Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Oncedeceived]

Yeah, how about you answer the question I asked?

Answered.

 

[Astridhere]

This is an ad hoc and straw man hypothesis. This is meant not as a real and possible falsification but one that is meant to show how unreasonable another alternative might be.

If evolutionists found a human being in the precambrian they would still think up some wild scenario to align the find with evolution or 'rework' the strata to suit. They have done it many times before to make fossils 'fit'. There is no need to think they wouldn't do it again.

 

[Chalnoth]

How about deleterious mutations being evidence against wildly outlandish scenarios like 'accelerated evolution'. The human and chimp Y chromosome falsified evolution yet again, and does absolutely nothing for your nested heirarchies.

"Indeed, at 6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
​

So much for 98 percent. Let me just repeat part of that: humans and chimpanzees, "comparable to the difference ... in chicken and human".
Unbelievable Y chromosome differences between humans and chimpanzees | john hawks weblog

Sorry, but some random creationist taking a scientific article out of context and making stuff up about it hardly counts as evidence against evolution.

Here is the actual article:
http://eebweb.arizona.edu/nachman/Suggested Papers/Hughes_et_al_2010.pdf

As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%) 15.

So yeah, the blogger you linked to lied. Surprised?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes. Completely and utterly.

So you don't see the problem here? Almost all of Darwin's predictions have been proven false, yet you still hold to a falsified theory.

You do realize that not every animal fossilizes, right?

You do realize that this is a very tired explanation. There is now fossil evidence that proves what I am saying. Not every animal fossilizes but enough have to show that the Cambrian is what it is. An explosion of life forms without significant precursors.

 

[Chalnoth]

So you don't see the problem here? Almost all of Darwin's predictions have been proven false, yet you still hold to a falsified theory.

Uh, what? Darwin never predicted we would have a complete fossil record. Why would he?

You do realize that this is a very tired explanation. There is now fossil evidence that proves what I am saying. Not every animal fossilizes but enough have to show that the Cambrian is what it is. An explosion of life forms without significant precursors.

Riiight. Prove it.

 

[Oncedeceived]

So yeah, the blogger you linked to lied. Surprised?

Source

 

[Nostromo]

This is an ad hoc and straw man hypothesis. This is meant not as a real and possible falsification but one that is meant to show how unreasonable another alternative might be.

I'm glad we agree that it's unreasonable as an actual alternative, but that isn't why I brought it up, it's a real potential falsification.

If you had to think up the most simple scenario that, if true, would falsify common ancestry, would it not be "There are no ancestors"?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Uh, what? Darwin never predicted we would have a complete fossil record. Why would he?

I never said he did.

Riiight. Prove it.

Although interesting and portentous events have occurred since, from the flowering of dinosaurs to the origin of human consciousness, we do not exaggerate greatly in stating that the subsequent history of animal life amounts to little more than variations on anatomical themes established during the Cambrian explosion within five million years. Three billion years of unicellularity, followed by five million years of intense creativity and then capped by more than 500 million years of variation on set anatomical themes can scarcely be read as a predictable, inexorable or continuous trend toward progress or increasing complexity.

Source

 

[Oncedeceived]

If evolutionists found a human being in the precambrian they would still think up some wild scenario to align the find with evolution or 'rework' the strata to suit. They have done it many times before to make fossils 'fit'. There is no need to think they wouldn't do it again.

I agree that fossil evidence, biological evidence and so forth have radically changed the ToE. The human linage has so many direction changes it leaves one's head spinning.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I'm glad we agree that it's unreasonable as an actual alternative, but that isn't why I brought it up, it's a real potential falsification.

If you had to think up the most simple scenario that, if true, would falsify common ancestry, would it not be "There are no ancestors"?

Common ancestry has not been a smooth and complete explanation. In fact, many findings have put to rest many previous explanations concerning common ancestry.

 

[Nathan Poe]

We both know that we don't see these in nature and there is no other alternative that would cause these anomalies.

But of course there's an alternative -- evolution is false.

As you say, however, since we don't see these in nature...

The fact that the examples above are not in existence is not because evolution must be true but you would have to show with what other theory the same would not be true.

We're not saying evolution must be true, but if we ever were to see these things, we'd know it must be false.

The fact is that for 150 years, ToE has had to modify and adapt to more and more data that conflicts and outright falsified the original theory. So rather than throw out the theory, it has been modified and other theories have been introduced to allow for the new data to be incorporated into the theory.

Because while the premise remains sound, we've learned more and more about the details.

 

[Nostromo]

Common ancestry has not been a smooth and complete explanation. In fact, many findings have put to rest many previous explanations concerning common ancestry.

