Was Charles Darwin a fraud?

[Astrid]

We went around this block about 100 posts ago. We obviously disagree, and I don't think doing it all again will help.

That sounds like faith in stubborn unreason on your part.
Like disagreeing whether Pi=3 because the Bible appears to say so.

 

[BCP1928]

Maybe macro-evolution and abiogenesis can't be tested because there is divine intervention.

Maybe there has been special divine intervention, but macro-evolution has been tested and there appears to be no need for divine intervention or any evidence for it. Theologically, there would be no reason for it, either.

 

[Jerry N.]

People have pointed out how it has been tested... an your reply is that there's disagreement, but no explanation as to why the disagreement is reasonable.

Just because you prefer an answer doesn't make it more likely.

Genetics, fossils, geology and physics are all very real and very useful outside of demonstrating the facts that support the theory of evolution.

As I pointed out before, the testing I was referring to was to duplicate the process of macro-evolution in a laboratory, which a couple of posters have admitted is impossible because of time or complexity. So you shift the meaning of testing to mathematical modeling and observation and call it proof. The modeling is helpful in studying macro-evolution without divine intervention, but it is not at the level of proof. The following is an article that gives a good explanation of the various problems and how they are trying to overcome them: Approaches to Macroevolution: 1. General Concepts and Origin of Variation - PMC

 

[BCP1928]

As I pointed out before, the testing I was referring to was to duplicate the process of macro-evolution in a laboratory, which a couple of posters have admitted is impossible because of time or complexity. So you shift the meaning of testing to mathematical modeling and observation and call it proof. The modeling is helpful in studying macro-evolution without divine intervention, but it is not at the level of proof. The following is an article that gives a good explanation of the various problems and how they are trying to overcome them: Approaches to Macroevolution: 1. General Concepts and Origin of Variation - PMC

That's a very interesting article, lucid and comprehensive. But it doesn't make your point, I think, Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.

 

[Jerry N.]

That's a very interesting article, lucid and comprehensive. But it doesn't make your point, I think, Perhaps you could explain why you think it does.

I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.

 

[BCP1928]

I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.

You will never have proof. Scientific theories are never proven.

 

[Jerry N.]

You will never have proof. Scientific theories are never proven.

You are absolutely right, but theories can be refined and tested to the point they can be practically used. If mankind could produce macro-evolution in a lab, we would probably do something terrible with it, but I would like to see it. Until that day, I will continue to believe God initiated and controls evolution.

 

[Frank Robert]

If mankind could produce macro-evolution in a lab...

Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.

Source....

 

[Jerry N.]

Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.

View attachment 357550

Source....

Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.

View attachment 357550

Source....

That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.

 

[Frank Robert]

That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.

Macro evolution is much more than a probable theory. It is widely regarded as a well-established concept in evolutionary biology.

 

[Jerry N.]

Macro evolution is much more than a probable theory. It is widely regarded as a well-established concept in evolutionary biology.

The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.

 

[Frank Robert]

The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.

Being skeptical is part of science because it ensures that conclusions are based on evidence and sound reasoning rather than assumptions or untested beliefs, but if you want to falsify a scientific theory you need to demonstrates the theory's predictions or explanations to be incorrect.

By the way, the concept of "humors" may have been well-established in its time but it does not align with modern definitions of science.

 

[Shemjaza]

I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.

I disagree.

We aren't able to re-produce something like the macroevolutionary change of the common ancestor of humans and apes because that requires huge populations and millions of years of generations... but we can and have re-produced and tested the mechanisms necessary.

Evolutionary principles can be tested on extremely fast breeding life forms like single celled organisms and some insects.

New physical genetically inherited traits can be formed via mutation and then passed onto further generations and if is is significant to the success of the population it is likely to spread and eventually become a universal trait in the population.

This will just be labelled as "adaption" or "micro-evolution", but it certainly is a permanent change to the population.

However, we have also demonstrated such changes that can make reproduction with the original population difficult or impossible. This is speciation and the first step of a macroevolutionary change.

Two similar populations separated, even if similar will continue to accumulate changes slowly drifting further apart depending on how different their environments are and how much pressure they are under.

So we have the demonstrated process of macroevolution, we just need to test if that also applies to extant populations... so we test the genetics and the fossil record... and what do you know? It explains the evidence.

Macro evolution can not be reproduced in a lab for the very simple reason that macro evolution takes millions of years.

View attachment 357550

Source....

Technically no. We have demonstrated smaller scale macro evolution.

That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.

It will always be a theory.

Like germ theory , the theory of gravity, and the micro-evolution you accept.

The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.

Yes. And humors were demonstrated to be false with evidence.

 

[BCP1928]

The concept of "humors" was also a well-established concept for more than a thousand years, and I would have gone to a doctor that believed it at the time. A "well-established concept" does not mean it is true or untrue, and being skeptical is not unreasonable.

"True" and "untrue" don't come into it. When a theory of disease with better predictive power than humors came along, humors were discarded.

 

[BCP1928]

You are absolutely right, but theories can be refined and tested to the point they can be practically used.

Which is the case with the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution has tremendous predictive powers and wide and profitable application in the applied life sciences. Your theory has no predictive power whatever. You will never see agribusiness giving it up, Too much money is involved. Stalin tried outlawing it, Soviet agriculture collapsed and tens of thousands died of starvation.

If mankind could produce macro-evolution in a lab, we would probably do something terrible with it, but I would like to see it. Until that day, I will continue to believe God initiated and controls evolution.

So do most theists. However your particular theory of it is based on a narrow sectarian theology which has not got much of a footing even within Christendom.

 

[Astrophile]

That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.

What grounds do you have for thinking that the theory may be false? Specifically, what is the evidence against it?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That might be true, but macro-evolution still remains a theory. It might be a probable theory, but a theory just the same.

In post #145, you said you knew what a scientific theory was. This comment shows that you don't know what a theory is.

 

[Astrid]

What grounds do you have for thinking that the theory may be false? Specifically, what is the evidence against it?

inquiring minds wonder, but never yet got a
sensible answer from a creationist.

 

[Gene2memE]

I have tried to make the point every way I can. The article explains the “testing” of macro-evolution and the problems that they are working on overcoming. All of these “tests” have to do with modeling through mathematics and observation. If you do a model of a steel structure on the computer that gives a safety factor of 3, that is not proof that the structure is safe. There can be errors in the model or the data or the assumptions. With the macro-evolution article listed above, the model, the data, and the assumptions have a long way to go to be free of errors. If that ever happens, you still have a model and not proof—only an elegant theory. Just as the steel structure proves the model when it is made, producing macro-evolution in a laboratory will prove the model correct.

What's your definition of "macro-evolution"? What would you consider macro-evolution? Is it limited to macro-scale organisms (trees, animals) or do you include microscopic life (bacteria, fungi, algae) as well?

Would you consider production novel physical characteristics as macro-evolution?
Would you consider re-introduction of an ancestral trait possessed by parent populations macro-evolution?
Would you consider inducing a new and stable phenotype as macro-evolution?
Would you consider a inducing a transition of an organism from a single-celled to multi-celled as macro-evolution?

All of the above have been produced in a lab.

(In before "this was produced an a lab, ergo it's evidence of design" argument).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Since he's back posting:
@Joseph G I have to ask: why do you find a single video from Facebook, with no sources or fact-checking at all that would very much prove that it's a false claim, such a compelling argument to claim that Darwin was a fraud?