Mayfly scientists might face ridicule from other mayfly’s for believing this. After all, has any mayfly actually seen a grub fly, or an egg turn into a frog?
No, that is not what I mean. What I mean is that phenotypic change over time is a fact. Long-term evolutionary theory is a theory based on facts.
Can every gravitational interaction between every set of objects be observed? Also, that’s a Nirvana Fallacy: insisting that we must have perfect data.
No, but the argument that “Evolution cannot be factual because it cannot be replicated in a laboratory.” requires that solar fusion, whale lifestyle, sequence stratigraphy, climatology, etc., etc. also aren’t factual.
Just like you can’t see every gravitational interaction that has ever happened. Until an improvement appears, I will go with the best explanation for all the relevant data that does exist.
How many years have we had for running such experiments? 100 at the absolute maximum? There is no actual proof of anything is science, thus that critique is irrelevant.
How so? They can’t be replicated in a lab either, and that was my point. “Can’t be replicated” does not mean “Can’t be described scientifically.”
3 Likes
It reveals a whole bunch of trees, with gaps between them where we lack data, but given that all the data we have aligns quite well with descent with modifications, I see no reason for it to arbitrarily stop working when we cease to have data.
2 Likes
How mammals (allegedly) evolved from fish (for example) is better understood than gravity?
Well, of course. It ludicrous to science that numerous novel phyla suddenly appear in the Cambria explosion with no evolutionary history.
Post deleted by author
Theory can have different meanings. Music theory is a fact. The theory of evolution is not a fact … and never will be.
1 Like
True. Lamarckism is a theory. Darwinism is a theory. Neo-Darwinism is a theory, as is the Modern Synthesis. These progressively present a unified causal explanation for the fact of evolution.
1 Like
I take your point. Thank you for correcting this bumbling amateur.
I accept the fossil evidence that shows life-forms becoming more complex and diverse over time. That, to me, is the fact of evolution.
Your “fact of evolution” may be different.
The bad news is, you exhibit all the signs of being psychologically addicted to the theory of evolution.
The good news is, your addiction is treatable.
- Speaking of “addictions”, what’s your position on The Shroud of Turin?
- I’m a fan.
1 Like
I am so addicted. Do you think the reasons I gave are indicative of addiction? The shoe is on the other foot – your refusals to accept the physical realities of God’s creation are more symptomatic of an addict!
Don’t quit your day job to become a comedian! 
2 Likes
Let me refresh your sadly short memory:
Merely refreshing your memory will probably not cure your spontaneous comedic outbursts. I don’t know what to do about them. But they are entertaining and not really a problem, so I’m not really objecting to them. 
1 Like
Absolutely, when DNA is available: scientists can look at the DNA, locate the differences, and list the changes that had to have happened to get from one to the other, because the ways in which DNA can change are known. At that level, evolutionary change is a great deal like geological change; just as an example, the phrase “this sequence is inverted” is something that can be said of DNA and of rock strata. In short, evolutionary change is just chemistry with known building blocks.
Whereas for gravity scientists don’t even know what it is: is it a force where particles – gravitons – are exchanged between physical bodies? is it a bending of spacetime? does it behave the same over vast distances, e.g. hundreds of thousands or millions of light years? does it have a dual nature, like light which acts like a wave or a particle depending on circumstances?
We know the building blocks of the stuff that has to change for evolution to happen; we don’t know the building blocks of gravity.
There is no “suddenly” about it; the Cambrian lasted some fifty million years.
And “numerous novel phyla” is a misunderstanding based on miscomprehension of how the biological classification system works. Here’s a darned good piece on how that works:
Though you’ve got things backwards: the “orchard of life” position has been made less and less likely as more and more evidence accumulates.
1 Like
Hello Terry. I think the Shroud of Turin is the real deal.
Yep, numerous novel phyla appeared so slowly in the fossil record that paleontologists dubbed that period, the Cambrian explosion. Interesting choice of words.
More to the point, I say novel phyla appeared “suddenly” because of the decided lack of evidence of evolutionary predecessors.
You may well be right, Dale. I would have to add that addiction to my other two - coffee and golf … both of which are untreatable.
1 Like
I hear you about the coffee. Golf? Not so much.
Dale, you’re the first Mandarin duck I’ve encounterd that drinks coffee. A rare bird indeed! Fascinating.
1 Like