Evolutionists Moving the Goalposts Again

[jamie4418]

Can any evolutionist admit that we came from fish?

 

[Nightson]

Well, an evolutionist told me we humans all come from fish. FISH.

Does any sane minded person actually have the guts to believe we came from FISH????????

Yes, lobefinned fish are our ancient evolutionary ancestors. Simple fact.

 

[Baggins]

Well, an evolutionist told me we humans all come from fish. FISH.

Does any sane minded person actually have the guts to believe we came from FISH????????

I think you'll find that the vast majority of sane minded people on this board, christian and non-christian, accept the evidence shows us that we evolved from fish, they don't believe it, they accept it based on the current evidence.

Just as an aside, if you are going to make yourself appear a fool it may be better to stick to one thread rather than spreading your asininity across multiple threads.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The fact is, not only has this redneck figured out that neo-darwinism is false,

Unsupported assertation.

but so has most of the scientific community. But I've noticed that the scientific community is playing a little game....it goes like this: "let's just keep this quiet and hope no one notices that the rug's been pulled out from under them and all the rules have changed.....Then, if/when people do start to notice, we'll say “Oh, yea…we’ve known that for a long time.”

Unsupported assertation.

Well the fact is random mutations have never had anything to with evolution.

False. Mutation during reproduction is the main method by which new genetic information is created. Without new genetic information, no new traits can be evolved. So, mutation is crucial to evolution.

http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/20...selection.html

In particular, while it is true that any given mutation is random (as far as we can tell), a series of mutations which are then preserved as the result of natural selection aren't really random at all…


However, subsequent field and laboratory investigations into the genetic and developmental control of such variable traits have shown the multiple allele/continuous variation model upon which the "modern synthesis" was based is, in fact, not the way most traits apparently evolve…

This process, called genetic accommodation [2], is part of the new science of evo-devo, which renders much of the classical "evolutionary synthesis" obsolete…

You misunderstand the point of the article. It is showing that mutations are not as random as we thought, but mutations themselves are still important.

A decade ago such comments would have been heresy….(and they still are, really).

Heresy is anything that goes against religious dogma. Evolution is not religious, nor is it dogma. Thus, nothing heretical can be said against evolution.

In this next link, a scientist is attempting to show us something new. He has evolved different colors of the same worm based on temperature. While this is nice that it’s finally being shown in the lab, the fact is, the same thing is done in nature all the time. This stuff happens all over the globe. Look what this guy says:

It’s long been known that polyphenisms are controlled by hormones, with the brain sensing environmental signals and altering the pattern of hormonal secretions. In turn these hormonal patterns turn sets of genes on or off to produce different traits.

Wow! (I couldn't have said it better -- but it's taken evolutionists decades to admit this.)

Your point? This is evidence that a population's mean genetic information can change, possibly leading to speciation.

http://biosingularity.wordpress.com/2006/02/04/scientists-evolve-a-complex-genetic-trait-in-the-laboratory

][/FONT]For the past century they’ve been telling us that microevolution and macroevolution use the same mechanism.

Nonsense. The terms micro- and macro- evolution are purely Creationist babbel. Speciation is the correct term (which is analogous to your 'macro'evolution), while mutation that does not cause the offspring to be infertile to it's parent species could be termed microevolution (thought this is incorrect terminology).
Also, the same mechanism is used: evolution. Evolution itself operates in different ways, with point mutation being just one.

Well now the microevolution’s mechanism has been quietly replaced without the general public knowing about it. So where does that lead macro-evolution? (The land of make-believe, maybe?)

What, pray tell, has microevolution's mechanism been replaced with?

...And the concept of gradualism is has gone up like poof of smoke.

Gradualism? You think that the scientific consensus now is that speciation is in leaps and bounds?

And the fact is, these guys actually admit that individual genes mean very little when it comes to defining an organism.

Where do they claim this? Your sources demonstrate that genetic information is not the only source of variation, but not that genetic information is useless.

In fact, it’s been found that the same gene that determines an insect’s eyes is the same gene that determines the human’s eye.

Indeed. But other genes determine how they are structured, why insects have a compound eye whilst humans have single eyes.

Thus, the question is…… how is it that monkey genes are expressed differently than human genes?

