Can any creationist tell me ...

[Profound Realization]

So far so good, then.
If you use the word 'created', in the context of this conversation you may well imply that the creation is the act of a creator's will. I see no evidence of a creator, or 'intelligent designer', anywhere, and the only physical evidence offered for such a thing is Behe's 'irreducible complexity'. All of his purported examples were explained by evolutionary science (they were all examples of exaptation) at the Dover trial 2005. As far as I know there are no current purported examples.

But beyond that, no demonstration of a real creator, one with objective existence, not imaginary, has ever been given, and attempts to imply such a being have given rise to the expression 'god of the gaps' as the list of things the alleged creator is said to have inexplicably created gets smaller and smaller.

Not that science knows everything, but science uses the easily the most reliable method for determining facts about reality that we have.
That word 'created' again.
I started this thread in order to pose a question.

That question was, and is, Why has creationism, in more than fifty years in its modern form, never once put a scientific scratch on the theory of evolution? Never once compelled even the tiniest amendment to the basics of the theory?

Not one reasoned reply on behalf of creationism in 540 posts so far.

What's the answer?
If that's true, don't tell me ─ publish a paper in Nature and win yourself everlasting fame.
Two answers to that. First, a trait that is neutral ─ neither promotes nor hinders survival and breeding ─ may hang around for a long time, since no selection is involved.

Second, most primate societies, and certainly humans, are gregarious, and flourish through tribal cooperation. In all such societies, there are strong advantages to survival and to breeding in being higher rather than lower on the peck order. Basic to advancement are social skills in forming one-to-one relationships in the group, which favors certain kinds of intelligence, not just physical wellbeing and hunting prowess. Music derives from voice and rhythmic dance, both socializers, therefore both useful for bonding the tribe. Curiosity is part of our kit of survival tools, and leads to philosophy and thus to science. Intelligence, and demonstrations of intelligence, are in many circumstances beneficial for getting a mate and breeding.
We think intelligence is likely the result of competition for places in society and access to breeding mates. There's also evidence to suggest that some 70,000 years ago the H sap population was reduced to 20,000 members or less, maybe only a fraction of that, because of extreme climate stress; and this would also put a premium on intelligence and versatility for survival.

Correct, nor that I am implying there is or was an intelligent creator. I am implying that as far back as observable, everything has been created and continues to create. Beyond that, let the beliefs begin. I am implying that many have a need to debunk an intelligent Creator by using evolution. Evolution does no such thing as to prove an intelligent designer or disprove an intelligent designer.

Ah, the infamous "why don't you claim a prize or submit your work to such and such." Here I thought you were one of the few who reasoned better than this. All it takes is awareness that any human being can obtain if a veil of confirmation bias is removed.
The gaps of time are already filled with accepted facts, albeit no evidence, and when no one can falsify something that doesn't exist, to automatically assume it's accepted truth is strange and silly, and not sound science. I don't know much of what you're insisting on, I don't get information from Creationist sites, nor do I assume anything they have to say so that it completely irrelevant to anything I've said. See the 1st paragraph, that is what I'm implying. Are you implying that all scientists are "atheists" or something? Many do their sound scientific evolutionary work and also believe in a Creator/God/ID. Are you saying all the sound work these humans have done have contributed nothing?

There it is: "MAY" hang around for a long time. This "may" is already accepted as fact that natural selection can do anything it wants in the minds of humans, as you've just proved. The time gaps of "mays" are already all accepted truth.

In other words, a bunch of "maybe's" or "thought to have's" when it comes to intelligence. As already stated, it is fine to accept these beliefs on faith or from faith of emergence.
What genes came from previous species that gave humans religions, poetry, arts, music, intelligence, etc. via natural selection? Does this not sound silly? Natural selection is not an intelligent process. If someone wants to kill you, will you sing them a pretty song for your survival?

 

[blü 2]

Correct, nor that I am implying there is or was an intelligent creator. I am implying that as far back as observable, everything has been created and continues to create.

You're still using the word 'create' and that word still implies a 'creator'. If you only mean that biological things procreate, please say so clearly.

Evolution does no such thing as to prove an intelligent designer or disprove an intelligent designer.

Maybe not, but at the Dover trial, evolution scientists explained all of Behe's purported examples of 'irreducible complexity' in evolutionary terms, and there is presently zero evidence for 'intelligent design'

Ah, the infamous "why don't you claim a prize or submit your work to such and such."

