Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[BCP1928]

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.

Because the nature of the causality which God employs is of a different order than that which is studied by science.

 

[Jerry N.]

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

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?

The word abiogenesis is a great word, thank you very much. It seems that things on the phylogenic tree can only move in one direction. I can see why emergence is popular among evolutionists. Christians that accept God-inspired evolution would say God's creative power overcomes entropy. Your grandfather will always be German, just as my ancestors were Scythians even further back and always will be. I suppose you are going back to the one-way direction on branches of the phylogenic tree, or am I missing something?

 

[Gene2memE]

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.)

Given that there are formal mathematical tests of phylogenetic relationships, and these mathematical tests show strong concordance with each other and with evidence from molecular genetics, I don't think that there is really much question about the existence of the phylogenetic tree.

There are some questions about the shape of the tree - but those disagreements are comparatively minor and fit well within the established framework of evolutionary biology. It is highly unlikely that any discovery is going to completely re-draw our map of modern phylogenetic relationships. Future discoveries may see some modification to the present day map of lfe, but these will be quite minor.

The further we go back in time, the higher the likelihood that larger changes may occur. This is simply because the reduced volumes of available evidence. So, for example, a section of the phylogenetic tree for dinosaurs underwent a reasonably significant revision in 2015-2017, shifting the relationship distances of dinosaurs, and creating a new large group.

However, nothing in that revision undermines the basic idea that these animals evolved, and continued to evolve for another ~180 million years until their extinction.

 

[Shemjaza]

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.

I think you need to clarify what you mean by "has been questioned".

Something can be questioned or disputed, but the specifics of why and how they dispute it are important.

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.)

Can you describe organisms that don't fit the pattern?

Naturally occurring genetic chimeras would be a significant piece of evidence against evolution.

The patterns of genetic relationships can be objectively mathematically described... they are not merely an assumption.

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.

My point was that the genetic and fossil evidence we have are more consistent with the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory than it is with the other most popular competing explanations.

Lysenkoism was a variation of Lamarckian evolution proposed in the USSR for primarily ideological reasons due to Darwinian evolution being seen as capitalist or fascist. (It was profoundly unsuccessful and led to the starvation of thousands.)

 

[Jerry N.]

I think you need to clarify what you mean by "has been questioned".

Something can be questioned or disputed, but the specifics of why and how they dispute it are important.



Can you describe organisms that don't fit the pattern?

Naturally occurring genetic chimeras would be a significant piece of evidence against evolution.

The patterns of genetic relationships can be objectively mathematically described... they are not merely an assumption.



My point was that the genetic and fossil evidence we have are more consistent with the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory than it is with the other most popular competing explanations.

Lysenkoism was a variation of Lamarckian evolution proposed in the USSR for primarily ideological reasons due to Darwinian evolution being seen as capitalist or fascist. (It was profoundly unsuccessful and led to the starvation of thousands.)

Thank you for your clarification. I read several articles on the phylogenetic tree both supporting and opposing the concept. As you might guess, many of the articles were not scientific on both sides. The following are two articles I found that are supported by other studies: The Scientific Case Against Evolution

And

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.0569

In the first article you will find the following:

“Nevertheless, evolutionists, having largely become disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution because of the ubiquitous gaps where there should be transitions, recently have been promoting DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution. However, as noted above by Roger Lewin, this is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures. Lewin also mentions just a few typical contradictions yielded by this type of evidence in relation to more traditional Darwinian "proofs."

The elephant shrew, consigned by traditional analysis to the order insectivores . . . is in fact more closely related to . . . the true elephant. Cows are more closely related to dolphins than they are to horses. The duckbilled platypus . . . is on equal evolutionary footing with . . . kangaroos and koalas.15”

And

4 Necessary Assumptions of Phylogenetics

Phylogenetics is a frequently cited proof of evolution. Phylogenetic trees adorn our high school and college textbooks and are presented as somehow being an absolute fact in spite of the fact that …

inhisimage.blog

“In fact, E.O Wiley, one of the premier evolutionary biologists of the 20th century wrote an entire book on phylogenetics which made the claim that phylogenies are hypotheses at best. In his view, it was only possible to determine the best approximation of phylogenetic trees, rather than demonstrate any of them conclusively.”

My overall point is that it seems that the theory of macro-evolution is supported by the theories of phylogenetics but is not yet in the poof category as impressive and interesting as it is.

 

[Jerry N.]

Given that there are formal mathematical tests of phylogenetic relationships, and these mathematical tests show strong concordance with each other and with evidence from molecular genetics, I don't think that there is really much question about the existence of the phylogenetic tree.

