Is evolution a valid theory?

[Rhythmcs]

They do like to let the plebs believe that because to do otherwise is demographic suicide in their cash base. Their official position is a long winded caveat full of weasel words and ludicrous conditions. They're not actually on board with evolution they just know they've lost that fight.

[Huggy Bear]

pho·ton
/ˈfōˌtän/
noun Physics
noun: photon; plural noun: photons

   a particle representing a quantum of light or other electromagnetic radiation. A photon carries energy proportional to the radiation frequency but has zero rest mass.

Right -- a photon carries energy. What that energy does not do is power the eyeball, ya numpty. So acting as if your god designed a powered eyeball is a remarkably stupid argument, even for you.

*emphasis mine*

That's a bald faced lie. Provide the quote where I stated that energy POWERS the eyeball... What I said it the eye requires energy to function, which is not the same thing. You obviously can't see without light .

[Huggy Bear]

Nope, evolution is the framework and explanatory model; Intelligent Design and Creationism don’t even factor into the discussion because they are useless pseudosciences with no place in it, and that guy got thoroughly embarrassed trying to defend the design inference.

Intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not explain how life began and there's no reason created life can't evolve.

[SaxonX]

They eye still functions without light it doesn't magically switch off 

So you are made a fool again

[SaxonX]

Intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not explain how life began and there's no reason created life can't evolve.

Yes, they are mutually exclusive. Trying to shove divine pixies magic into the origins of live is a half-assed compromise some people make for the sake of legitimacy. They don't truly believe it any more than they believe the "designer" could be aliens.

[Rhythmcs]

Intelligent design and evolution are not mutually exclusive. Evolution does not explain how life began and there's no reason created life can't evolve.

The term you're looking for is artificial selection.  Modern synth is the combination of genetics and natural selection, though - so..yes...they're mutually exclusive by definition. You're right that modern synth doesn't explain how life began. That'd be organic chemistry.

It's also fun to point out that life being created would not establish intelligent design occurred nor would intelligent design occurring prove that life were created. Christianities beef is a self inflicted wound and, really, imo, isn't actually about created life or intelligent design or whether or not it looks like modern synth is accurate, anyway. It's the deflationary implications modern synthesis has for fundamentalist christology. Many christians recognize that if the theory accurately describes the development of life on earth their religious beliefs cannot be true, nevermind the superstitious ones.

[Huggy Bear]

They eye still functions without light it doesn't magically switch off 

So you are made a fool again

Ok then, you have two people in a pitch dark room, one had his eyes removed and the other has fully functional eyes. What do they both see?

[Rhythmcs]

You put one guys toes in a sock and you let the other guy go barefoot. Who has the set of fully functioning toes? Anywho, all this nonsense about eyes without light leads into a wonderful exploration of the hagfish...but I doubt it would amount to anything productive.

Now, if I were a smart christian apologist I wouldn't waste my breath with any of this. I'd spin a tale about ensoulment at full modernity. Don't have to insult your audience or get basic facts wrong for that one. You don't have to reject the weight of scientific evidence, and can actually appeal to it. You don't have to complain about the philosophical inadequacy of scientific inferences, you can make them.

[SaxonX]

Ok then, you have two people in a pitch dark room, one had his eyes removed and the other has fully functional eyes. What do they both see?

One lacks eyes, while the other has intact, functional ones. Poor analogy.

[SaxonX]

You put one guys toes in a sock and you let the other guy go barefoot.  Who has the set of fully functioning toes?  Anywho, all this nonsense about eyes without light leads into a wonderful exploration of the hagfish...but I doubt it would amount to anything productive.

Now, if I were a smart christian apologist I wouldn't waste my breath with any of this.  I'd spin a tale about ensoulment at full modernity.  Don't have to insult your audience or get basic facts wrong for that one.  You don't have to reject the weight of scientific evidence, and can actually appeal to it.  You don't have to complain about the philosophical inadequacy of scientific inferences, you can make them.

More you have one mans toe off and one toes is simply restrained the restrained to still function on the merit it's still attached to the foot

[Thumpalumpacus]

Right -- a photon carries energy. What that energy does not do is power the eyeball, ya numpty. So acting as if your god designed a powered eyeball is a remarkably stupid argument, even for you.

*emphasis mine*

That's a bald faced lie. Provide the quote where I stated that energy POWERS the eyeball... What I said it the eye requires energy to function, which is not the same thing. You obviously can't see without light .

