. However, testing for macro-evolution has been a frequent topic in this thread, and I have to look into what you are saying a little more closely. Thank you.

 

[Shemjaza]

BCP1928 seemed to be questioning God’s intervention in evolution, and I was simply affirming that he could only say that God’s intervention could not be proven with scientific testing. However, testing for macro-evolution has been a frequent topic in this thread, and I have to look into what you are saying a little more closely. Thank you.

It's important to remember that the reason God's intervention isn't scientific isn't that an omnipotent God couldn't make the world the way it is... it's that it could be the explanation for literally anything, so it's impossible to test.

 

[Jerry N.]

Genetic comparisons can be tested.

The same principles for examining patterns of genetic similarity that let you infer paternity and family trees can be applied to separate extant species. This has been repeated for large and small scale variation.

Common ancestry and evolution would have to create a nested hierarchy, where as there is no reason for common design to create this pattern and even Lamarckian evolution or Lysenkoism would likely not have the same kind of remnants we find consistent with conventional evolution.

The existence of my family tree is a reasonable assumption. The existence or the shape of the phylogenetic tree seems more questionable. It fits the purposes of taxonomy fairly well, but it being proof of macro-evolution has been questioned. It certainly adds evidence, but there are many organisms that don’t fit the pattern, and some scientists question whether the assumption of the tree, being more than a handy tool, is valid. (Assume the tree - fit the data to the assumed tree - say that it is macro-evolutionary evidence.) I am not sure that I fully understood your statement. My understanding of Lamarckian evolution is poor, but I can see that it has shortcomings. Lysenkoism is still a bit of a mystery. Nested hierarchy seems simple. Maybe you can make your statement a little clearer for me.

 

[Jerry N.]

It's important to remember that the reason God's intervention isn't scientific isn't that an omnipotent God couldn't make the world the way it is... it's that it could be the explanation for literally anything, so it's impossible to test.

That is a very nice way to put it. My idea was that scientists could never measure God's input, since there is no earthly tool to do that. We can see it if we have faith, but it can't be quantified.

 

[BCP1928]

Macro-evolution.

Then you will need to define the term as to whether it includes speciation or not. You will also need to pick a new starting subject, as viruses are not considered to be living creatures and do not replicate in such a way as to be able to evolve in the sense that we are discussing here.

 

[BCP1928]

BCP1928 seemed to be questioning God’s intervention in evolution, and I was simply affirming that he could only say that God’s intervention could not be proven with scientific testing. However, testing for macro-evolution has been a frequent topic in this thread, and I have to look into what you are saying a little more closely. Thank you.

Not quite. What I was saying was that God's intervention (if any) need not be testable. It is an important point to make with creationists, that a fully explanatory naturalistic theory of evolution does not deny God's creative authorship of our being.

 

[Jerry N.]

Then you will need to define the term as to whether it includes speciation or not. You will also need to pick a new starting subject, as viruses are not considered to be living creatures and do not replicate in such a way as to be able to evolve in the sense that we are discussing here.

Whether or not viruses are alive is still under debate. Many evolutionists want me to believe that life spontaneously formed from nonliving material. If going from nonliving material to living cells is not macro-evolution, then I am at a lost to know what to call it. I would be glad to learn a better term. Since viruses are “almost living” and single-celled organisms can mutate and reproduce rapidly, I thought evolution from viruses to protozoa was a more rational experiment than fish to amphibians. Maybe a protozoon to flatworm is better. My point was that observations of micro-evolution can be tested in a lab by producing repeated mutations in living organisms, but macro-evolution can only be observed and not tested experimentally, except by similar observations. One can produce dogs in various forms, but one cannot take a dog and turn it into a cat through genetic mutation in a lab. I had the pleasure of seeing a cow that was the result of trying to reproduce an Auroch. Unfortunately, it wasn’t a Auroch, but it did look like one. They just couldn’t bring the genes out of modern cattle DNA, because they are not there anymore.

 

[Jerry N.]

Not quite. What I was saying was that God's intervention (if any) need not be testable. It is an important point to make with creationists, that a fully explanatory naturalistic theory of evolution does not deny God's creative authorship of our being.

I realize that many Christians and Jews believe in both evolution and God’s creation, but I haven’t seen a scientific theory of evolution that includes God. At best, they say God started the process and walked away. Maybe I missed something.

 

[BCP1928]

Whether or not viruses are alive is still under debate. Many evolutionists want me to believe that life spontaneously formed from nonliving material. If going from nonliving material to living cells is not macro-evolution, then I am at a lost to know what to call it. I would be glad to learn a better term.

It is generally called abiogenesis, a field of study distinct from evolutionary biology.

Since viruses are “almost living” and single-celled organisms can mutate and reproduce rapidly, I thought evolution from viruses to protozoa was a more rational experiment than fish to amphibians. Maybe a protozoon to flatworm is better. My point was that observations of micro-evolution can be tested in a lab by producing repeated mutations in living organisms, but macro-evolution can only be observed and not tested experimentally, except by similar observations. One can produce dogs in various forms, but one cannot take a dog and turn it into a cat through genetic mutation in a lab.

That is where the phylogenic tree comes into play. The domestic dog, Canis Familiaris is a member of the family Canidae. The domestic cat, Felis Catus, is a member of the family Felidae. It is a bit fantastical, but not impossible to suppose that some descendants of the domestic dog might evolve or be bred to the point that they resembled the domestic cat in their appearance and behavior, but they could never become members of the family Felidae. Dogs can never become cats. They might become very cat-like, but they can never actually be cats. Another way of thinking about it is this: My great grandfather was German, born in Hamburg. The question is, how many generations of my offspring will have to be born and pass away here in America before my great grandfather stops being German?