If it's true, rub science's nose in it. If you can't show it's true, or point to evidence that makes it plausible to science, then you have no basis for attacking the present evolution paradigm. Except empty wishes.

when no one can falsify something that doesn't exist

What specifically are you referring to here? Examples, not generalizations, please.

In other words, a bunch of "maybe's" or "thought to have's" when it comes to intelligence. As already stated, it is fine to accept these beliefs on faith or from faith of emergence.

It's not 'faith' to accept them as the best hypothesis we have at this time; it's still an hypothesis, but it's derived from examinable evidence and it's plausible. It would only be 'faith' if you graduated it from 'hypothesis' to 'fact'.

What genes came from previous species that gave humans religions, poetry, arts, music, intelligence, etc. via natural selection?

I went through that in my previous post.

What do you say gave rise to those things, and what evidence supports your claim?

 

[Profound Realization]

You're still using the word 'create' and that word still implies a 'creator'. If you only mean that biological things procreate, please say so clearly.
Maybe not, but at the Dover trial, evolution scientists explained all of Behe's purported examples of 'irreducible complexity' in evolutionary terms, and there is presently zero evidence for 'intelligent design'
If it's true, rub science's nose in it. If you can't show it's true, or point to evidence that makes it plausible to science, then you have no basis for attacking the present evolution paradigm. Except empty wishes.
What specifically are you referring to here? Examples, not generalizations, please.
It's not 'faith' to accept them as the best hypothesis we have at this time; it's still an hypothesis, but it's derived from examinable evidence and it's plausible. It would only be 'faith' if you graduated it from 'hypothesis' to 'fact'.
I went through that in my previous post.

What do you say gave rise to those things, and what evidence supports your claim?

Create means create. As far back as we can allegedly observe/measure, and use intellect for physical evidence, those things were created in and from themselves. For intents and purposes, if you wish to imply a "Creator," I can agree with you that the Big Bang and Nothing is the current leading intellectual explanation as Creator.

The present evolutionary paradigm has many hypothesis', opinions, assumptions, thought to be's, could's. Any human that is free is welcome to attack and provide their own hypothesis', opinions, assumptions, thought to be's, could's.
I am pleased that you are aware of the difference. However, many tout these as undeniable facts and truth which as admitted would be of faith. Empty wishes coming from many, unfortunately I don't think that many are aware/conscious of what they're doing when they state these as undeniable factual truths.

Please enlighten me on how it's possible for someone to conclude some aspects of evolution as factual truth with no physical evidence... and then ask someone to falsify that something that doesn't exist in the first place except in the mind? People on these forums are the ones citing these facts, it would be their obligation to prove them without referring to philosophical opinions and attacking the one who questions if they were honest.
The one that you gave a specific example of "may hang around for a long time." I'm glad that you acknowledge this is a "hypothesis" and not a fact or truth.

From a scientific perspective requiring physical evidence, I don't know, because there is currently no physical evidence for such. The best I can say staying between the scientific goalposts.. some neurologists have the current opinion that it is as if a switch were flipped from off to on. .I think this best describes the position I'd take from a scientific perspective if what is thought to have happened is true.

 

[blü 2]

those things were created in and from themselves.

We have explanations reasoned from examinable evidence about the Big Bang and the formation of the universe as a result.

It's true that we don't know what happened, if anything, before the Big Bang. That's because the intensity of the concentration of energy at time zero means that no information about any prior state is now accessible to us, at least in the present state of our knowledge. On the other hand, it seems necessary for something to have existed, so speculating in a theological manner, my candidate is mass-energy. And if spacetime were a quality of mass-energy (instead of mass-energy existing within spacetime), then the problem of beginnings would be solved. But that's hypothesis.

The other partly-answered question is abiogenesis, the transition from chemistry to active biochemistry. We haven't cracked it yet, but given the progress that's been made, maybe we're see a result announced in the not too distant future. We'll see.

The present evolutionary paradigm has many hypothesis', opinions, assumptions, thought to be's, could's.

It simultaneously has a rock-solid basis in coherent theory supported by huge quantities of consistent evidence; tremendous explaining power; and the approbation of the great majority of informed minds.

The only alternatives on the table that I can think of offhand are Lysenkoism and special creation. Lysenkoism lacks evidenciary support and has an incoherent theoretical basis that might appeal to followers of Émile Coué. Special creation requires us to believe in magic, the alteration of reality independently of the rules of physics, by wishing. That's kindergarten nonsense.