Duh, Capt Obvious. And throwing the word "designed" in there is only circular argumentation.

You can't do anything without energy. But the argument that any sense that detects external energy -- i.e. all of them -- is ipso facto proof of design is begging the question. Just because an eyeball detects photons does not mean your specific god, or any god at all exists.

[SYZ]

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS OBSERVING THE PROBABILITY PROBLEM

                                                            [...]

* Kirschner, M. & Gerhart, J. The Plausibility of Life (Yale Univ. Press, 2005) – proposes facilitated variation to resolve how slight genetic changes yield complex systems .
* Lynch, M. “The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity.” PNAS 104(suppl 1): 8597–8604 (2007) .
* Shapiro, J.A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (FT Press, 2011) – advocates new mechanisms (natural genetic engineering) beyond neo-Darwinism .
* Wagner, A. Arrival of the Fittest (Penguin/Current, 2014) – on the search problem of innovation and network-enabled evolvability
* Müller, G.B. “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.” Interface Focus 7:20170015 (2017) – details the explanatory deficits re: complexity and novelty .
* Erwin, D.H. & Valentine, J.W. The Cambrian Explosion (Roberts & Co., 2013) – documents the rapid rise of modern body plans and the difficulty of explaining this via current models .
* Pigliucci, M. & Müller, G.B. (eds.) Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (MIT Press, 2010) – collection addressing gaps in the Modern Synthesis (e.g. generative innovation) .
* Additional relevant discussions in: Erwin, D. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution” (Evolution & Development 2000); Jablonka & Lamb Evolution in Four Dimensions (2005); West-Eberhard Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (2003); and other mainstream works that recognize the current probabilistic shortfall in fully explaining macroevolutionary leaps  .

There's really no point in posting a list of papers by various
interested, scientifically inclined individuals—considering that
you've simply farmed this stuff (apparently?) from ChatGPT
and have not read any of them yourself, as there are literally
hundreds of pages in that lot!

I happened to scan a couple, and noted that ...

It is now accepted that the nervous system appeared in bilaterians ancestors. Recovered fossils
suggest that the nervous system was already present 540 million years ago (McPartland
and Guy, 2004;Budd, 2013;Heger et al., 2020).

(Modern human beings are bilaterians.)

Kirschner and Gerhart provide a timely scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who
champion "intelligent design."

In fact, I don't think any of your links say what you think they say.

[SaxonX]

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS OBSERVING THE PROBABILITY PROBLEM

                                                            [...]

* Kirschner, M. & Gerhart, J. The Plausibility of Life (Yale Univ. Press, 2005) – proposes facilitated variation to resolve how slight genetic changes yield complex systems .
* Lynch, M. “The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity.” PNAS 104(suppl 1): 8597–8604 (2007) .
* Shapiro, J.A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (FT Press, 2011) – advocates new mechanisms (natural genetic engineering) beyond neo-Darwinism .
* Wagner, A. Arrival of the Fittest (Penguin/Current, 2014) – on the search problem of innovation and network-enabled evolvability
* Müller, G.B. “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.” Interface Focus 7:20170015 (2017) – details the explanatory deficits re: complexity and novelty .
* Erwin, D.H. & Valentine, J.W. The Cambrian Explosion (Roberts & Co., 2013) – documents the rapid rise of modern body plans and the difficulty of explaining this via current models .
* Pigliucci, M. & Müller, G.B. (eds.) Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (MIT Press, 2010) – collection addressing gaps in the Modern Synthesis (e.g. generative innovation) .
* Additional relevant discussions in: Erwin, D. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution” (Evolution & Development 2000); Jablonka & Lamb Evolution in Four Dimensions (2005); West-Eberhard Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (2003); and other mainstream works that recognize the current probabilistic shortfall in fully explaining macroevolutionary leaps  .

There's really no point in posting a list of papers by various
interested, scientifically inclined individuals—considering that
you've simply farmed this stuff (apparently?) from ChatGPT
and have not read any of them yourself, as there are literally
hundreds of pages in that lot!

I happened to scan a couple, and noted that ...

It is now accepted that the nervous system appeared in bilaterians ancestors. Recovered fossils
suggest that the nervous system was already present 540 million years ago (McPartland
and Guy, 2004;Budd, 2013;Heger et al., 2020).

(Modern human beings are bilaterians.)

Kirschner and Gerhart provide a timely scientific rebuttal to modern critics of evolution who
champion "intelligent design."

In fact, I don't think any of your links say what you think they say.

