Is the theory of evolution correct?

I think your'e overthinking it. They're just moving the goalpost again.

Somewhere a while back some preacher probably said, "none of this "evilution" stuff is true. I say a chicken is a chicken is a chicken". And the loyal flock all chanted "amen" (some because they didn't want to get stoned to death) and they went with it. Then everyone looked around and realized that wolves had changed into poodles and terriers and suddenly that argument seemed a bit shaky, so they moved the goalpost. Now they grudgingly concede that a wolf can micro-change into a chihuahua, but "oh no" they say, it can't macro-change change into a coy-wolf... except uh oh... look what happened. Time to move that goalpost again.

It's all so stupid. And tedious. It never ends. The evidence for evolution is so completely overwhelming and obvious that it was understood over a century ago. The only people who can't see it are people who are desperately trying to justify the existence of their own personal god, whichever one (of the billions of incarnations) it may be.

Quote ‘What would it take to get you to feel that it doesn't require an Intelligent Designer to make evolution work?’

For me, to observe bacteria being created by nonintelligent source, or and example of information being created by a nice n intelligent source.( The best example evolutionists have conjured up so far is penis shaped clouds) got anything better?

It is Interesting as well that it seems many evolutionists avoid the obviousness of intelligent design, to make themselves their own gods dictating right from wrong, their own standard of morality. Fear driven. Pride driven etc.

There are several possibilities.

* Success of a properly implemented abiogenesis experiment. (Had to happen before evolution could even be a thing)

* A mathematical/chemical/software model demonstrating how a minimal model of a living organism could emerge naturally.

* A computer simulation showing that complexity comparable to any simple living organism can occur by random processes. Unsuccessful iterations can be 'killed off' simulating natural selection. This doesn't even have to be 'life', just something of comparable functional complexity.

* An actual demonstration of a new species emerging from natural or accelerated mutation. (Every attempt has failed so far. 50,000 generations of bacteria resulted in no more than a single bit mutation or most often, birth defects. Never a new species to my knowledge.

* A plausible explanation for how the elaborate temperature control mechanism of male whale testes could have emerged without forethought or going extinct before it developed. (there are many such implausible examples of such evolutionary 'miracles'.)

* Finding Any other example of functional organization occurring naturally that can't be explained by the basic laws of physics.

* Finding biological life has actually developed on places like Mars where all the presumed requirements of life are or have been present.

* A successful demonstration of so called Dynamic Kinetic Stability of significant complexity. (eddy currents do not qualify)

I'd like to point out that the current theory rests primarily on the simple fact that new species came about (fossil evidence) and Methodological Naturalism dogma. It is circular logic with no experimental evidence beyond changing bird beaks and such. Darwin's finches are interbreeding today, how does that show new species are emerging?

I think I've shown that my idea of ID qualifies as 'falsifiable'.
Is your theory 'falsifiable' ?

What would it take to change your mind?

Another thought. If abiogenesis is found to require an intelligent source, would it be reasonable to assume that macro evolution had the same 'help'?

all well thought out concepts but they seem to cluster about only two arguments. and the opposing argument you propose has no evidence at all (even your conceptual "evidence" is, as you know, "outcome based"). I deal with math models all the time and, unless Im just working on "back calculating" whats been discovered;

(like kriging or variogramming of ore deposits that are based on minimal data) or using the model to solve for on or, at most, three independents,) ITS ALL CRAP. Models in my world are often fraudulent re-creation s of someones faulty reality.
Fluid flow models are the worst. Yet they qre used as bases for spending billions of dollars in resource claims. (And it becomes two experts fighting it out in a civil suit where truth i not a critical outcome, its whoever SOUNDS most convincing) BUT THATS ANOTHER ARGUMENT ENTIRELY

As Ive said to you before, many times life (and several other non-living states) are predominantly closed thermodynamic systems and for their brief existence in their highest state, LIVE AGAINST THE CHEMICAL GRADIENT OF ENTROPY. THAT FACT, coupled with Malthusian properties (wherein the living state enjoys the many benefits of exponential growth) doesnt make a naturalistic evolutionary (no gods needed) difficult.

Another feature of your "wish list" is based on a supposition thaT we have NEVER created the living state. or that "the fossil record is false".

