Cambrian Explosion

[Jet Black]

That could be said of many aspects of fossil records. When organisms can be as much as ten's of millions of years earlier than once thought; it puts a new twist on the evolutionary model.

THere is a difference between "the evolutionary model" and our understanding of natural history.

If I said that evolution is untrue due to the fact that it couldn't get off the ground (no pun intended) to begin life at all; what evidence would you provide to support your claim? If you didn't have the evidence would that then disprove evolution all together?

I'd say well evolution does not address that question anyway. That is a matter of natural history.

Phyla is not necessary as a distinction per se. I feel this fits with the verse because it claims that the waters swarmed with living creatures..great sea monsters. The most important point in the verse is that it says "every living creature that creepeth", which says to me that this is a time when all "kinds" were living in the waters. This time frame makes the most sense when looking at the Cambrian.

why the Cambrian? Again, I get this feeling that picking the Cambrian is completely arbitrary.

 

[Oncedeceived]

why? how would that make it any more or less falsifiable? that doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense? That one must have a common ancestor that began the whole process? To have common descent it is imperitive to have a beginning of that process, to have a common beginning to all living things correct?

oh come on now, this is practically a kent hovind argument. i consider you above this.

I'll take that as a compliment.

does atomic theory need to tell you about the origin of atoms? goes general relativity need to tell you about the origin of gravity? evolution only describes how populations of imperfectly reproducing organisms change over time. how those organisms got there in the first place is a different question, because they didn't evolve there.

They evolve from there and that is the foundation of the whole process. The theory of evolution contains at its very foundation life evolving from a common ancestor. That means that in that regard it is unfalsifiable due to the fact that there is no evidence for life's beginning.

no! do you really think it would? a purely natural origin of life is not a prediction of ToE, so how would it falsify it then? the only way to falsify a theory is to show that one of it's predictions is incorrect. since this is not a prediction of ToE, it can't falsify it.

A purely natural explanation is inperitive in Science. It is not necessarily a prediction of ToE but it is of Science as a whole.

how the first life got here is irrelevant to the ToE. it could have arisen naturally, through abiogenesis, it could have been seeded here by aliens, or it could have been zapped there by god himself. none of these options have any bearing on the validity of evolution.

I have to go now. Finish this later. sorry



i disagree. i only ask of your theory that it be falsifiable (and unfalsified). something required of all theories that we expect to test via science.[/quote]

 

[Jet Black]

They evolve from there and that is the foundation of the whole process. The theory of evolution contains at its very foundation life evolving from a common ancestor. That means that in that regard it is unfalsifiable due to the fact that there is no evidence for life's beginning.

no, the common ancestry of life is a deduction from looking at the morphological and metabolical processes of the life that (we have found so far that..) exists on earth and not an apropri assumption as you seem to be suggesting.

 

[caravelair]

What doesn't make sense? That one must have a common ancestor that began the whole process?

what doesn't make sense is the idea that how that common ancestor got there has some bearing on whether or not common ancestry is falsifiable. it's falsifiable regardless of how the first got there. finding a centaur, for example, would falsify it. this is true regardless of how the first organism came into being.

To have common descent it is imperitive to have a beginning of that process, to have a common beginning to all living things correct?

there had to be a first organism, yes, because evolution doesn't start until we have one. like i said, how that ancestor got there has no bearing on evolution or common descent.

I'll take that as a compliment.

you should! you're one of the only intellectually honest creationists on this board.

They evolve from there and that is the foundation of the whole process.

just as once you have mass, you have gravity, but general relativity, our theory of gravity, does not explain how mass came into being, nor does it need to.

The theory of evolution contains at its very foundation life evolving from a common ancestor. That means that in that regard it is unfalsifiable due to the fact that there is no evidence for life's beginning.

could you tell me in your own words what you think unfalsifiable means, because what you said above does not make sense to me. not having evidence for something does not make that thing unfalsifiable, it just makes it unevidenced. there is some evidence that gives us clues to life's beginning though.

but either way, it still has no bearing on the falsifiability of common descent. here are 29 ways you can falsify common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

none of these ways of falsifying common descent are in any way changed by how the first organisms got here. like i said, it could have arisen naturally, or aliens could have put it there, or god could have zapped it there. these 29 tests work either way.

