Genesis Creation vs. Darwin's Macroevolution Myth

[Alter2Ego]

You are Don Quixote flailing at windmills.

Darwin can write whatever he wants in a letter. Letters are not peer reviewed scientific papers. Scientists are free to speculate and guess.

The Neo-Darwinian synthesis of modern evolutionary theory makes no predictions about origin of biology from inert chemicals, nor does it propose a mechanism.

Cypress:

Next you will be telling this forum that Charles Darwin's science fiction book Origin of Species was peer reviewed. It was from that book that modern evolution theory got its ideas.

Neo-Darwinian theory is based on a book that was not peer reviewed.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress:

Next you will be telling this forum that Charles Darwin's science fiction book Origin of Species was peer reviewed. It was from that book that modern evolution theory got its ideas.

Neo-Darwinian theory is based on a book that was not peer reviewed.

Thanks for tacitly confessing that Darwin wrote letters that contained speculations, musings, guesses as to the origin of life, but the letters don't amount to anything close to a scientific theory, do not make predictions, and do not provide a mechanism

Origin of Species was a result of 20 years of work, field observation, testing, which had been shared with scientific colleagues prior to publication. Alfred Wallace had also done contemporaneous field work which independently confirmed Darwins theory. Origin of Species clears the bar as a legitimate scientific theory because it has an explanatory mechanism (natural selection) supported by copious amounts of data and field observation.

The massive misunderstanding you have is mistaking the informal musings and speculations of letter to a friend, with an actual scientific theory.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Thanks for tacitly confessing that Darwin wrote letters that contained speculations, musings, guesses as to the origin of life, but the letters don't amount to anything close to a scientific theory, do not make predictions, and do not provide a mechanism

Origin of Species was a result of 20 years of work, field observation, testing, which had been shared with scientific colleagues prior to publication. Alfred Wallace had also done contemporaneous field work which independently confirmed Darwins theory. Origin of Species clears the bar as a legitimate scientific theory because it has an explanatory mechanism (natural selection) supported by copious amounts of data and field observation.

The massive misunderstanding you have is mistaking the informal musings and speculations of letter to a friend, with an actual scientific theory.

Cypress:

It doesn't matter how many years of work Darwin put into his book Origin of Species. It's still a work of science fiction in light of the fact his assumptions were proven to be false. For instance, his claim about natural selection has proven to be patently false. Paleontologists (people who study fossils), including those that are pro-evolution, have been forced to acknowledge that the idea of natural selection aka the survival of the fittest does not hold water. Notice below what a couple of them wrote in their peer reviewed papers.


"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)


"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

 

[Margot]

I never saw a difference between Darwin and Genesis creation,just a different pov!

 

[Hume]

Nothing is more tedious than right wing Christians blathering about their belief.

 

[IBDaMann]

@Alter2Ego, keep in mind that ZenMode is a profoundly religious, science-denying Global Warming zealot who considers Christianity to be the primary threat to his Climate faith. Again, just keep this in mind. He will tell you that he is an atheist and you are expected to accept this on face value.

Yep, the Sky Wizard zapped two white people into existence. Then they had kids and those kids had sex with their parents and siblings to populate where ever the Garden of Eden existed. Then, those white people swam across the oceans and populated Africa with black people, Asia with Chinese, etc.

Or maybe Noah transported people across the world on the cruise ship he built with no power tools. Seems legit to me.

 

[IBDaMann]

@Alter2Ego, keep in mind that Hume is a profoundly religious, science-denying Global Warming zealot who considers Christianity to be the primary threat to his Climate faith. Again, just keep this in mind. He will tell you that he is an atheist and you are expected to accept this on face value.

Nothing is more tedious than right wing Christians blathering about their belief.

Hume hurls the word "Christian" as a slur that automatically places someone on the "right wing" (the opposite of his political position) regardless of whether or not said Christian is a left-wing Baptist. Nothing has to make sense when HATRED is the only driver for one's politico-religious regurgitations.

 

[IBDaMann]

I never saw a difference between Darwin and Genesis creation,just a different pov!

Darwin's theory of evolution and Genesis creationism are entirely compatible. Genesis serves to explain how life came to be. Evolution serves to explain how life changed once it came to be.

The only conflict that exists is between Darwin's theory of evolution and young-earthism. Any theory that places the earth's age at less than a few dozen millions of years has an uphill battle to explain and endless plenitude of physical empirical evidence to the contrary. Nontheless, no explanation is required for one to believe whatever one wants to believe.

 

[IBDaMann]

The fossil record is clear.