They aren't. Monkey's have slightly different genes to us. But notice that, with a few minor variations, we are pretty much identicle to the other primates. Indeed, have a remarkable similarity with fish, insects, even the cellular structure of bacteria.

Indeed all the rules have changed. The silly cumulative selection hypothesis is out the window. As are random mutations. And without those, the neo-darwins new synthesis is impotent.

You have not demonstrated this, so your conclusion is false.

I’m not saying there still cannot be an atheist version of evolution, but the fact is, your tried and true theory that's considered FACT by so many millions of people and that is being taught in our schools is no longer viable.

Again, a false conclusion. Speciation has been observed in the laboratory, and 'microevolution' is indisputable.

At this point the only thing evolutionsts have left is the belief in natural selection. But even this concept has never been tested nor proven by controlled studies.

Actually, we can infer that this has happen with Darwin's Finches, the land animals on Madagascar, the plant life on South America and Africa, etc. Artifical ecosystems (like in zoos) are frequently used to test natural selection by changing small features of the ecosystem (such as light intensity, temperature, food availability, etc).

The fact is, this is just as insignificant as random mutations when it comes to biological change in animals.

Random mutation is still in operation. You have not demonstrated that it is not, only that other mechanisms for inter-population variation exist.

 

[JohnR7]

I think you'll find that the vast majority of sane minded people on this board, christian and non-christian, accept the evidence shows us that we evolved from fish, they don't believe it, they accept it based on the current evidence.

There is no evidence to that effect, your opinion is bases solely on supposition. Some of the birds come out of the ocean, but land animals come from the land, they do not come from the ocean.

Genesis 1:20
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Genesis 1:24
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Genesis 2:7
And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

The ground here means "adamah". This is a reference to Eden. We know that God created a biodiverse ecology in Eden about 6,000 years ago.

 

[AngryWomble]

Cencorsed so that people don't see the bloody remains as supersports OP is torn to shreds

Well done!

 

[JohnR7]

Random mutation is still in operation.

You have not demonstrated any benefical mutations. We know that there are mutations and there is nothing beneficial about them at all. In fact we study them because they are the cause of so much disease and early death. Mutation are not a good thing. No more then a mutilation is a good thing.

Mutation during reproduction is the main method by which new genetic information is created. Without new genetic information, no new traits can be evolved. So, mutation is crucial to evolution.

There does not have to be "New" genetic information. God created the whole universe out of a "singularity" the size of a mustard seed, or even smaller. He can fit enough DNA into one "seed" for all of the life on earth today.

Random does not exist, there is no such thing in science as random. It only appears random based on your perspective. Everything in the universe follows an exact, precise mathmatical expression. The universe would have to be exact in order for God to be just. If somone got more or less than what was due to them, then God would not be just. Everyone has to receive the same exacting amount.

It is though one man: Adam, that sin entered into the world. It is through one "man", Christ, we are redeemed from that sin.

1 Cor. 15:22
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

You have not demonstrated any benefical mutations. We know that there are mutations and there is nothing beneficial about them at all. In fact we study them because they are the cause of so much disease and early death. Mutation are not a good thing. No more then a mutilation is a good thing.

The morality of mutation is irrelevant to it's existance.

A child with a mutation that changes the surface protiens of his T-cells may be immune to HIV. Is this a bad thing?

How can you not see that mutation can be a good thing? If it offers prolonged life, disease resistance, improved hearing/eyesight, etc?

 

[AngryWomble]

You have not demonstrated any benefical mutations. We know that there are mutations and there is nothing beneficial about them at all. In fact we study them because they are the cause of so much disease and early death. Mutation are not a good thing. No more then a mutilation is a good thing.

Avtually there are 3 types of mutation. Benificial, nuetral and harmful. And depending on external factors, i.e. the environment, once a mutation occurs it will occur an advantage/disadvantage which may or maynot change should the environment change.