 

[SkepticThinker]

There are some scientists who are/were notable skeptics of atheism, - who also happened to give us the greatest validated scientific discoveries of all time, like the Big Bang & Quantum mechanics, by being open to concepts others were taught to consider religious pseudoscience.

But most 'useful' discoveries don't come from 'academic' scientists at all, Thomas Edison, the Wright Brothers, Bill Gates, were all academic failures- useful real world discoveries generally require working in, and understanding the real world.

Ah, but they didn't use magic, right? They used ideas derived from scientific inquiry and testing.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Ah, but they didn't use magic, right? They used ideas derived from scientific inquiry and testing.

Exactly, as opposed to atheist ideology and/or the peer pressure review system

 

[SkepticThinker]

Exactly, as opposed to atheist ideology and/or the peer pressure review system

There is no "atheist ideology."

The point is, they used the scientific method, instead of just relying on beliefs from ancient "holy" texts.

 

[blü 2]

Exactly, as opposed to atheist ideology and/or the peer pressure review system

And here we are at post #548 and STILL NO CREATIONIST HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION THIS THREAD IS ABOUT (or even addressed it):

Why, after more than fifty years of modern 'creation science', has creationism not laid even the lightest scientific glove on its sworn enemy the theory of evolution?

Not even one teensy scratch, not even one comma shifted.

The obvious answer is that 'creation science' is a pretend name, that creationism knows no science, and that creationism relevantly does not and cannot make accurate statements about reality.

And it appears from the silence that creationists agree.

If that's wrong then what is the answer?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

And here we are at post #548 and STILL NO CREATIONIST HAS ANSWERED THE QUESTION THIS THREAD IS ABOUT (or even addressed it):

Why, after more than fifty years of modern 'creation science', has creationism not laid even the lightest scientific glove on its sworn enemy the theory of evolution?

Not even one teensy scratch, not even one comma shifted.

The obvious answer is that 'creation science' is a pretend name, that creationism knows no science, and that creationism relevantly does not and cannot make accurate statements about reality.

And it appears from the silence that creationists agree.

If that's wrong then what is the answer?

Science has not put a single scratch in the tenets of astrology either, superstitions like anthropomorphic climate change still linger since the dawn of civilization, Victorian age Darwinists are still with us of course, and probably will be for a long time.

But in terms of science -the method, rather than mere belief systems... where do you want to start?


'Creationists' accepted the scientific evidence of the fossil record long ago, which could not have validated it's predictions more emphatically, that the gaps, jumps, sudden appearances were real, not just artifacts of a 'misleading record of evidence' as first predicted 150 years ago, and long before 'punctuated equilibriumists' began to accept this

So too for direct experimentation, validating strict limitations on adaptation, in stark contrast to predictions of evolutionists

so too for mathematical modelling, which shows that outcomes must be predetermined one way or another, that random mutation lacks the creative power to introduce the emergent properties necessary to account for the diversity of life on planet Earth.


We had the same atheist minority passionately defending static universes, decades after they were scientifically debunked also, this is nothing particularly new for most of us!

 

[blü 2]

Science has not put a single scratch in the tenets of astrology

On the contrary, astrology (biblically authorized Genesis 1:14, arguably denied later) has been the subject of reasoned, evidence-based enquiry and has been shown to have no relevant predictive power. If you still rely on it, sorry to bring you the bad news.

superstitions like anthropomorphic climate change still linger since the dawn of civilization

Your anthropo climate question will be decided by science, not religion, by fact, not superstition.

Victorian age Darwinists are still with us.

So are believers in special creation, would you believe?! Credulous adults swallowing tales of magic!

Fortunately we have the modern theory of evolution, with its coherent theory backed by ever-accumulating mountains of consistent evidence, enormous explaining power and the high opinion of the great majority of well-informed people (as I remarked in another nearby post). Those whose reading hasn't taken them past 1859 aren't so much wrong as not up to date. The addition of modern genetics to the evolution armory has been a sort of turbocharger, as you'll have noticed in the science news since late last century.

I can't offer such comfort to the believers in magic.

'Creationists' accepted the scientific evidence of the fossil record long ago, which could not have validated it's predictions more emphatically, that the gaps, jumps, sudden appearances were real, not just artifacts of a 'misleading record of evidence' as first predicted 150 years ago, and long before 'punctuated equilibriumists' began to accept this

That's all old news.

