Here’s That New Study Demonstrating the Inheritance of Directed Change

That “ongoing debate” is mainly due to evolutionists resisting the science because it is fundamentally at odds with their theory.

Give it a few decades and it will be spun as having been part and parcel of the original theory all along. Mung

Dionisio

Would it make more sense in OOL discussions to try explaining how we got the finch to begin with, while letting the serious scientists continue their intensive research on the adaptability mechanisms associated with “change in finch beak sizes” ?

I think the problem there would be that we'd be accused of 'moving the goal posts'. If we shift the topic from evolution to origin-of-life, we might be conceding the argument. As I see it, when the evidence is merely that finch beaks changed over time, this does not permit an extrapolation to common descent via Darwinian (or natural evolutionary) processes. A lot more evidence than that is needed -- so OOL discussions don't need to be addressed at that point. Silver Asiatic

#2 Silver Asiatic

It’s rhetorical trickery.

Got it. Thank you. Would it make more sense in OOL discussions to try explaining how we got the finch to begin with, while letting the serious scientists continue their intensive research on the adaptability mechanisms associated with “change in finch beak sizes” ? After all, when philosophizing about science, it might help to remember two fundamental principles for serious research: "where's the beef?" and "show me the money!" :) Dionisio

Dionisio - yes, exactly. When making grand claims about how there is supposedly "no evidence of design", the term evolution is used to mean the development of all biological nature from the first life form via a natural, unguided, blind process. When biological facts show this idea to be impossible, then the term evolution is changed to mean "change in finch beak sizes". That is supposedly the proof of all evolutionary claims. If you can show that a finch's beak changed a little over time, that supposedly means that bacteria eventually changed enough to become human beings. It's rhetorical trickery. Silver Asiatic

We need to drop the metaphysics and dogma. Yes organisms adapt and change—in that sense evolution is true. But that is a very different kind of evolution than how the term is normally understood. Let’s narrow the scope of the term “evolution” to what we know from science.

Does this somehow relate to the famous Galapagos finch adaptability mechanisms? Dionisio