 

[Tiphereth]

Greetings and Salutations,

Some examples of beneficial mutations:

Contribution of individual random mutations to genotype-by-environment interactions in Escherichia coli

Susanna K. Remold* and Richard E. Lenski Center for Microbial Ecology, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Edited by M. T. Clegg, University of California, Riverside, CA, and approved July 30, 2001 (received for review March 22, 2001)
Abstract

Numerous studies have shown genotype-by-environment (G×E) interactions for traits related to organismal fitness. However, the genetic architecture of the interaction is usually unknown because these studies used genotypes that differ from one another by many unknown mutations. These mutations were also present as standing variation in populations and hence had been subject to prior selection. Based on such studies, it is therefore impossible to say what fraction of new, random mutations contributes to G×E interactions. In this study, we measured the fitness in four environments of 26 genotypes of Escherichia coli, each containing a single random insertion mutation. Fitness was measured relative to their common progenitor, which had evolved on glucose at 37°C for the preceding 10,000 generations. The four assay environments differed in limiting resource and temperature (glucose, 28°C; maltose, 28°C; glucose, 37°C; and maltose, 37°C). A highly significant interaction between mutation and resource was found. In contrast, there was no interaction involving temperature. The resource interaction reflected much higher among mutation variation for fitness in maltose than in glucose. At least 11 mutations (42%) contributed to this G×E interaction through their differential fitness effects across resources. Beneficial mutations are generally thought to be rare but, surprisingly, at least three mutations (12%) significantly improved fitness in maltose, a resource novel to the progenitor. More generally, our findings demonstrate that G×E interactions can be quite common, even for genotypes that differ by only one mutation and in environments differing by only a single factor.

Evolution of a new enzymatic function by recombination within a gene.http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/77/6/3529
Hall BG, Zuzel T
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1980 Jun 77:6 3529-33

Abstract
Mutations that alter the ebgA gene so that the evolved beta-galactosidase (ebg) enzyme of Escherichia coli can hydrolyze lactose fall into two classes: class I mutants use only lactose, whereas class II mutants use lactulose as well as lactose. Neither class uses galactosylarabinose effectively. In this paper we show that when both a class I and a class II mutation are present in the same ebgA gene, ebg enzyme acquires a specificity for galactosylarabinose. Although galactosylarbinose utilization can evolve as the consequence of sequential spontaneous mutations, it can also evolve via intragenic recombination in crosses between class I and class II ebgA+ mutant strains. We show that the sites for class I and class II mutations lie about 1 kilobase, or about a third of the gene, apart in ebgA. Implications of these findings with respect to the evolution of new metabolic functions discussed.

Changes in the substrate specificities of an enzyme during directed evolution of new functions.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=6793063&dopt=Abstract
Hall BG
Biochemistry 1981 Jul 7 20:14 4042-9
Abstract
Wild-type ebg enzyme, the second beta-galactosidase of Escherichia coli K12, does not permit growth on lactose. As part of a study of the evolution of new enzymatic functions, I have selected, from a lacZ deletion strain, a variety of spontaneous mutants that grow on lactose and other beta-galactoside sugars. Single point mutations in the structural gene ebgA alter the enzyme so that it hydrolyzes lactose or lactulose effectively; two mutations in ebgA permit galactosylarabinose hydrolysis, while three mutations are required for lactobionic acid hydrolysis. Wild-type ebg enzyme and 16 functional mutant ebg enzymes were purified and analyzed kinetically to determine how the substrate specificities had changed during the directed evolution of these new functions. The specificities for the biologically selected substrates generally increased by at least an order of magnitude via increased Vmax and decreased Km for the substrate. These changes were very specific for the selected substrate, often being accompanied by decreased specificities for other related substrates. The single, double, or triple substitutions in the enzymes did not detectably alter the thermal stability of ebg enzyme.

Examples of beneficial human mutations:

Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 1998 Apr;18(4):562-567.

"PAI-1 plasma levels in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis: relation to environmental and genetic determinants,"

by Margaglione M, Cappucci G, d'Addedda M, Colaizzo D, Giuliani N, Vecchione G, Mascolo G, Grandone E, Di Minno G; Unita' di Trombosi e Aterosclerosi, IRCCS Casa Sollievo della Sofferenza, San Giovanni Rotondo (FG), Italy.