There are some questions about the shape of the tree - but those disagreements are comparatively minor and fit well within the established framework of evolutionary biology. It is highly unlikely that any discovery is going to completely re-draw our map of modern phylogenetic relationships. Future discoveries may see some modification to the present day map of lfe, but these will be quite minor.

The further we go back in time, the higher the likelihood that larger changes may occur. This is simply because the reduced volumes of available evidence. So, for example, a section of the phylogenetic tree for dinosaurs underwent a reasonably significant revision in 2015-2017, shifting the relationship distances of dinosaurs, and creating a new large group.

However, nothing in that revision undermines the basic idea that these animals evolved, and continued to evolve for another ~180 million years until their extinction.

Thank you for your interesting response. Please see #205.

 

[Gene2memE]

Thank you for your interesting response. Please see #205.

The creationists are lying to you.

"Evolutionists" aren't largely disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution. Otherwise they wouldn't presently be digging them up in record numbers.

E.O. Wiley's book on phylogenetic doesn't claim that phylogenies are hypotheses at best. That's a quote mine - as are several others on the topic. Phylogenetic systematics are a little above my pay grade, but the way it was explained to me is that they're maps generated from inferences taken from known population genetics using mathematical models.

None of those models are perfect - because biology is messy and 'species' is one of any numbers of arbitrary boxes we put around a population of animals, so the length of the branches are going to depend on which of the 30 odd concepts is used - and they come up with slightly different answers.

But they're continually refined and tested against multiple lines of evidence, primarily genetic and fossil records. And, they're found to be in close - but not perfect - concordance with each other and with phylogenetic trees derived using other methods.

Here's the trick that Creationists are pulling. They're claiming that the minor discrepancies between each of the models and the difference between the models and fossil evidence based trees amount to phylogenetic trees being unreliable and not evidence for evolution.

That's just wrong though.

It's a bit like saying that because a car took 65 feet to stop and the brakes got to 200 degrees, instead of the 64.5 feet and 202 degrees the models calculated then the car never actually stopped at all and actually hit a wall instead.

 

[Jerry N.]

The creationists are lying to you.

"Evolutionists" aren't largely disenchanted with the fossil record as a witness for evolution. Otherwise they wouldn't presently be digging them up in record numbers.

E.O. Wiley's book on phylogenetic doesn't claim that phylogenies are hypotheses at best. That's a quote mine - as are several others on the topic. Phylogenetic systematics are a little above my pay grade, but the way it was explained to me is that they're maps generated from inferences taken from known population genetics using mathematical models.

None of those models are perfect - because biology is messy and 'species' is one of any numbers of arbitrary boxes we put around a population of animals, so the length of the branches are going to depend on which of the 30 odd concepts is used - and they come up with slightly different answers.

But they're continually refined and tested against multiple lines of evidence, primarily genetic and fossil records. And, they're found to be in close - but not perfect - concordance with each other and with phylogenetic trees derived using other methods.

Here's the trick that Creationists are pulling. They're claiming that the minor discrepancies between each of the models and the difference between the models and fossil evidence based trees amount to phylogenetic trees being unreliable and not evidence for evolution.

That's just wrong though.

It's a bit like saying that because a car took 65 feet to stop and the brakes got to 200 degrees, instead of the 64.5 feet and 202 degrees the models calculated then the car never actually stopped at all and actually hit a wall instead.

I would be slow to call those creationists liars.

In PHYLOGENETICS: Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, Second Edition, E. O. WILEY and BRUCE S. LIEBERMAN, page 11, they write: “Empirically, a genealogy proposed by a phylogeneticist is a graphic representation of a hypothesis of the descent relationships of one or more organisms from one or more ancestors.”

The phrase “a graphic representation of a hypothesis” is used in various forms throughout the book, and creationists jumped on the repeated use of the phrase.

You can get the PDF version at http://www.nylxs.com/docs/Phylogenetics Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics.pdf

Creationists have their agenda, and even though I would consider myself a creationist, I think they often go a little far. Wiley is not dismissing the phylogenetic theory in any way, but the book makes it clear that it must be used correctly and has a long way to go to become definitive.

I know very little about biology. Most of my studies were in other scientific fields. However, I know how academia works. If you don’t fully embrace the current theories, you don’t get into graduate studies. So evolutionists also have an agenda. Therefore, you don’t have free thinking on either side to the point that peer review means anything. Overlap and actual communication doesn’t happen between them. Anyway, I’m skeptical whenever a single idea is promoted without competing testing.

