The Evolution Challenge

[Tiberius]

Evolution is a scientific theory. That means a few things.

• It means that it is an explanation which was formed by examining the evidence available.
• it means that it makes predictions about things we don't yet know.
• And it means that it is falsifiable.

While there is great scope for discussion on each of those three points, I'd like this thread to deal with solely the last point. The falsifiability of evolution.

First of all, let's make sure we all know what I mean when i say that evolution is falsifiable.

I mean that some evidence, some piece of information can be shown that is unable to be explained by evolution - indeed, the evolution says is impossible - thus showing that evolution is false.

An example of this is a fossil of a bunny in the precambrian. Evolutonary theory says that rabbits could not possibly have been alive in the precambrian period. Thus, finding an authentic fossil rabbit in precambrian rocks would nicely show that evolution can't possibly be true.

Therein lies my challenge.

Given a valid understanding of the theory of evolution, can anyone provide any evidence for something which has falsified evolution?

As far as I am aware, no such evidence has ever been found. However, creationists love to point out that evolution can't be correct. Well, here's your chance. If you claim that evolution is false, show us where it has been falsified.

 

[Tomk80]

Depends a little on what you want. Certain ideas about how evolution works or progresses have been falsified. The major structure has not.

 

[Tiberius]

Of course, the value and the beauty of science is that it adapts as new evidence is discovered. And there have been discopveries that have forced us to re-examine the theory of evolution and make adjustments so it describes more accurately the real world. But I'm talking about the kind of thing that shows that evolution in any form is impossible. I doubt there are many creationists who say, "Evolution is false! A slightly different version of evolution is the real truth!"

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Of course, the value and the beauty of science is that it adapts as new evidence is discovered. And there have been discopveries that have forced us to re-examine the theory of evolution and make adjustments so it describes more accurately the real world. But I'm talking about the kind of thing that shows that evolution in any form is impossible. I doubt there are many creationists who say, "Evolution is false! A slightly different version of evolution is the real truth!"

No but they do often (mis)use such corrections and doubts/unresolved issues to "answer" challenges such as yours. You know the stuff: "when evilution is shown to be wrong, scienticks just move the goalposts!!!one!!" and "even superatheistevolutionist Dr X thinks evolution is a crock: [quote-mine goes here, taken from Dr X's critique of very technical detail regarding Prof Y's experiments in RNA sequencing or suchlike]" and so on.

You may also get (in response) the old crap about how the Evilutionism Cartel suppresses any evidence it doesn't like and/or Teh Establishment interprets all evidence "from an evolutionary perspective".

So I think it's good for you to clarify the challenge precisely: physical evidence that can't possibly be explained if evolution is true (right?). And why, presumably.

 

[shredhead320]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqoCGPnVmE&feature=related

Around 1:45

How's that?

 

[Technocrat2010]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=udqoCGPnVmE&feature=related

Around 1:45

How's that?

Paluxy man tracks have already been dealt with, to the point where the majority of creationists have abandoned the argument. For more info, see here -
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy.html

 

[shredhead320]

That wasn't the part that was at 1:45. That part was dealt with a few minutes after that.

 

[Technocrat2010]

That wasn't the part that was at 1:45. That part was dealt with a few minutes after that.

Again, nothing spectacular here. The trilobite fossil in question was tested to be far older than the fossil bed strata it was found in (a Glen Rose limestone strata), so it was merely a case of shifting in the strata. Trilobites with dinosaur fossils would be considered very irregular, and I'd share Dr. Gould's sentiments since it would be incongruous with the typical layering of trilobites. The logical conclusion would be to test and see if the fossil had actually shifted layers, which in this case, it did. And the out-of-place artifacts? - see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

So there ya go.

 

[MasterOfKrikkit]

Again, nothing spectacular here. The trilobite fossil in question was tested to be far older than the fossil bed strata it was found in (a Glen Rose limestone strata), so it was merely a case of shifting in the strata. Trilobites with dinosaur fossils would be considered very irregular, and I'd share Dr. Gould's sentiments since it would be incongruous with the typical layering of trilobites. The logical conclusion would be to test and see if the fossil had actually shifted layers, which in this case, it did. And the out-of-place artifacts? - see here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/coso.html

So there ya go.

OK, you beat me to all of it.

Anyway, I was wondering if there was any confirmation of the SJG story (perhaps from the man himself?). A second-hand anecdote repeated on religious TV -- yeah, that's definitive. But, regardless, SJG's motives/beliefs/etc were clearly being speculated upon (he "knew" that evolution had been destroyed -- he didn't say that, of course, but we knew that he knew that... [eyeroll]). As you say, in the same situation, I'd probably shake my head and walk away, too, because there's clearly no point talking to someone like that.

 

[UncleHermit]

Yay! My lame joke was double-posted!

 

[UncleHermit]

Soft Tissue in Bombardier Beetles in Mount Saint Helens!

 

[AV1611VET]

Thus, finding an authentic fossil rabbit in precambrian rocks would nicely show that evolution can't possibly be true.

I thought rocks were only indigenous, megamorphic, and sentimental?

 

[Tiberius]

Once again, you display your remarkable LACK of knowledge about this issue.

If you want to particpiate, please actually learn what you are talking about.

(Sentimental rocks. I chuckle)

 

[AV1611VET]

Once again, you display your remarkable LACK of knowledge about this issue.

If you want to particpiate, please actually learn what you are talking about.

(Sentimental rocks. I chuckle)

Excuse me --- sedimental rocks --- better now?

 

[Kyrisch]

No because you tripped up on all three. Indigenous (meaning native) --> igneous (meaning volcanic); Megamorphic (monstrous) --> metamorphic ('changing'); sentimental (maudlin) --> sedimental (forming via depositing).

What a malapropistic nightmare

Once again your poor reputation regarding scientific debate is painfully reiterated.

 

[Tomk80]

No because you tripped up on all three. Indigenous (meaning native) --> igneous (meaning volcanic); Megamorphic (monstrous) --> metamorphic ('changing'); sentimental (maudlin) --> sedimental (forming via depositing).

What a malapropistic nightmare

Once again your poor reputation regarding scientific debate is painfully reiterated.

Don't know, was AV being serious? It's always hard to tell with his posts.

 

[Tiberius]

Excuse me --- sedimental rocks --- better now?

As was mentioned before, your lack of knowledge stems also from the fact that you mixed up the names of the other types of rock as well.

But also, because the term "precambrian rocks" does NOT refer to the method by which the rock was formed, but WHEN it was formed. Namely, in the precambrian period, which was between the formation of the Earth some 4.5 billion years ago and the evolution of hard shelled animals, which was about 542 million years ago.

So, as I said, your lack of knowledge about this subject is astounding. Please learn something about evolution if you want to participate in this thread. Don't forget, my OP states that you must have a VALID UNDERSTANDING of evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't know, was AV being serious? It's always hard to tell with his posts.

I may as well get some entertainment out of you guys.

 

[AV1611VET]

Don't forget, my OP states that you must have a VALID UNDERSTANDING of evolution.

Okay --- sorry ---

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

I thought rocks were only indigenous, megamorphic, and sentimental?

It’s igneous, metamorphic and sedimentary. Precambrian is a time period when all the rock types were forming.