But I'm correct in saying that the creationists have sat on their hands throughout when it comes to exploring reality and determining the facts objectively, no?

So too for direct experimentation, validating strict limitations on adaptation, in stark contrast to predictions of evolutionists

What are you referring to, exactly? Anything that happened in this century?

so too for mathematical modelling, which shows that outcomes must be predetermined one way or another

Mathematical modeling is statistical, and gives odds, not predetermination. Stay on the road, please.

random mutation lacks the creative power to introduce the emergent properties necessary to account for the diversity of life on planet Earth.

If that's correct then why oh why oh why do I have to ask my question? Where are those papers in reputable journals of science shafting the theory of evolution?

No sign of them. Because 'creation science' can't do science, hence publishes only in parish magazines.

We had the same atheist minority passionately defending static universes

What do you say the creationists were proclaiming before Einstein opened the door for Friedmann and Lemaître? Be precise with your answer and your evidence.

decades after they were scientifically debunked

Exactly. Not religiously debunked, but corrected by scientists. Religion is notorious for never correcting its mistakes, and a gratuitous but enormous blunder like 'biblical inerrancy' ─ something not even the bible claims for itself ─ has led to the sorry spectacle of people who think the world was 100% under water at some stage since H sap arose (max 200,000 years). Not a shred of geological or biological evidence supports this nonsense.

Very sad, no?


But I note you still haven't addressed the question. What explains the colossal failure, the manifest inadequacy, the strongly implied gross incompetence, of 'creation science' which can't lay a scientific glove on its hated enemy even with over half a century to do it?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

On the contrary, astrology (biblically authorized Genesis 1:14, arguably denied later) has been the subject of reasoned, evidence-based enquiry and has been shown to have no relevant predictive power. If you still rely on it, sorry to bring you the bad news.

I don't, astrologers do, and the light of science has not changed their belief, or Darwinism over the last 150 years

Your anthropo climate question will be decided by science, not religion, by fact, not superstition.

science has already answered the question long ago, thousands of years of anthropomorphic climate change has always been based on the same superstition; that bad weather is caused by bad people. switching scary masks and dances for scary computer sims and pop media doesn't make the belief any less scientifically illiterate

So are believers in special creation, would you believe?! Credulous adults swallowing tales of magic!

magic is the rabbit appearing spontaneously in the hat for no reason, I think it was just put there on purpose- the only known explanation for the phenomena we seek to explain- I understand that it's not necessarily the most satisfying for everyone!

Fortunately we have the modern theory of evolution, with its coherent theory backed by ever-accumulating mountains of consistent evidence, enormous explaining power and the high opinion of the great majority of well-informed people (as I remarked in another nearby post). Those whose reading hasn't taken them past 1859 aren't so much wrong as not up to date. The addition of modern genetics to the evolution armory has been a sort of turbocharger, as you'll have noticed in the science news since late last century.

I can't offer such comfort to the believers in magic.
That's all old news.

see above for magic^ single cells morphing into humans by 'accidental' changes, flying spaghetti multiverses.. I used to enjoy believing in those, they are very intuitive and satisfying ideas, like classical physics and phrenology

But I'm correct in saying that the creationists have sat on their hands throughout when it comes to exploring reality and determining the facts objectively, no?

no

What are you referring to, exactly? Anything that happened in this century?
Mathematical modeling is statistical, and gives odds, not predetermination. Stay on the road, please.

bacteria are still bacteria in this century, so are fruit flies.

Physics and chemistry boil down to math, and so does the life which is an extension of it
i.e. I agree with Darwin's premise, that life probably developed in the same way as that which set the stage for it. Which in his day was a handful of simple classical 'immutable' laws, plus lots of time and space to randomly bump around in. Concepts of deeper, mysterious ,unpredictable, specific ,finely tuned instructions, predetermining exactly how and when things would develop.... that was still 'religious pseudoscience' before quantum mechanics, or 'magic' as you might call it. I understand that science can seem magic when looking at only superficial observations

If that's correct then why oh why oh why do I have to ask my question? Where are those papers in reputable journals of science shafting the theory of evolution?

No sign of them. Because 'creation science' can't do science, hence publishes only in parish magazines.

Likewise. one reason Lemaitre's theory was mocked and ridiculed was because his institution of education was not considered reputable, even worse it was skeptical of atheism!!

So I'm less interested in what is fashionable with the peer pressure review system, far more interested in what is true.