I love it when creationist cite stuff they have not read themselves 

[SYZ]

They eye still functions without light it doesn't magically switch off 

So you are made a fool again

Ok then, you have two people in a pitch dark room, one had his eyes removed and the other has fully functional eyes. What do they both see?

LOL... what a silly analogy!

Okay, the bloke with no eyes doesn't know the room is in darkness,
whereas the bloke with functioning eyes does know that, for certain.

This in itself proves that even without any source of visible light, the
human eye is still fully functional.

[Deesse23]

* Kirschner, M. & Gerhart, J. The Plausibility of Life (Yale Univ. Press, 2005) – proposes facilitated variation to resolve how slight genetic changes yield complex systems .
* Lynch, M. “The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity.” PNAS 104(suppl 1): 8597–8604 (2007) .
* Shapiro, J.A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (FT Press, 2011) – advocates new mechanisms (natural genetic engineering) beyond neo-Darwinism .
* Wagner, A. Arrival of the Fittest (Penguin/Current, 2014) – on the search problem of innovation and network-enabled evolvability
* Müller, G.B. “Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.” Interface Focus 7:20170015 (2017) – details the explanatory deficits re: complexity and novelty .
* Erwin, D.H. & Valentine, J.W. The Cambrian Explosion (Roberts & Co., 2013) – documents the rapid rise of modern body plans and the difficulty of explaining this via current models .
* Pigliucci, M. & Müller, G.B. (eds.) Evolution: The Extended Synthesis (MIT Press, 2010) – collection addressing gaps in the Modern Synthesis (e.g. generative innovation) .
* Additional relevant discussions in: Erwin, D. “Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution” (Evolution & Development 2000); Jablonka & Lamb Evolution in Four Dimensions (2005); West-Eberhard Developmental Plasticity and Evolution (2003); and other mainstream works that recognize the current probabilistic shortfall in fully explaining macroevolutionary leaps  .

Bolding mine

Lets just take the second (SYZ commented on the 1st one already) link: Lynch

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory. Numerous aspects of genomic architecture, gene structure, and developmental pathways are difficult to explain without invoking the nonadaptive forces of genetic drift and mutation. In addition, emergent biological features such as complexity, modularity, and evolvability, all of which are current targets of considerable speculation, may be nothing more than indirect by-products of processes operating at lower levels of organization. These issues are examined in the context of the view that the origins of many aspects of biological diversity, from gene-structural embellishments to novelties at the phenotypic level, have roots in nonadaptive processes, with the population-genetic environment imposing strong directionality on the paths that are open to evolutionary exploitation.

NOTHING about "no macroevolution", but claims of "it happened somewhat differently than we thought....."

Talking about probabilistics: How probable do you think it is we will find the same in the second paper? No denial of "macroevolution" but alleged findings within the theory of evolution as we know it. Make a guess, while i am using google scholar.

Shapiro, J.A. Evolution: A View from the 21st Century
Shapiro pushes the idea of Natural genetic engineering

Natural genetic engineering has been cited as a legitimate scientific controversy (in contrast to the controversies raised by various branches of creationism). While Shapiro considers the questions raised by Intelligent Design to be interesting, he parts ways with creationists by considering these problems to be scientifically tractable (specifically by understanding how NGE plays a role in the evolution of novelty).

A.Wagner: Book by an evolutionary biologist. Before i waste any time on that, Steve should SHOW that the book indeed says what Steve SAYS it claims.

None of Steves links dispute "macroevolution". They offer news/different mechanisms of how it heppens

[SYZ]

Huggy Bear and Steve have an aggregate IQ of 139.

How it's divided I don't know. Nearly equally?   

[Deesse23]

Quick recap of whats happening here:

Steve is a theist. He accepts "microevolution" but rejects "macroevolution". That makes him a creationist. He tries to argue by probabilities that "macroevolution" cant be possible. He then lets ChatGPT compile a list of books and papers, none of which dispute evolution per se, but offer new/competing hypotheses as to how evolution happens in detail. One of them, Shapiro, being latched on by (other) creationists, with the author (Shapiro) distancing himself from creationism.

I can not imagine a more spectacular failure on the part of Steve by having tried this. I also like to point out again his dishonesty: He could argue against evolution all day long and be correct in the end: The theory of evolution is completely wrong. That does not bring him one inch closer to demonstrating that his own beliefs are true. He should be forced to defend his own position, instead of allowing him attacking others´ positions for no good reason other than him having no good arguments for his own belief.