My posts have not been to defend creationism, since it would probably not have any positive effect. My main point is to get some of the posters to see that saying macro-evolution is fact, when it is still an elegant theory, doesn’t hold water. Maybe it will someday, but I don’t believe it is there yet.

 

[BCP1928]

I would be slow to call those creationists liars.

In PHYLOGENETICS: Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics, Second Edition, E. O. WILEY and BRUCE S. LIEBERMAN, page 11, they write: “Empirically, a genealogy proposed by a phylogeneticist is a graphic representation of a hypothesis of the descent relationships of one or more organisms from one or more ancestors.”

The phrase “a graphic representation of a hypothesis” is used in various forms throughout the book, and creationists jumped on the repeated use of the phrase.

You can get the PDF version at http://www.nylxs.com/docs/Phylogenetics Theory and Practice of Phylogenetic Systematics.pdf

Creationists have their agenda, and even though I would consider myself a creationist, I think they often go a little far. Wiley is not dismissing the phylogenetic theory in any way, but the book makes it clear that it must be used correctly and has a long way to go to become definitive.

I know very little about biology. Most of my studies were in other scientific fields. However, I know how academia works. If you don’t fully embrace the current theories, you don’t get into graduate studies. So evolutionists also have an agenda. Therefore, you don’t have free thinking on either side to the point that peer review means anything. Overlap and actual communication doesn’t happen between them. Anyway, I’m skeptical whenever a single idea is promoted without competing testing.

My posts have not been to defend creationism, since it would probably not have any positive effect. My main point is to get some of the posters to see that saying macro-evolution is fact, when it is still an elegant theory, doesn’t hold water. Maybe it will someday, but I don’t believe it is there yet.

Even those who "embrace" it understand that as with all scientific theories it can only be taken as provisional. Imperfect as it may be, there is no viable alternative theory.

 

[Jerry N.]

Even those who "embrace" it understand that as with all scientific theories it can only be taken as provisional. Imperfect as it may be, there is no viable alternative theory.

That is true for most people, but there are obviously some who don't, as shown in earlier posts.

 

[Shemjaza]

That is true for most people, but there are obviously some who don't, as shown in earlier posts.

Most Creationist organisations reject even the suggestion that their interpretation could be incorrect, where evolutionary biologists just require evidence.

 

[Jerry N.]

Most Creationist organisations reject even the suggestion that their interpretation could be incorrect, where evolutionary biologists just require evidence.

View attachment 357340

The problem is that some creationists are keen to defend the literal interpretation of the Bible. For example, there is the problem with the six days of creation. We use the sun to measure time, but it is not created until the third or fourth day. This means that the “days” of creation were not 24 hours. The second problem is the gap theory. It is possible that the creation was multiple. Some Hebrew scholars think that “In the beginning” should be “In a beginning,” meaning there was more than one beginning. Questioning these things is uncomfortable. Since the Bible is mostly about God’s relation to man, things may be shortened in the timeline. The story of creation, although true, might not be quite so literal.

 

[BCP1928]

That is true for most people, but there are obviously some who don't, as shown in earlier posts.

Nobody thinks the theory of evolution is a "fact." Evolution itself is a fact; exactly how it happened is the subject of the theory.

 

[Shemjaza]

The problem is that some creationists are keen to defend the literal interpretation of the Bible. For example, there is the problem with the six days of creation. We use the sun to measure time, but it is not created until the third or fourth day. This means that the “days” of creation were not 24 hours. The second problem is the gap theory. It is possible that the creation was multiple. Some Hebrew scholars think that “In the beginning” should be “In a beginning,” meaning there was more than one beginning. Questioning these things is uncomfortable. Since the Bible is mostly about God’s relation to man, things may be shortened in the timeline. The story of creation, although true, might not be quite so literal.

I think this demonstrates the flaw in personal interpretation and intuition about preferred religious texts as a method of discovering and demonstrating the truth.

Have a look around this forum and you'll see literalist Creationists who claim that the scripture proves an Old Earth, a Young Earth and even a Flat Earth.

 

[Jerry N.]

I think this demonstrates the flaw in personal interpretation and intuition about preferred religious texts as a method of discovering and demonstrating the truth.

Have a look around this forum and you'll see literalist Creationists who claim that the scripture proves an Old Earth, a Young Earth and even a Flat Earth.