You were doing fine up to this point. The fossil record is more cryptic than an enigma machine. There are no explanations and no definitive answers, only speculation .... and mostly wild speculation at that. All current theories based on the fossil record are subject to the career aspirations of the paleontologists who are facing the end of their career (and the end of their project funding) if they don't attach some exhilarating narrative to whatever they just found. This is why the overarching narrative of the history of life on earth changes more quickly and more wildly than the weather in Virginia.

The fossil record is anything but clear.

Lastly, your world is older than 6000 years.

You don't know that. I don't know that. I strongly suspect that the earth is much older by orders of magnitude, but neither you nor I were there. I'd ask you to post the video taken 6,001 years ago to settle the issue but I strongly suspect that you don't have any. I'd ask you to post the satellite imagery from 6,001 years ago to settle the issue but I strongly suspect that you don't have any.

There was no flood, no ark, no animal pairs on that boat.

I'm sure you have a pile of sworn affidavits from eyewitnesses.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress:

It doesn't matter how many years of work Darwin put into his book Origin of Species. It's still a work of science fiction in light of the fact his assumptions were proven to be false. For instance, his claim about natural selection has proven to be patently false. Paleontologists (people who study fossils), including those that are pro-evolution, have been forced to acknowledge that the idea of natural selection aka the survival of the fittest does not hold water. Notice below what a couple of them wrote in their peer reviewed papers.


"The fossil record flatly fails to substantiate this expectation of finely graded change." (Eldredge, N. and Tattersall, I., The Myths of Human Evolution, 1982, p. 163.)


"Instead of finding the gradual unfolding of life, what geologists of Darwin's time, and geologists of the present day actually find is a highly uneven or jerky record; that is, species appear in the sequence very suddenly, show little or no change during their existence in the record, then abruptly go out of the record. and it is not always clear, in fact it's rarely clear, that the descendants were actually better adapted than their predecessors. In other words, biological improvement is hard to find." (Raup, David M., "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Bulletin, Field Museum of Natural History, vol. 50, 1979, p. 23.)

Thanks again for tacitly confessing that an informal letter to a friend containing speculations and musings on the origin of life is not remotely equivalent to a scientific theory.

You originally tried to make it sound like private letters Darwin wrote to his friend were all part and parcel of the theory of evolution by natural selection he and Alfred Russell Wallace developed.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Thanks again for tacitly confessing that an informal letter to a friend containing speculations and musings on the origin of life is not remotely equivalent to a scientific theory.

You originally tried to make it sound like private letters Darwin wrote to his friend were all part and parcel of the theory of evolution by natural selection he and Alfred Russell Wallace developed.

Cypress:

Charles Darwin pushed abiogenesis theory not just to "a friend" but to many of his colleagues.

"When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. However, analysis of some other texts written by Darwin, and of the correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues demonstrates that he took for granted the possibility of a natural emergence of the first life forms. As shown by notes from the pages he excised from his private notebooks, as early as 1837 Darwin was convinced that “the intimate relation of Life with laws of chemical combination, & the universality of latter render spontaneous generation not improbable”. Like many of his contemporaries, Darwin rejected the idea that putrefaction of preexisting organic compounds could lead to the appearance of organisms. Although he favored the possibility that life could appear by natural processes from simple inorganic compounds, his reluctance to discuss the issue resulted from his recognition that at the time it was possible to undertake the experimental study of the emergence of life."

Charles Darwin and the Origin of Life - PMC

When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life. However, analysis of some other texts written by Darwin, and of the correspondence he exchanged with friends and colleagues ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

He avoided putting it in his book Origin of Species (published November 24, 1859) because he didn't want to be "laughed out of court," so to speak. Especially after Louis Pasteur, one of his contemporaries, debunked abiogenesis theory aka spontaneous generation during the same year Darwin published his book of fairytales: 1859.

1.1C: Pasteur and Spontaneous Generation

Pasteur’s experiments revealed that spontaneous generation does not occur.

bio.libretexts.org

 

[Alter2Ego]

You originally tried to make it sound like private letters Darwin wrote to his friend were all part and parcel of the theory of evolution by natural selection he and Alfred Russell Wallace developed.

No, I didn't, Cypress. I made it clear that Darwin stated it in a letter to his pal, Joseph Dalton.

In any event, Darwin's claims about natural selection were debunked. I posted a statement from a 20th century paleontologist who said species appeared in and out of the record without showing any improvement, and the replacement species showed no improvement over what had come before.

 

[IBDaMann]

Charles Darwin pushed abiogenesis theory not just to "a friend" but to many of his colleagues.

Charles Darwin was a fundamentalist Christian who presumed that God created all life as described in Genesis. Charles Darwin never tried to push anything other than creationism.

"When Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species 150 years ago he consciously avoided discussing the origin of life.

... because Charles Darwin thought it was obvious, God created all life.