[SteveII]

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF EVOLUTIONARY SCIENTISTS OBSERVING THE PROBABILITY PROBLEM

So, did you even glance at those? I only ask because they all appear to refute your argument. Not a single one of them suggests that there's a fundamental flaw with evolution, or that god all mighty need be invoked for anything anywhere. Looks like ChatGPT dredged up the nearest possible matches that were factual but couldn't give you what you needed without hallucinating wildly. These authors are discussing the how and the why, not the if.

Here's your very first author discussing the matter and why it isn't a problem:

Beyond Darwin: evolvability and the generation of novelty

So let's try this again. Since science is open source and anybody can science, do you have any respectable body of scientists claiming that there's a fundamental flaw with evolution? Any respectable body of philosophers? Theologians? Seriously, if you can't even manage theologians, then you should take the hint.

If you can't manage that then all you're doing is parroting incompetent apologists as they babble on about their ill-conceived opinions.

After 10 posts, you still haven't picked up on the nuance of my argument. That is no longer my fault. You really need to focus on understanding my point instead of blasting out post after post of armies of strawmen and what you want to say on the matter.

Some of the references point out the insufficiency explicitly, other's implicitly as they are looking for mechanisms beyond:

TRADITIONAL MECHANISMS FOR EVOLUTION
• Mutation--Creates genetic variation via changes in DNA
Works For: Producing variation; Falls Short On: Coordinated, functional innovation
• Natural Selection--Differential survival and reproduction of organisms with certain traits
Works For: Optimizing existing traits; Falls Short On: Generating fundamentally new ones
• Genetic Drift--Random fluctuations in allele frequencies (especially in small populations)
Works For: Explaining neutral or non-adaptive changes; Falls Short On: Not directional or creative
• Gene Flow--Exchange of genes between populations
Works For: Spreading variation; Falls Short On: Doesn't generate novelty
• Speciation--The process by which new species arise (via isolation, divergence, etc.)
Works For: Reproductive isolation; Falls Short On: Doesn't explain what's changing, only that it’s diverging

FOR the hard problems:

1. The Origin of Higher Taxa
These include:
• New phyla, classes, or orders
• Distinct body plans (e.g., arthropods vs. chordates)
• Deep discontinuities in the fossil record (e.g., the Cambrian Explosion)
Problem: The core mechanisms can explain diversification within groups, but not the leap to radically new organizational blueprints.

2. The Emergence of Novel Abilities
These include:
• Flight (in insects, birds, bats)
• Consciousness or symbolic language in humans
• Vision via complex camera-type eyes
• Bioluminescence
Problem: Core mechanisms can fine-tune traits, but have trouble explaining entirely new functions that require multiple, co-dependent components to work at once.

3. Complex Biological Systems
These include:
• Molecular machines (e.g., ATP synthase, ribosomes)
• Coordinated organ systems (e.g., circulatory, immune, endocrine)
• Gene regulatory networks and feedback loops
Problem: These systems involve interacting parts that must work together or not at all. Gradual mutation and selection don’t easily explain how such systems emerge functionally integrated.

Why is the nuance relevant? Because the "fact" of macroevolution is largely inferred by extrapolating mechanisms observed in microevolution. But those mechanisms--mutation, selection, drift, and gene flow--struggle to account for the origin of new body plans, complex integrated systems, and novel capabilities. That's precisely why many evolutionary theorists are exploring extensions to the standard model, including evolvability theory (Kirschner & Gerhart), modularity and gene regulatory networks (Davidson), developmental plasticity and phenotypic accommodation (West-Eberhard), niche construction theory (Odling-Smee), and epigenetic inheritance. These are not fringe theories--they are serious, ongoing attempts to resolve the very insufficiencies I'm pointing out. But their existence demonstrates that we’re not dealing with a fully settled explanatory framework. If new mechanisms are being proposed to solve deep functional and probabilistic problems, then we should stop treating the current synthesis as if it has decisively answered the hard questions.

[SaxonX]

Steve comes with another wall of text that says nothing which will be easily picked apart leading to another wall of text which will meet the same fate and then again and again and again and again etc

[Dānu]

So, did you even glance at those? I only ask because they all appear to refute your argument. Not a single one of them suggests that there's a fundamental flaw with evolution, or that god all mighty need be invoked for anything anywhere. Looks like ChatGPT dredged up the nearest possible matches that were factual but couldn't give you what you needed without hallucinating wildly. These authors are discussing the how and the why, not the if.