In fact the former is a practical guarantee of scientific error and stagnation, ask Max Planck

What do you say the creationists were proclaiming before Einstein opened the door for Friedmann and Lemaître? Be precise with your answer and your evidence.
Exactly. Not religiously debunked, but corrected by scientists. Religion is notorious for never correcting its mistakes, and a gratuitous but enormous blunder like 'biblical inerrancy' ─ something not even the bible claims for itself ─ has led to the sorry spectacle of people who think the world was 100% under water at some stage since H sap arose (max 200,000 years). Not a shred of geological or biological evidence supports this nonsense.

Very sad, no?

It used to be ridiculed that Earth was once entirely water, and then one single land mass and one great ocean. Both are pretty well confirmed now

But I note you still haven't addressed the question. What explains the colossal failure, the manifest inadequacy, the strongly implied gross incompetence, of 'Darwinsim' which can't lay a scientific glove on its hated enemy even with over half a century to do it?

But I note you still haven't addressed the question. What explains the colossal failure, the manifest inadequacy, the gross incompetence, of 'Darwinsim' which can't lay a scientific glove on its hated enemy even with over a century and a half to do it?

I take your silence as a concession!

 

[blü 2]

I don't, astrologers do, and the light of science has not changed their belief, or Darwinism over the last 150 years

Nor have reason, evidence or science succeeded in changing the views of creationists.

magic is the rabbit appearing spontaneously in the hat for no reason

Exactly like light coming into being when the magician says "Let there be light!"

I understand that it's not necessarily the most satisfying for everyone!

I think it's grotesque to teach it to children as fact.

I agree with Darwin's premise, that life probably developed in the same way as that which set the stage for it.

The existence of our planet, our sun, and the operations of physics and chemistry 'set the stage' for life. Do you argue that it was instead something else?

I understand that science can seem magic when looking at only superficial observations

So Yahweh is not supernatural / magical, just a superscientist, you say?

And [he] created the universe using only [his] knowledge of physics, and thus in due course we can expect to be able to create universes too, you say?

I'm [...] far more interested in what is true.

I define 'truth' as conformity with objective reality. How do you define it?

What explains the colossal failure, the manifest inadequacy, the gross incompetence, of 'Darwinsim' which can't lay a scientific glove on its hated enemy even with over a century and a half to do it?

The theory of evolution wasn't devised to deal with creationism ─ that it blew 'special creation' out of the water was just a happy by-product.

And you still haven't addressed the question. Creationism (not to mention 'biblical inerrancy') has taken a terrible mauling from science. The bible believes in a flat earth and a geocentric universe, and I dare say even you don't hold those views. The idea of the Genesis flood (as just one example) is in scientific and common sense terms a total nonsense and shown to be so by mountains of evidence.

And this mauling has all been one way ─ the theory of evolution, unscathed, waxes day by day, year by year, as a founding theory of biology. I say that's because 'creation science' can't do real science at all.

And you, it appears, have no reply to the question of this thread other than avoidance.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

....people who think the world was 100% under water at some stage since H sap arose (max 200,000 years). Not a shred of geological ......evidence supports this nonsense.

Not a shred, eh? Care to rephrase?

 

[Sapiens]

Not a shred, eh? Care to rephrase?

Okay ... not a shard of evidence. Better?

 

[blü 2]

Not a shred, eh? Care to rephrase?

No. When I say 'evidence' I mean evidence acceptable to reasoned enquiry, not old Donald Duck comics.

 

[Ling]

then why, in the 56 years since The Genesis Flood, has creationism put not one single scientific mark, not the tiniest scientific scratch, on the theory of Evolution?[/QUOTE]

Not a creationist per say, just anti abiogenesis. A book titled "Evolution Creationism Christianity" does a good job at taking apart the abiogenesis theory as well as the creationism theory. Its written by Dr Ellis Warner who has a phd in chemistry. But to answer your specific question Evolution exists in science because science needs a natural solution to satisfy its requirements Creationism falls under the supernatural ergo it cannot make the tiniest scratch. Its like comparing classical physics to quantum physics.

 

[blü 2]

Not a creationist per say, just anti abiogenesis.

Doesn't that mean you believe in abiogenesis by special creation ie by magic? (By 'magic' I mean altering reality independently of the rules of physics, just by wishing.)

A book titled "Evolution Creationism Christianity" does a good job at taking apart the abiogenesis theory as well as the creationism theory. Its written by Dr Ellis Warner who has a phd in chemistry.