He avoided putting it in his book Origin of Species (published November 24, 1859) because he didn't want to be "laughed out of court," so to speak.

Charles Darwin didn't mention the creation of life in his book because his book wasn't about the origins of life; his book was about the origin of species. Darwin's theory is about how life changes, not about how it came to be. Darwin presumed that life came to be as depicted in Genesis.

I will once again renew my recommendation that you read On the Origin of Species and get a clue.

 

[IBDaMann]

In any event, Darwin's claims about natural selection were debunked.

Nope. Not possible.

Darwin's theory of evolution is unfalsifiable and is not science. Darwin's theory can't be debunked any more than Christianity can.

 

[Cypress]

Charles Darwin pushed abiogenesis theory not just to "a friend" but to many of his colleagues.

Scientists bounce ideas, wild ass guesses, and speculations off each other all the time.

While speculation is an important part of professional science, conjecture, guesswork, and fanciful musings are not even close to being scientific theories.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Scientists bounce ideas, wild ass guesses, and speculations off each other all the time.

While speculation is an important part of professional science, conjecture, guesswork, and fanciful musings are not even close to being scientific theories.

Cypress:

Charles Darwin didn't just "bounce" speculations off his friends and acquaintances; he published them. In his book, Origin of Species, he speculated survival of the fittest, but that's not what scientists of the 20th century found; remember? They found that creatures went in and out of the record without improving.

Darwin failed when he claimed future paleontologists would find fossils that would fill in the missing gaps in the the fossil record, thereby showing how creatures gradually evolved into something other than what they started off as. Modern day paleontologists could not find any fossils to fill in the gaps. Ernst Mayr, a rabid pro-evolution paleontologist of the 20th century, had to eat crow and make the following admission:

"What one actually found was nothing but discontinuities: All species are separated from each other by bridgeless gaps; intermediates between species are not observed . . . The problem was even more serious at the level of the higher categories." (Mayr, E., Animal Species and Evolution, 1982, p. 524.)


Darwin made the following speculation in Origin of Species:

Origin of whales
In the first edition of "On the Origin of Species" in 1859, Charles Darwin speculated about how natural selection could cause a land mammal to turn into a whale. As a hypothetical example, Darwin used North American black bears, which were known to catch insects by swimming in the water with their mouths open.

From Bears to Whales: A Difficult Transition | Evolution News

Critics laughed, and he removed it from later editions of his book, but Charles Darwin privately continued to believe that whales evolved from a “race of bears.”…

evolutionnews.org

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale," he speculated."

A Whale of an Evolution Tale

Darwinists often point to the whale fossil record as one of the best examples of an evolutionary transition. But is it? Charles Darwin wrote in The Origin of Species: “I can see no difficulty in a…

www.discovery.org

 

[Cypress]

Darwin made the following speculation in Origin of Species:

Thanks for again inadvertently proving what I said was correct. Darwin was speculating and guessing about the origin of life, but it didn't come remotely close the standard of a scientific theory, the way his theory of descent with modification did.

These words have very specific meanings in science, and you should learn what they mean.

 

[Alter2Ego]

Thanks for again inadvertently proving what I said was correct. Darwin was speculating and guessing about the origin of life, but it didn't come remotely close the standard of a scientific theory, the way his theory of descent with modification did.

These words have very specific meanings in science, and you should learn what they mean.

Cypress:

You are the one who got in this thread, praising Darwin and suggesting that is book, Origin of Species, was peer reviewed. My point is this: peer review means absolutely nothing if the peers who reviewed one's writings are all a bunch of people who are speculating themselves. That's what you can't seem to understand. Anyhow, I'm logging off for today.

Talk to you later.

 

[IBDaMann]

Charles Darwin didn't just "bounce" speculations off his friends and acquaintances;

Yes, he absolutely did, every chance he got.

In his book, [On the] Origin of Species, he speculated survival of the fittest,

Nope. He speculated by natural selection.

but that's not what scientists of the 20th century found;

You do not speak for "scientists."

They found that creatures went in and out of the record without improving.

Incorrect. I really wish you would read and learn what you are pretending to critique.

 

[Cypress]

Cypress:

You are the one who got in this thread, praising Darwin and suggesting that is book, Origin of Species, was peer reviewed. My point is this: peer review means absolutely nothing if the peers who reviewed one's writings are all a bunch of people who are speculating themselves. That's what you can't seem to understand. Anyhow, I'm logging off for today.

Talk to you later.

No, the way this started is that I said Darwin did not have a theory or mechanism for abiogenesis. At most he had some wild ass guesses, ideas, and speculations.

And you kindly did the work and Google research just proving I was right: Darwin was just speculating and guessing.


Nobody has a theory or mechanism for abiogenesis. The most we are working with at this point are hypotheses or educated guesses