And this is completely wrong. It demonstrates your inability to grasp what “testing” Evolution means, and it demonstrates your inability to interpret classic evidence regarding Evolution.
Since the Hypothesis of Evolution is that millions of years separate humans (and large mammals) from the time of dinosaurs…
… finding these bones to be systematically mixed together would be the Proof that millions of years have Not elapsed between them.
The fact we do Not find them together is the evidence that Supports the successful testing of Evolutionary theory.
I am OK with Evolution as a mechanism of Creation. But at the same time, I am not yet convinced Evolution is compliant with the scientific method: Evolution is Creation – NonLin
You can say it over and over again. But I don’t think you have earned any credibility with your powers of observation.
There are MULTIPLE disciplines of science… all of them are testable… even if some tests fail. If Evolution can be measured and tested by Multiple scientific disciplines… by definition … it is compliant.
Biology
Botany
Chemistry
Physics
Geology
Astronomy
etc. etc.
One could argue that a change from bacteria to amoeba would be a much larger jump than an ape to a human, as the ape and human are pretty much the same in form and anatomy, whereas a bacteria is a much different life form than a simple bacteria.
In truth however, neither can be called an accurate example, as a modern bacteria is no more the precursor of an amoeba than a chimp is a precursor of a man.
As to evolution being said to not be directional, that is highly dependent on your definition. The definition as used by workers in the field of study varies greatly from common usage, but I think we can can agree that timewise, it’s direction is into the future, not into the past, so the layers of fossils have great meaning.
And why would finding humans mixed with fish and snakes (or any other modern reptile) be a problem?
The bones that can be identified as distinctly Dinosaur-ian … they have no large mammals or humans mixed in with them. And that Is a problem for your scenario … for Any version of your scenario.
“…bacteria to amoeba would be a much larger jump…” - it doesn’t seem you’re actually ready to claim this …and that’s the problem with evolution: it is subject to way too many conflicting and unverifiable claims and arbitrary definitions.
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.
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:
employment categories;
extroversion categories vs. introversion;
selfless vs. selfish categories;
or any other categories that the survey can be shown to provide significant differences.
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.
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.