That book has drawn only one review on Amazon (5 stars). But you said you were against [natural] abiogenesis, not evolution, so how is friend Ellis relevant?

Evolution exists in science because science needs a natural solution to satisfy its requirements

No, evolution exists in science because evolution happens in nature and is daily demonstrated as a basic aspect of nature. The evidence in favor of the modern version of the theory of evolution is consistent, genuinely huge and constantly growing.

Creationism falls under the supernatural ergo it cannot make the tiniest scratch. Its like comparing classical physics to quantum physics.

Not quite, since both classical and quantum physics are the product of scientific method. Creationism is the product of wishing the bible to be inerrant, which is manifestly untrue (to put it no higher). Biblical inerrancy is refuted in countless ways: the earth isn't flat, the sun and stars don't go round it, the universe is about 14 bn years old, the earth and sun are about 4.5 bn years old, trees did not exist before the sun did, the earth has never been totally under water in its history, let alone since Homo sap arose (200,000 yrs max) ─ and on and on.

 

[Ling]

Friend Ellis is as relevant as you or I. He does have a PhD in Chemistry and wrote from his experiences so you may divine from that what you will.
2) Evolution is observed in nature in micro scale transmutations across specie boundaries has never been observed or engineered. Scientist have not forced a cyanobacteria to evolve into anthrax even though reproduction is quite rapid. likewise the vivisectionists have not resulted in any engineered evolution. Human evolution takes place on a time scale of 1 million -2 million years ( a very short period of time for transitioning from the great Apes to Homo sapiens) And during this transition all of the species homo erectus, habilis , neanderthal go extinct at the end of the pleistocene ice age out of boredom it would seem. When adjusting for generations we see no such evolution in cat or animal model for a similar scaled time period. Thus we as intelligent designers have not found an adequate lever for accelerated testing of evolution, within species we have been successful, but not between species.
3) If you are referring to the literal interpretation of Genesis you would be correct that some physical evidence should support the claim - of which there is very little. The book does not support Creationism at least not the literal interpretation thereof but neither does it support the abiogenesis evolutionary models.

 

[Hockeycowboy]

the earth isn't flat,

The Bible never states that....actually, it says the Earth is round, like a sphere -- Isaiah 40:22

the sun and stars don't go round it

The Scriptures never say this, either. (Where are you getting your information from?)

the universe is about 14 bn years old, the earth and sun are about 4.5 bn years old

Again, the Bible never states otherwise (only by taking it out of context).

trees did not exist before the sun did

Once again, the Bible doesn't say this. (From what source, do you think, the light on Day 1 is coming from? A Bic lighter?) The form of the Sun and stars simply weren't visible from the viewpoint of someone standing on Terra Firma. The gases and debris in the atmosphere of Earth's early history would've kept an observer from seeing the Sun, Moon and stars.

the earth has never been totally under water in its history, let alone since Homo sap arose (200,000 yrs max)

Were you there? The Flood in the Bible covered the Earth only for a short period. Still, much has been discovered geologically (and in other sciences) that gives credence to a global Flood. I'm going to start a thread on the Biblical Flood soon.

 

[Sapiens]

Friend Ellis is as relevant as you or I. He does have a PhD in Chemistry and wrote from his experiences so you may divine from that what you will.

But no formal training in biology?

2) Evolution is observed in nature in micro scale transmutations across specie boundaries has never been observed or engineered.

Claptrap. Ring species demonstrate that no such species boundaries exist per se.

Scientist have not forced a cyanobacteria to evolve into anthrax even though reproduction is quite rapid.

Now that's a strawman of a different color.

likewise the vivisectionists have not resulted in any engineered evolution.

Ditto.

Human evolution takes place on a time scale of 1 million -2 million years ( a very short period of time for transitioning from the great Apes to Homo sapiens)

Now when you consider the amount of change the fusion of chromosome 2 could cause.

And during this transition all of the species homo erectus, habilis , neanderthal go extinct at the end of the pleistocene ice age out of boredom it would seem.

Huge climatic and anthropogenic changes.

When adjusting for generations we see no such evolution in cat or animal model for a similar scaled time period.

What would you call the Pleistocene Extinction?

Thus we as intelligent designers have not found an adequate lever for accelerated testing of evolution, within species we have been successful, but not between species.

Patently false look to Richard Lenski's work and the Scripps/Woods Hole Nereis Worm speciation.