Larger jump … a larger jump than What?
While there may be a list of unverifiable hypotheses… there are hundreds of hypotheses that Are verifiable and that HAVE been verified.
You coming onto this list and insisting that Evolution is not science is like someone going on one of your favorite lists and saying the Bible is not religion.
You aren’t making much sense.
And you have no credible foundation upon which to make your accusations and charges.
I think you should reconsider your approach.
Yes… that’s what we Also call a scenario.
You have no replacement ideas… and you are unable to prove your major accusation – that Evolution is not science.
I think you are done.
That was someone else’s comment. Don’t worry.
You need not agree with me. I am not sure you even understand me.
Feel free to rush to judgement before making an effort to understand.
NonlinOrg keeps missing that important point, so continues to flail away at straw men.
Every day I work with atheists, Muslims, agnostics, and Christians to build software.
Every day Christians collaborate with atheists and members of other religions to manage public agencies, run businesses, and study subjects like math, Asian literature, engineering, and medieval history.
A lot of Christian scientists collaborate with atheists and other non-Christians in the study of empirical phenomena in disciplines like astronomy, geology, and biology.
Do you agree that Christian scientists have a large area of common endeavor with non-Christian scientists within the scientific disciplines?
According to the timeline agreed upon by paleontologists and biologists, it took 500 million (5 x 10^8) years across an entire globe with 326,000,000,000,000,000,000 (3.3 x 10^20) gallons of water for multi-cellular organisms to evolve from eukaryotic bacteria. That’s 1.6 x 10^29 gallon-years of space-time in which eukaryotic bacteria were active.
The Lenski experiment involves about one (1 x 10^0) gallon of water and 30 (3 x 10^1) years. That’s 3 x 10^1 gallon-years of space-time in which eukaryotic bacteria have been active in Madison, WI.
So we just need to run Lenski’s experiment for another 5 x 10^28 years (50,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years) to see the results you expect!
As @Swamidass pointed out in another thread, the Lenski experiment involves a very simple, homogeneous environment that does not replicate the highly diverse environments in the real world that exert a variety of selection pressures on various bacteria populations. So while the Lenski experiment can help us understand rates of genetic drift among E. Coli, it doesn’t offer much in the way of replicating natural selection pressures. That it was able to demonstrate selection for aerobic citrate metabolism was therefore quite remarkable.
I invite any biologists in the thread to clarify or correct as needed.
All you have to do is establish that there is nothing about Godless Evolution that is scientific. And you have yet to do it … other than to offer the proclamation.
Here, let me help you out. Let’s say you wanted to prove that Astrology is not scientific. How would you prove that? The usual approach is to take 1000 psychological survey of 1000 adults … and sort them into relevant categories:
Then correlations are attempted is with 1000 birthdays… using the Rising Sign, Sun Sign and Moon Sign. If there are no correlations (which is usually the case) Astrology is shown (we would expect) not to correlate to anything being measured by the psychological survey.
Okay… so … all you have to do is offer a Valid evolutionary hypothesis… and show that valid observations show no correlation to the valid Evolutionary hypothesis.
If you propose such a hypothesis, are you willing to accept feedback on how to adjust the hypothesis, within reason? Because I think the odds are that you will not propose a workable hypothesis on your first attempt.
I mentioned the Bible so that you would understand that flatly dismissing Evolution as non-science is equivalent to flatly dismissing the Bible as Non-Religious.
You need to be able to parse the idea that the non-Scientific aspect of God-guided Evolution is the part that mentions God. And that the part that doesn’t involve God’s miraculous powers is the part that involves science.
The problem with this experimental design is that Lenski has no real idea of how to challenge the genetics of the original population with ecological changes to Direct evolution towards an Amoeba. You can’t just watch bacteria for a million years and expect that they become Amoebae. Mutations are not just shaped by mutations… but also by specific sequences of changing environments.
Are you saying that ignoring most of the fossil record is a mere interpretive choice?
You seem to be missing the important point that the only way in which a hypothesis can be considered to be verified is for it to tested without being falsified.
What’s your hypothesis, BTW?
I will correct your error, and then I will have nothing more to say to you. My suggestion is to get hold of some good basic biology texts, and do some studying. There are actually real facts, (not alternative facts) and knowledge that biologists have gathered over the years. One of these is the Hardy Weinberg principle which demonstrates that your statement is wrong. New births do not in fact change the gene pool, and allele frequencies in populations remain constant (in equilibrium) in the absence of selection. This is not, of course, the only argument from ignorance you have made, and I believe further discussion with you is fruitless.
The transition from something like a bacterium to something like an amoeba (which is a eukaryote) has, as far as we know, happened just once in the several billion year history of life. An amoeba is more similar to a human – genetically and in terms of basic biology – than it is to a bacterium. So no, we shouldn’t have seen a transition like that in the lab.
The allele frequency definition you just rejected answers exactly that question. That definition is not intended to describe the whole of evolution; it’s intended to mark the boundaries of the subject. If it involves a change in allele frequency, we consider it evolution. If not, no. For a description of what it is that evolutionary biology studies, “descent with modification” is much better, but for demarcation, the frequency definition is good.
Why does it matter, anyway? We don’t have a clear definition of what a “particle” is – and certainly not one that’s been stable across time – and the boundaries of the field are pretty fuzzy, yet particle physicists manage to study particles anyway.
That’s an excellent idea for people who are truly interested in learning some facts. Your librarians can help you find books. You can take courses in biology for very little money at a community college. Coursera.org has a wealth of free or inexpensive courses in biology, genetics, etc. and many start at a very basic level suitable for folks who just graduated from high school.
“Do you agree that Christian scientists have a large area …” - my opinion doesn’t matter.
“…it took 500 million (5 x 10^8) years across an entire globe…” - what does another year and another gallon add? Lenski designed his experiment to demonstrate evolution and he failed. So did Miller–Urey with their abiogenesis experiment. Feel free to design a better experiment.
A theoretical model is not “real facts”. Here is the long list of assumptions behind Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium:
…and there’s no need to be angry.
“Are you saying that ignoring most of the fossil record is a mere interpretive choice?”
No.
" for it to tested without being falsified.
What’s your hypothesis, BTW?"
I am not sure where you’re going with this, but falsifiability is overrated: http://nonlin.org/hard-science-is-soft-science/
I am not sure what you argue. Why do I “have to” offer anything? Are you arguing for the sake of it?
I am not dismissing anything. Just pointing out that Evolution doesn’t meet the ‘scientific method’.
“Lenski has no real idea of how to challenge the genetics…” - so you agree is a failed experiment just like Miller-Urey? But not for lack of trying. Feel free to design a better experiment. Beyond that, I am not sure what your point is.
That was Coyne’s example. Feel free to demonstrate “cats to dogs” (his other example) or any other reasonable transition.
That’s not good enough, as alleles change a bit with every live birth. And even if one allele changes back next generation, many others change in other directions.
There’s some uncertainty when it comes to particles, but there’s really no comparison. Each electron has the same exact properties like any other electron as far as we know. Are you kidding?
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.