Here's your very first author discussing the matter and why it isn't a problem:

Beyond Darwin: evolvability and the generation of novelty

So let's try this again. Since science is open source and anybody can science, do you have any respectable body of scientists claiming that there's a fundamental flaw with evolution? Any respectable body of philosophers? Theologians? Seriously, if you can't even manage theologians, then you should take the hint.

If you can't manage that then all you're doing is parroting incompetent apologists as they babble on about their ill-conceived opinions.

After 10 posts, you still haven't picked up on the nuance of my argument. That is no longer my fault. You really need to focus on understanding my point instead of blasting out post after post of armies of strawmen and what you want to say on the matter.

Some of the references point out the insufficiency explicitly, other's implicitly as they are looking for mechanisms beyond:

TRADITIONAL MECHANISMS FOR EVOLUTION
• Mutation--Creates genetic variation via changes in DNA
Works For: Producing variation; Falls Short On: Coordinated, functional innovation
• Natural Selection--Differential survival and reproduction of organisms with certain traits
Works For: Optimizing existing traits; Falls Short On: Generating fundamentally new ones
• Genetic Drift--Random fluctuations in allele frequencies (especially in small populations)
Works For: Explaining neutral or non-adaptive changes; Falls Short On: Not directional or creative
• Gene Flow--Exchange of genes between populations
Works For: Spreading variation; Falls Short On: Doesn't generate novelty
• Speciation--The process by which new species arise (via isolation, divergence, etc.)
Works For: Reproductive isolation; Falls Short On: Doesn't explain what's changing, only that it’s diverging

FOR the hard problems:

1. The Origin of Higher Taxa
These include:
• New phyla, classes, or orders
• Distinct body plans (e.g., arthropods vs. chordates)
• Deep discontinuities in the fossil record (e.g., the Cambrian Explosion)
Problem: The core mechanisms can explain diversification within groups, but not the leap to radically new organizational blueprints.

2. The Emergence of Novel Abilities
These include:
• Flight (in insects, birds, bats)
• Consciousness or symbolic language in humans
• Vision via complex camera-type eyes
• Bioluminescence
Problem: Core mechanisms can fine-tune traits, but have trouble explaining entirely new functions that require multiple, co-dependent components to work at once.

3. Complex Biological Systems
These include:
• Molecular machines (e.g., ATP synthase, ribosomes)
• Coordinated organ systems (e.g., circulatory, immune, endocrine)
• Gene regulatory networks and feedback loops
Problem: These systems involve interacting parts that must work together or not at all. Gradual mutation and selection don’t easily explain how such systems emerge functionally integrated.

Why is the nuance relevant? Because the "fact" of macroevolution is largely inferred by extrapolating mechanisms observed in microevolution. But those mechanisms--mutation, selection, drift, and gene flow--struggle to account for the origin of new body plans, complex integrated systems, and novel capabilities. That's precisely why many evolutionary theorists are exploring extensions to the standard model, including evolvability theory (Kirschner & Gerhart), modularity and gene regulatory networks (Davidson), developmental plasticity and phenotypic accommodation (West-Eberhard), niche construction theory (Odling-Smee), and epigenetic inheritance. These are not fringe theories--they are serious, ongoing attempts to resolve the very insufficiencies I'm pointing out. But their existence demonstrates that we’re not dealing with a fully settled explanatory framework. If new mechanisms are being proposed to solve deep functional and probabilistic problems, then we should stop treating the current synthesis as if it has decisively answered the hard questions.

While it may be true that respectable scientists consider the new synthesis to be incomplete, the reasons for this may all lie in the camp that believes that the mechanisms of the new synthesis have failed to be shown to be capable of these things, rather than that the mechanisms of the new synthesis have been shown to be insufficient. This is a key difference that you keep tripping over and which you need to show to be the latter if your complaints about evolution being a self-contained scientific theory resting on philosophical assumptions is going to have any validity whatsoever. So far, you have not done so. In its absence, you have presented evidence of the former, which only results in an argument from ignorance which does not justify your conclusion.

Looking further down the road, it seems that your complaint about the failure of evolutionary theory to be self-contained rests upon a view in which scientific practice is viewed as the attempt to confirm a theory (verificationism) rather than an attempt to falsify it (Popper). Inasmuch as your complaints rest upon the former, they are predicated upon a model of science which has been abandoned and does not rests its inferences upon the scientific method as used by the scientists who developed and use the new synthesis. Furthermore, philosophy is integral to the practice of science. This leads to two possibilities. That a theory uses philosophy in its expression, and that a theory rests upon philosophical results that lie outside science proper. In as much as it is the latter, and a vicious dependence exists, your argument is merited. However, in the former case, the use of philosophy is not a critical error, and your complaint has no merit. You must demonstrate that the dependence upon philosophy is not of the innocuous sort.