Abstract:
Plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) plasma levels have been consistently related to a polymorphism (4G/5G) of the PAI-1 gene. The renin-angiotensin pathway plays a role in the regulation of PAI-1 plasma levels. An insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene has been related to plasma and cellular ACE levels. In 1032 employees (446 men and 586 women; 22 to 66 years old) of a hospital in southern Italy, we investigated the association between PAI-1 4G/5G and the ACE I/D gene variants and plasma PAI-1 antigen levels. None of the individuals enrolled had clinical evidence of atherosclerosis. In univariate analysis, PAI-1 levels were significantly higher in men (P<.001), alcohol drinkers (P<.001), smokers (P=.009), and homozygotes for the PAI-1 gene deletion allele(4G/4G) (P=.012). Multivariate analysis documented the independent effect on PAI-1 plasma levels of body mass index (P<.001), triglycerides (P<.001), sex (P<.001), PAI-1 4G/5G polymorphism (P=.019), smoking habit (P=.041), and ACE I/D genotype (P=.042). Thus, in addition to the markers of insulin resistance and smoking habit, gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis.


Genetic variant showing a positive interaction with beta-blocking agents with a beneficial influence on lipoprotein lipase activity, HDL cholesterol, and triglyceride levels in coronary artery disease patients. The Ser447-stop substitution in the lipoprotein lipase gene. REGRESS Study Group.

Groenemeijer BE, Hallman MD, Reymer PW, Gagne E, Kuivenhoven JA, Bruin T, Jansen H, Lie KI, Bruschke AV, Boerwinkle E, Hayden MR, Kastelein JJ

Department of Vascular Medicine, Academic Medical Center, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Lipoprotein lipase (LPL) is the rate-limiting enzyme in the lipolysis of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins, and the gene coding for LPL is therefore a candidate gene in atherogenesis. We previously demonstrated that two amino acid substitutions in LPL, the Asn291-Ser and the Asp9-Asn, are associated with elevated triglycerides and lower HDL cholesterol and are present with greater frequency in coronary artery disease (CAD) patients than in normolipidemic control subjects. Conversely, a third frequent mutation in this gene, the Ser447-Stop, is reported by some investigators to underlie higher HDL cholesterol levels and would represent a beneficial genetic variant in lipoprotein metabolism. We therefore sought conclusive evidence for these allegations by investigating the effects of the LPL Ser447-Stop mutation on LPL and hepatic lipase (HL) activity, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides in a large group of CAD patients (n = 820) with normal to mildly elevated total and LDL cholesterol levels. METHODS AND RESULTS: Carriers of the Ser447-Stop allele (heterozygotes and homozygotes) had significantly higher postheparin LPL activity (P = .034), normal postheparin HL activity (P = .453), higher HDL cholesterol levels (P = .013), and lower triglyceride levels (P = .044) than noncarriers. The influence of the Ser447-Stop allele on LPL activity was pronounced in patients using beta-blockers (P = .042) and not significant in those not using them (P = .881), suggesting a gene-environment interaction between the Ser447-Stop mutation and beta-blockers. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the LPL Ser447-Stop mutation has a significant positive effect on LPL activity and HDL cholesterol and triglyceride levels and that certain subgroups of CAD patients carrying the Ser447-Stop mutation will have less adverse metabolic effects when placed on beta-blockers. The LPL Ser447-Stop mutation therefore should have a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD.

Publication Types:
Clinical trial
Controlled clinical trial


Z Gastroenterol 1996 Jun;34 Suppl 3:56-8

Identification of putative beneficial mutations for lipid transport.

Galton DJ, Mattu R, Needham EW, Cavanna J

Medical Professorial Unit, St Bartholomew's Hospital, London, U.K.

Abstract:
To determine the effect of a common mutation (Ser447-Ter) of the human LPL gene upon serum lipid and lipoprotein levels and coronary artery disease (CAD) within a representative adult male population, we analyzed subjects from the Caerphilly Prospective Heart Disease Study (n = 1273). The possession of this mutation associates with protective lipid and lipoprotein profiles. Subjects possessing the mutation have significantly higher HDL-C (p = 0.002) and apo AI (p < 0.04) levels, lower triglycerides (p = < 0.04) and total cholesterol/HDL-C ratios (p < 0.02); all established previously to reduce risk of CAD. We also find that this mutation is significantly less frequent amongst CAD subjects (p < 0.05). These associations provide evidence for a common mutation that appears to confer beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of CAD.

PMID: 8767463, UI: 96293219

These two links may be useful as well.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

vbmenu_register("postmenu_27776430", true);Great sources, Tiphereth!