1. We actually hve, in the lab developed living state molecules that demonstrate several of the features through which we define life. (Not all t the same time it true) but weve achieved replication, nutrition transfer and energy , cell wall structures and respiration.
Our problems now are more leading us to recognize that there were, perhaps, many roads to sustainable life and perhaps we wont be left without a good model. We will NOT suffer from lacks of candidate reactions, we will, instead suffer from an overabundance of competing modes .

2. The fossil record does give you guy big problems because it does show the interdependence of living forms, and their propensity to evolve new and wonderful forms as their environments pressure them to do so. Biogeography i doubly troubling to youse all because it demonstrates how so many unique forms can evolve separated by very few kilometers (like two cavern systems in West Virginia can show 4 different sppecies of trogs three of which are unique to cave system 1 and the lst is unique to cave system 2. And they are each new species and higher. That demonstrates a fairly incompetent IDer, ho didnt know about the creation of two different cave systems until AFter the Illinoian Glacial epoch. Whenever you sy that evidence supports ID as much as it does a naturalistic interpretation, thats when you really need to deny the validity of the fossil record and even more, you have to deny the stratigraphic record an"Strata Smith's "Map the Changed the World"

As Dr Pross said about life, that Its like what Woody Allen said
"WHATEVER WORKS".

I woulda Asked you, instead, What is it you find compelling to the Intelligent Designer story thats NOT religiously based??

So you’re saying that science hasn’t come up with anything on that list of falsifiers.

Didn’t think so.

ask a question that makes some sense.

The first problem you encounter is that nobody has observed any such phenomenon. That alone makes the entire subject unscientific.

The second problem is that every time you try to make sense of the theory, supporters tell you it doesn't work that way. If it were science it would make sense.

Third, every bit of evidence ever offered has been exposed as a hoax.

Supporters gave up trying to peddle the idea to educated people and tried to sneak it into schools so children coud be indoctrinated to believe it without any particular support. That was blocked, so they bribed colleges by endowing departments of EVOLUTIONARY biology so that any student who refused to pretend to believe could be denied a degree. Hey presto! All the degreed people now pretend to believe and the rest of you can pound sand.

Im curious, "hoax" usually implies a need to deceive. Can you identify a piece of evidence thats been found to be a hoax???

Please dont bring up Piltdown Man, or Nebraska Man as these were not products of science. They were attempts to deceive science and it succeeded for 25 years until science developed a series of techniques that got to the bottom of the deception conducted by an "amateur collector" who was trying for his 15 minutes

are you current on the scientific literature or is this just your assertion??

You seem to harbor a serious paranoid delusion. I suspect the bullshit you are attempting to peddle is religiously motivated, but that you have not been entirely candid about that.

Vern is a jewel all right; has no concept of what science is all about. Already been brain-washed by his religion.
If god says, love thy neighbor as thyself, okay. If god says, kill all non-believers, uhhhhhhh. https://www.patheos.com/blogs/dispatches/2015/01/22/yes-the-bible-does-say-to-kill-infidels/

I would wish to add further that you are apparently clueless of the entire pocess of Accreditation of universities and colleges that offer degrees in technicall fields like Evolutionary Biology.
The mission of most Universities and colleges is for students to obtain degrees that are considered useful to industry or research institutions (like CDC or NIH or several others).
If a school offers a degree in evolutionary biology and is not accredited, the student has been cheated out of a quality education. Accreditation boards are regional boards made up of members that represent many sides of a technology, industry, health services, research, etc etc as well as teaching.

So , cmon, " Bribing schools"???? REALLY???? , youre obviously in your own special world, you urgently need to learn how the real world works.

Does Jewels have hope?

I've seen the university grant/tenure system up close and personal. It aint all legit in the real world.

have you seen the system for university or college accreditation?? I think not.
As far as "grants and tenure" (two things that generally have only tangential contact) they are both mor associated with a schools "advertising", not some basis for some occult belief system.

"Bribing" to keep non-believers down ( silly assertion that is really baseless and ridiculous). A college is , secondly, A BUSINESS. Unaccredited colleges dont have their "science" graduates (Their main product) being pursued by businesses or research.

In THE REAL WORLD , the markets will decide whats right when it comes to sciences

Never thought I'd hear you admit that.

why not, you do realize that this IS my profession and Im fairly comfortably remunerated???

(Ive been told that 3 question marks is tweetish for flaming)


Back to my question, ARE you familiar with the process that schools are accredited and by whom they are accredited?

A bunch of guys much like yourself.

rest my case

#MeToo