[Minimalist]

Even if evolution were shown to be utterly false - and it is hard to get beyond this - 

https://www.openaccessjournals.com/artic...16347.html

The genetic code is the fundamental basis of all life on Earth. It is the set of instructions that determines the traits, characteristics, and behavior of all living organisms. The genetic code is encoded in the DNA (Deoxyribonucleic Acid) and RNA (Ribonucleic Acid) molecules present in the cells of all living organisms. DNA is the genetic material found in the cells of all living organisms.

it still does not validate any of this god horseshit which humanity  has invented across the millennia.  Anthropologists have estimated a minimum of 18,000 various deities created by the human imagination and fucking jesus is just one more of them!

[Paleophyte]

After 10 posts, you still haven't picked up on the nuance of my argument.

Or perhaps your endless shrieking of "Macro-evolution can't happen! Does not! Nuh-uh!" isn't quite as "nuanced" as you seem to believe.

Some of the references point out the insufficiency explicitly, other's implicitly as they are looking for mechanisms beyond:

Yes, they're discussing the nuances, the various different variations on How and Why, not If. Not a single one of them suggests that macro-evolution can't or doesn't happen. That's complete misrepresentation on your part.

Why is the nuance relevant?

Because it's absent.

Because the "fact" of macroevolution

See? Right there. Every last one of the authors that you cited treats macro-evolution as a fact, yet you're trying to use them to justify those quotation marks. That's utterly dishonest and purely mendacious, but hey, I guess that's what you call "nuance".

is largely inferred by extrapolating mechanisms observed in microevolution. But those mechanisms--mutation, selection, drift, and gene flow--struggle to account for the origin of new body plans, complex integrated systems, and novel capabilities. That's precisely why many evolutionary theorists are exploring extensions to the standard model, including evolvability theory (Kirschner & Gerhart), modularity and gene regulatory networks (Davidson), developmental plasticity and phenotypic accommodation (West-Eberhard), niche construction theory (Odling-Smee), and epigenetic inheritance. These are not fringe theories--they are serious, ongoing attempts to resolve the very insufficiencies I'm pointing out. But their existence demonstrates that we’re not dealing with a fully settled explanatory framework. If new mechanisms are being proposed to solve deep functional and probabilistic problems, then we should stop treating the current synthesis as if it has decisively answered the hard questions.

No, you don't get to pretend to a nuanced view after hopping up and down crowing that macro-evolution can't happen. You don't get to cite Kischner to defend Andelin. You do not get to climb this cliff using the rope that you sliced off at the top. You've no interest in any of these other evolutionary mechanisms that explain macro-evolution and no idea what any of them do. The only reason that you are even dimly aware of them is because you think that they sow reasonable doubt against a theory that doesn't agree with your mythology. Which is hilarious after you carping on about flaws in philosophy and biases. You don't get to pretend to reason out of one side of your mouth while banishing it from the other side.

So let's keep this really simple. You have no evidence. Again. Seems to be a perennial problem for you. No scientists, no philosophers, not even theologians. Or at least none that can get published outside of AiG or Chinese E-Pub mills.

[Dānu]

If new mechanisms are being proposed to solve deep functional and probabilistic problems, then we should stop treating the current synthesis as if it has decisively answered the hard questions.

Science doesn't decisively answer any question. Science's answers are always tentative. You have mistaken it for something it is not.

[pattylt]

I’m trying to figure out how Steve thinks macro evolution doesn’t happen yet can’t explain away what we see….
Ancient bacteria appear ~3.5 Billion years ago with a steady stream of more advanced life appearing over time in the fossils as well as genetic and embryonic biology shows up to the current life on earth with bacteria, virii, amoebas, fish, reptiles, amphibians, to mammals.

Did god just keep zapping the earth every oh, say 100,000 years? Every million years? Or does he actually believe the earth is only 600 years old with god creating everything all at once? Steve, you deny a young age. You deny micro evolution so how do you explain the advancing complexity over 3.5 billion years?

[Paleophyte]

It's like watching a Flat Earther prove that the Earth can't be a sphere because all of these experts agree that it's actually an ellipse.