Can macro evolution be replicated in a lab?

[EDC1]

Or one could argue if it takes an intelligent being to reproduce it, albeit faster than the original, it would be reasonable to conclude it took an intelligent being to produce the original. Also, if God is eternal, He would be in no rush - 13 billion years is a blink of an eye relative to eternity.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

One can argue that the world was created this morning with all our memories as they are, and this is a far more reasonable argument than the one you made. That we can imitate a thing in nature most certainly does not mean it took an intelligent being to produce the original. We can demonstrate that this is not the case. If God is in no rush then it is simplest to conclude there is no reason for God to help evolution along at all. And if we had the ability to do it a million times faster, this would suggest that this is most likely what God did.

This is a prime example of the problem atheists have with so many theist arguments – the addition of a completely unnecessary and ineffectual cause that adds nothing to the explanation. Like Sagan’s dragon-in-the-garage it is made to be indistinguishable from nothing at all.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Miekhie

it was pointed out by @ T_aquaticus that this speciation is not enough evidence for macroevolustion by proponent of OEC. It is still the same kind of plant.

My overall point is that no amount of observed evolution will ever be enough because they are not interested in the evidence. They are interested in protecting a dogmatic belief.

Using their same reasoning it would be hard to even find an example of macroevolution in Earth’s history. For example:

Chimps and humans evolving from a common ancestor? Not macroevolution. Chimps and humans are both still primates, so they are just different kinds of primates.

Humans and bears evolving from a common ancestor? Not macroevolution. Humans and bears are both mammals, so they are just different kinds of mammals.

Humans and fish evolving from a common ancestor? Not macroevolution. Humans and fish are both vertebrates, so they are just different kinds of vertebrates.

Humans and plants evolving from a common ancestor? Not macroevolution. Humans and plants are both eukaryotes, so they are just different kinds of eukaryotes.

See the problem?

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Miekhie

On the contrary, they seemed committed to base their conclusion based on where the evidence lead. They are pretty much on level with the advance of modern science.

That hasn’t been my experience. Very rarely do I see OEC’s tackling the genetic evidence, such as found here:

https://biologos.org/articles/testing-common-ancestry-its-all-about-the-mutations

Human Genetics Confirms Mutations as the Drivers of Diversity and Evolution

If you see OEC sites where they are only willing to talk about fossil evidence then you know they are either not up to the current level or science or they are actively ignoring it. As Dr. Collins put it:

Arguments against macroevolution, based on so-called gaps in the fossil records, are also profoundly weakened by the much more detailed and digital information revealed from the study of genomes. Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.
–Dr. Francis Collins, “Faith and the Human Genome”
https://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2003/PSCF9-03Collins.pdf

[Miekhie]

@mitchellmckain

It wouldn’t mean there is no God. But it would certainly suggest that God simply looked for a place where life had evolved rather than helping it along.

But if God had provided the initial conditions for evolution to occur, and then let evolution (the way God chose to produce all the varieties of life) took its course naturally knowing full well what the end result would look like.

[Miekhie]

@T_aquaticus

My overall point is that no amount of observed evolution will ever be enough because they are not interested in the evidence.

if that is the case, then there is no point of common ground between the two camps. that is sad.

[T_aquaticus (The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)]

@Miekhie

if that is the case, then there is no point of common ground between the two camps. that is sad.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Miekhie

But if God had provided the initial conditions for evolution to occur, and then let evolution (the way God chose to produce all the varieties of life) took its course naturally knowing full well what the end result would look like.

As He’s seen it infinite times before, nothing surprises Him.

[Klax (The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)]

@Miekhie

@beaglelady

God periodically popping new species into existence?

That’s the simple way to put it. that God plays an active role in evolution, by creating some new species when needed. That is how I understand punctuated equilibrium.

Do you have to believe that to believe in Jesus?

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

You may believe that, but I do not. I believe that free will is the essence of life itself. And I don’t believe free will is compatible with either determinism or absolute predestination. Free will means we write the future together.