Replies

“this standard is met by the evolution hypothesis”

But no evolutionary theorist has ever met this standard.

They have never identified the phenotypes and genotypes of the process of speciation.

And to claim that nature can “select,” as though nature were an agent rather than a mechanism, is nothing but a slight of hand.

You’re like the audience member who believes the stage magician doing his trick and then proclaiming “I speak the truth: he rabbit came out of the hat because he appeared, from nowhere, in the hat.”

reasonisfaith: "But no evolutionary theorist has ever met this standard.
They have never identified the phenotypes and genotypes of the process of speciation."

You clearly don't really know what the theory of evolution is, do you?
You seem to fantasize that whatsoever you thought it might have been, that's what it is, right?

Sorry to disillusion you, FRiend.

Here's the truth: the basic evolution confirmed-hypothesis combines two observations:

Descent with modifications, meaning that offspring are frequently somewhat different from their parents.
When Charles Darwin first noticed this, he knew nothing of Gregor Mendel's genetics experiments or DNA -- all Darwin knew was that offspring frequently have characteristics not found in their parents.
Today we know that descent-modifications come from several sources, including recessive genes and a few DNA mutations every generation.
These DNA mutations can be used to track our common ancestries back to a mutation's point of origin.
That is, for example, how they estimate a "Mitochondrial Eve" from 200,000 years ago.
Natural selection, meaning that creatures better adapted to their environments naturally survive and reproduce more often than others.
This can be seen in innumerable examples, some quite famous.

The evolution hypothesis simply takes these known facts and extends them over time, concluding that such changes long-term can account for variations we call new breeds, species, genera, families, etc.

The evolution hypothesis is confirmed (thus making it a theory) by many falsifiable predictions, and by data from virtually every other branch of science.
So, much of what we call evolution "theory" is in fact: fact.

Indeed, so far as I know, there is no example of a confirmed experiment falsifying the evolution hypothesis.

reasonisfaith: "And to claim that nature can “select,” as though nature were an agent rather than a mechanism, is nothing but a slight of hand."

Of course, the term "mother nature" is a metaphor, commonly used to represent more complex natural processes.
If we say, "mother nature selects the fittest for survival", we're really just talking about the observed fact that in nature creatures which are slightly stronger, faster, smarter, see, hear or smell better, take better care of their young, etc., -- they tend to survive more than others.

Of course, "mother nature" is decidedly not a scientific term and since most people are not "fooled" by it, there is no, in your expression: "slight of hand".

reasonisfaith: "You’re like the audience member who believes the stage magician doing his trick..."

I suppose you could consider all of science to be a "magic trick", since it has explained the inexplicable, and produced so much amazing technology.
But of course, there's no real "magic" to it, it's just observed science and theory applied to various questions.

You are, of course, free to reject as much as you wish of scientific knowledge, and many do.
But it would seem to me just a little hypocritical if you're using all the latest scientific gadgets, while loudly proclaiming you don't believe in scientific "tricks".