As I wrote above, the Bible is the primary source of truth for Christians and Jews, but it is truly focused on God’s plan for His people and salvation through Christ. It also contains a lot of historically important information, deep and important teachings on living a life pleasing to God, a few scientific observations, and a lot of artistic expression on praise to God. In my opinion, there are levels of divine inspiration. On one end, you have men who have dedicated themselves to God expressing their devotion. Since faith is inspired by God’s spirit, one can say there is a level of divine inspiration. On the other end, there are prophets who write, “God said,…,” which should be taken on face value. How much historical texts are inspired by God is too difficult for me to say without a lot more time and consideration. The important point is that Christians and Jews have bet their eternal salvation on the truth in the Bible. They believe their faith is under attack, which is often the case, and they are very zealous to defend their faith. Rather than parse out the various texts to see what is inspired or not, which is a difficult task that has been going on for a few thousand years, it is easier to just say that every word in the Bible is inspired by God and defend that with all of their might. God bless them. Fortunately, we are saved by faith and not scholarly study.

 

[Astrophile]

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

Fish and amphibians are both vertebrates. Protozoa are eukaryotic single-celled organisms; viruses are not even cellular organisms, let alone eukaryotes.

 

[Jerry N.]

Fish and amphibians are both vertebrates. Protozoa are eukaryotic single-celled organisms; viruses are not even cellular organisms, let alone eukaryotes.

Your post on battleships and cars appeared in my inbox but not the tread. I don’t know what happened.

You wrote, “Your car and a battleship were made in factories out of raw materials. They do not have genetic codes. Living things, including you and me, come from other living things of the same species.”

Taking raw materials and turning them into a battleship is less complicated than rearranging genetic code into a new species (macro-evolution), which was the topic of the post. Both require intelligent design.

When it comes to making viruses into protozoa, you are arguing that it can’t be done, because they are too different, but evolutionists want me to believe that you can go from raw materials and create life. James Tour has a better challenge: Take a dead single-cell organism and give it life. All the material is already in place.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Your post on battleships and cars appeared in my inbox but not the tread. I don’t know what happened.

You wrote, “Your car and a battleship were made in factories out of raw materials. They do not have genetic codes. Living things, including you and me, come from other living things of the same species.”

Taking raw materials and turning them into a battleship is less complicated than rearranging genetic code into a new species (macro-evolution), which was the topic of the post. Both require intelligent design.

When it comes to making viruses into protozoa, you are arguing that it can’t be done, because they are too different, but evolutionists want me to believe that you can go from raw materials and create life. James Tour has a better challenge: Take a dead single-cell organism and give it life. All the material is already in place.

You're arguing abiogenesis, life from non-life, which is not the same thing as evolution, which is just how life changed into the various forms we see today. They can be interconnected, but evolution does not need abiogenesis to have occurred to be fact.

 

[Jerry N.]

You're arguing abiogenesis, life from non-life, which is not the same thing as evolution, which is just how life changed into the various forms we see today. They can be interconnected, but evolution does not need abiogenesis to have occurred to be fact.

Another person in this thread was kind enough to introduce me to the word “abiogenesis,” but we are moving the target of the discussion. The question is whether or not divine intervention took place. My argument is that micro-evolution was programed into the design to adapt to changes in the environment and can be supported by duplication in a laboratory today, but macro-evolution and abiogenesis require divine intervention and can only be observed in the past but not duplicated.

 

[Shemjaza]

Your post on battleships and cars appeared in my inbox but not the tread. I don’t know what happened.

You wrote, “Your car and a battleship were made in factories out of raw materials. They do not have genetic codes. Living things, including you and me, come from other living things of the same species.”

Taking raw materials and turning them into a battleship is less complicated than rearranging genetic code into a new species (macro-evolution), which was the topic of the post. Both require intelligent design.

You are incorrect.

We have a known, and repeatedly observed mechanism for the process and that is mutation.

When it comes to making viruses into protozoa, you are arguing that it can’t be done, because they are too different, but evolutionists want me to believe that you can go from raw materials and create life.

The point is not merely that the right material is in place, it's the right material in an environment that makes it possible, if unlikely.

A common Creationist request is for new life to form from non living matter in environments already filled with extant life... even if the environment was suitable for hypothetical new life forms, it is likely that such a simple structure would be trivial food for more evolved organisms in place.

James Tour has a better challenge: Take a dead single-cell organism and give it life. All the material is already in place.

Tour has a rather long history of profound scientific mistakes.

This particular challenge is built on false premises. A dead organism does not have all the material in place. The process of dying transforms many chemical aspects of an organism into structures not merely unsuitable for continued living function, but actually antithetical to the process.