There does not have to be "New" genetic information. God created the whole universe out of a "singularity" the size of a mustard seed, or even smaller. He can fit enough DNA into one "seed" for all of the life on earth today.

A mustard seed? A singularity is a zero-dimensional point in the spacetime continuum (though the continuum did not exist at the moment of the big bang, the singularity still existed as an infinitely dense concentration of energy in whatever existed before the big bang).
What does DNA have to do with anything? You seriously believe that the universe has it's own DNA?

Random does not exist, there is no such thing in science as random. It only appears random based on your perspective. Everything in the universe follows an exact, precise mathmatical expression. The universe would have to be exact in order for God to be just. If somone got more or less than what was due to them, then God would not be just. Everyone has to receive the same exacting amount.

Who says God is just? The entire field of quantum mechanics deals with the uncertain, the unpredictable. Radioactivity and Heisenbergs Uncertainty Principle are evidence of a probabalistic universe. See also the 'cloud' nature of an electron's 'orbit'.
But random mutation is a misnomer. The precise velocity and location of each particle, force, and quanta of energy could be used to predict the mutations that will occur. Unfortunately, such a computation would require a computer larger than the universe itself.

It is though one man: Adam, that sin entered into the world. It is through one "man", Christ, we are redeemed from that sin.

I thought it was Eve who first ate the apple... come to think of it, surely the Serpent is to blame?
Either way, it is a detestable and grossly unjust god who punishes the child for the wrong-doings of the father.

 

[JohnR7]

A mustard seed? A singularity is a zero-dimensional point in the spacetime continuum

The mustand seed theory is a product of Jewish mysticism from around 1100 ad, but some people say it is a part of the tradition that goes back to Moses.

It was picked up by Planck and quantum physics about 100 years ago. It is not unusual for a religious theory to be adapted and used as a science theory.

There are many, many commentators, but at the top of the mountain there are three, accepted by all: Rashi (11th century France), who brings the straight understanding of the text, Maimonides (12th century Egypt), who handles the philosophical concepts, and then Nachmanides (13th century Spain), the earliest of the Kabbalists. http://www.geraldschroeder.com/age.html

You seriously believe that the universe has it's own DNA?

Science believes that everything on earth evolved from one living cell.
I believe everything on the earth could have come from one "seed" but all the information was there in the beginning.
If anything as life began to radiate then information was lost when it was no longer needed.
So my theory would pretty much be the opposite from Darwin's theory.

Who says God is just?

God says He is just. His scale of justice has a perfect balance.

I thought it was Eve who first ate the apple... come to think of it, surely the Serpent is to blame?
Either way, it is a detestable and grossly unjust god who punishes the child for the wrong-doings of the father.

Eve was deceived. Adam followed Eve even though he was not deceived.
Everyone is given the same choice that Eve was given, in the Garden of Eden.
life or death, blessing or curse, health or sickness, prosperity or poverty.
It is up to each individual what they do with their free will and the choices they are given.
Hopefully we will do better then Eve did with the choice that we are given.

 

[CaptainJeanLucPicard]

I believe everything on the earth could have come from one "seed" but all the information was there in the beginning.
If anything as life began to radiate then information was lost when it was no longer needed.
So my theory would pretty much be the opposite from Darwin's theory.

You do not have a theory; you only have a hypothesis!

 

[Chalnoth]

A mustard seed? A singularity is a zero-dimensional point in the spacetime continuum (though the continuum did not exist at the moment of the big bang, the singularity still existed as an infinitely dense concentration of energy in whatever existed before the big bang).

In the inflation picture, there was no initial singularity. An initial singularity is actually ruled out by the fact that the universe is spatially flat, homogeneous, and isotropic. None of these would be possible if we came from an initial singularity.

But random mutation is a misnomer. The precise velocity and location of each particle, force, and quanta of energy could be used to predict the mutations that will occur. Unfortunately, such a computation would require a computer larger than the universe itself.

That's not really true. Since the behavior of molecules are well within the quantum realm, there is always a degree of randomness. But regardless, what we can do is look at the average rates of various random processes, including mutations. And whenever you are dealing with large numbers of random processes, at least some parts of the results of those random processes become completely predictable.