You're avoiding the point entirely. We're talking about potential falsifications, remember? If there were no ancestral species that would falsify common ancestry, would it not?

 

[Oncedeceived]

But of course there's an alternative -- evolution is false.

As you say, however, since we don't see these in nature...

Exactly. We look at nature and ToE attempts to explain them. We don't see these in nature, so ToE doesn't need to explain them.

We're not saying evolution must be true, but if we ever were to see these things, we'd know it must be false.

We knew they were never going to be seen so we knew it would not be proven false using these examples.

As I have said before, science and ToE predict certain things and then when those don't work out , another hypothesis is given to show why it is the way it is.

Because while the premise remains sound, we've learned more and more about the details.

Its not in the details that the ToE changes, it is that its predictions have been falsified and a new direction needs to be made.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Exactly. We look at nature and ToE attempts to explain them. We don't see these in nature, so ToE doesn't need to explain them.

You're asking the ToE to explain things that aren't found in nature?

We knew they were never going to be seen so we knew it would not be proven false using these examples.

And how did you know they'd never be seen?

As I have said before, science and ToE predict certain things and then when those don't work out , another hypothesis is given to show why it is the way it is.

And like any other hypothesis, it gets put to the test.

Its not in the details that the ToE changes, it is that its predictions have been falsified and a new direction needs to be made.

And which predictions has it made that were falsified?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Oncede, would you kindly answer my question.

Do you agree the theory of evolution is falsifiable?

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're avoiding the point entirely. We're talking about potential falsifications, remember? If there were no ancestral species that would falsify common ancestry, would it not?

If there were no common ancestry it would indeed falsify evolution

But common ancestry is not the only explanation for the findings in nature. In fact, some of the predictions of common ancestry have been falsified. For instance, it was predicted that those organisms that were closely related would have very little (minor) differences in the genome; it was thought that there was not enough time for genetic mutations to occur and spread out throughout the respective lineages. With new information it was shown that there were many novel genes that had to arise quickly.

 

[Oncedeceived]

You're asking the ToE to explain things that aren't found in nature?

No, which is my point.

And how did you know they'd never be seen?

This list is a posteriori, so the conclusion was already known.

And like any other hypothesis, it gets put to the test.

Well considering the results of studies that falsify predictions, one can incorporate the findings to fit with the theory, which has been done frequently with ToE. If this was another theory, it would be considered a very poor one due to all the falsifications within it.

And which predictions has it made that were falsified?

1. Gradual evolution taking very long periods of time.
2. That a very simple life form would evolve to more complex life forms.
3. That the prokaryote was the precursor of the eukaryotes.
4. That more distance between species the more differences would be found in the genome.
5. That homo Erectus was a direct descendant of habilis.
6. That Neanderthal was a human ancestor.
7. Biological variation is independent of need.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Oncede, would you kindly answer my question.

Do you agree the theory of evolution is falsifiable?

It has been, yet it still survives. I think that now it is unfalsifiable. I think that even though the genome of the human/chimp has shown great variances that were not predicted and that there are many surprising findings, that this too will be incorporated into the theory.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No, which is my point.

Was it now?

The ToE describes why we see some things in nature and why we don't see others. Would you expect it to describe something else?

This list is a posteriori, so the conclusion was already known.

The list is of things we haven't discovered yet, but could be discovered today, tomorrow, or next Thursday.

You see, scientists are humble enough to realize that just because we haven't found something today, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Would you prefer to use your own extensive knowledge of evolutionary theory to come up with a list of your own?

Well considering the results of studies that falsify predictions, one can incorporate the findings to fit with the theory, which has been done frequently with ToE. If this was another theory, it would be considered a very poor one due to all the falsifications within it.

Would it? or would it be understood that the details of the theory were largely unknown up until that point?

Funny thing about theories -- they evolve.

1. Gradual evolution taking very long periods of time.

Not a given -- varies depending on the length of a generation.

2. That a very simple life form would evolve to more complex life forms.

Could do so; not required to do so.

3. That the prokaryote was the precursor of the eukaryotes.

We once thought that was the case. How does being wrong falsify evoltion?

4. That more distance between species the more differences would be found in the genome.

Not physical distance, but variations between the two environments.

5. That homo Erectus was a direct descendant of habilis.

We once thought it was -- turns out it wasn't. How does that falsify evolution?

6. That Neanderthal was a human ancestor.

Again, we once thought it was -- turns out it wasn't. How does that falsify evolution?

7. Biological variation is independent of need.

How is that a prediction of evolution?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

I think that now it is unfalsifiable.

Then you would be wrong.