 

[TricksterWolf]

The fact is, not only has this redneck figured out that neo-darwinism is false,

Anyone who claims to "prove a theory false" knows little about the scientific method. The only way to disprove a theory is to offer a competing theory that explains away the same data better. Poking holes has no effect.

ID is not a theory because it doesn't explain how the diversity of life came about. It doesn't explain anything, really. Theories are supposed to explain in detail that which cannot be directly observed.

Creationism is a theory. It has time and time again made predictions which turn out to be false. It fails to explain without resorting to magical thinking. It also typically relies on convoluted explanations for fossils of animals that no longer exist, for which evolution's answers are far simpler. It also lacks predictability for new finds as it says nothing remarkably useful about the relationship between animals.

So evolution is the only currently accepted scientific theory explaining the diversity of life and the fossil record.

Trickster

 

[Wiccan_Child]

The mustand seed theory is a product of Jewish mysticism from around 1100 ad, but some people say it is a part of the tradition that goes back to Moses.

It was picked up by Planck and quantum physics about 100 years ago. It is not unusual for a religious theory to be adapted and used as a science theory.

So you are using an analogy? Or are you still claiming that a mustard seed is the source of the universe?

Science believes that everything on earth evolved from one living cell.

A tad innaccurate, but I'll let it slide.

I believe everything on the earth could have come from one "seed" but all the information was there in the beginning.

And what seed was that? A mustard seed?

If anything as life began to radiate then information was lost when it was no longer needed.

Life is not energy. It is an abstract concept we use to define a group of entities with common traits. Information in the real (physics) sense is not encoded in 'life'.

So my theory would pretty much be the opposite from Darwin's theory.

Darwin's theory had nothing to do with the origins of the universe, let alone some conjured 'information carrying Life'.

God says He is just. His scale of justice has a perfect balance.

Laugable. I could say I'm a steak-flavoured ice-lolly, but that does not make me one.

Everyone is given the same choice that Eve was given, in the Garden of Eden.

No serpent has offered me fruit that I was warned would kill me.

In the inflation picture, there was no initial singularity. An initial singularity is actually ruled out by the fact that the universe is spatially flat, homogeneous, and isotropic. None of these would be possible if we came from an initial singularity.

The universe is not homogenous, since it is not uniform. Nor is it spacially flat (Einstein showed that the four forces warp the spacetime continuum). The inflation idea is that after the big bang, there was a period of rapid expansion that later slowed to a more uniform rate.

 

[USincognito]

Anyone who claims to "prove a theory false" knows little about the scientific method. The only way to disprove a theory is to offer a competing theory that explains away the same data better. Poking holes has no effect.

I have a little nit pick. A theory can be falsified without a competing theory being offered, an example being Pasteur's work with Spontaneous Generation. A theory can be falisified and a perfectly fine response to "what now then?" is "we don't know yet."

But you're right about poking holes not having an effect. One has to shatter a theory, especially a grand encompassing one like Evolution or Plate Tectonics. The hole that's poked might just be in a weak spot where the theory needs to change to adjust for or incorporate new data. Dubious anomolies like the "London Artifact" don't effect evolution, a Permian* chicken would destroy what we know.

I have yet to see a Creationist produce a Permian chicken.

(*note for those of you who are tired or read this too quickly, that "Permian" not "Parmasean.")

 

[CaptainJeanLucPicard]

Nor is it spacially flat (Einstein showed that the four forces warp the spacetime continuum).

I think Chalnoth means that it's flat with small areas of curvature where accumulated matter exists.

 

[TricksterWolf]

I have a little nit pick. A theory can be falsified without a competing theory being offered, an example being Pasteur's work with Spontaneous Generation.

I don't agree--at bare minimum, you need a competing explanation, if even a vacuous one. If your explanation is "stuff only arises from like stuff", that's still a competing theory with more evidence.

But no, it doesn't need to be a well-developed theory if there's no support at all for its antithesis.

Trickster

 

[Nightson]

I don't agree--at bare minimum, you need a competing explanation, if even a vacuous one. If your explanation is "stuff only arises from like stuff", that's still a competing theory with more evidence.

But no, it doesn't need to be a well-developed theory if there's no support at all for its antithesis.

Trickster

So Pasteur's work wouldn't be flasified if we observe spontaneous generation?