A purely natural explanation is inperitive in Science. It is not necessarily a prediction of ToE but it is of Science as a whole.

so you're saying that science as a whole is unfalsifiable? that's probably true, but specific theories within science are, including common descent.

 

[Oncedeceived]

THere is a difference between "the evolutionary model" and our understanding of natural history.

Perhaps you could explain the difference in your view?

I'd say well evolution does not address that question anyway. That is a matter of natural history.

Is not the ToE an explanation of natural history.?

why the Cambrian? Again, I get this feeling that picking the Cambrian is completely arbitrary.

Because this is the time when life was abundant with many different kinds of organisms. Why do you seem to have such a problem with this?

 

[Oncedeceived]

what doesn't make sense is the idea that how that common ancestor got there has some bearing on whether or not common ancestry is falsifiable. it's falsifiable regardless of how the first got there. finding a centaur, for example, would falsify it. this is true regardless of how the first organism came into being.

Finding a centaur would falsify Genesis as well.

Okay, the ToE as defined Is falsifiable. I agree with you there. What I disagree with is that when referring to common descent, one must have evidence of the first life form from which this process began. Do you see the difference?

there had to be a first organism, yes, because evolution doesn't start until we have one. like i said, how that ancestor got there has no bearing on evolution or common descent.

But it does. IF life began from non-life it must be then shown. If it were planted here from space, it must be shown. If it was created by God then it must be shown. Can it be shown that life began from non-living matter (or chemicals)...no, not at this time. Can it be shown to have come here from space, again not at this time. Can it be shown to be created by God, you say no. So what is the difference?

you should! you're one of the only intellectually honest creationists on this board.

Well thank you, that is very kind of you to say.

just as once you have mass, you have gravity, but general relativity, our theory of gravity, does not explain how mass came into being, nor does it need to.

But Gravity is in existance now and we can test it now. We can not by Scientific standards test how life began from non-living materials. Well let me clarify. We have not at this time shown how living organisms have come from non-living materials.

could you tell me in your own words what you think unfalsifiable means, because what you said above does not make sense to me. not having evidence for something does not make that thing unfalsifiable, it just makes it unevidenced. there is some evidence that gives us clues to life's beginning though.

I a theory or idea that can not be tested or verified by experiment or observation.

but either way, it still has no bearing on the falsifiability of common descent. here are 29 ways you can falsify common descent:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

none of these ways of falsifying common descent are in any way changed by how the first organisms got here. like i said, it could have arisen naturally, or aliens could have put it there, or god could have zapped it there. these 29 tests work either way.

I must be blind but I can't find anything that shows 29 ways to falsify common descent????

so you're saying that science as a whole is unfalsifiable? that's probably true, but specific theories within science are, including common descent.

Ummm, no that is not what I was saying.

 

[caravelair]

Finding a centaur would falsify Genesis as well.

how so? i don't see how that would conflict with genesis at all. there are lots of creatures that exist but are not described in the bible. perhaps that is one of them?

Okay, the ToE as defined Is falsifiable.

well it's not defined as falsifiable, but it is falsifiable because it makes falsifiable predictions.

What I disagree with is that when referring to common descent, one must have evidence of the first life form from which this process began. Do you see the difference?

yes, but i don't see why you are saying that.

But it does. IF life began from non-life it must be then shown. If it were planted here from space, it must be shown. If it was created by God then it must be shown. Can it be shown that life began from non-living matter (or chemicals)...no, not at this time. Can it be shown to have come here from space, again not at this time. Can it be shown to be created by God, you say no. So what is the difference?

or we can not show any of these and just say "i don't know". that is a perfectly acceptable answer, especially considering our lack of information on this matter. if ANY of the above possibilities can be true, then as far as common descent goes, it doesn't matter which is correct. common descent only applies to organisms. until we have organisms, common descent makes no comment.

But Gravity is in existance now and we can test it now.

just as organisms are in existence now, and populations of organisms, and we can test them to see how they change over time. we can also test the predictions of common descent right now, whether or not we know about the first life form. that would have no bearing on the tests.

We can not by Scientific standards test how life began from non-living materials. Well let me clarify. We have not at this time shown how living organisms have come from non-living materials.

but common descent does not require that this be true, so that's why it is not relevant to common descent.

I a theory or idea that can not be tested or verified by experiment or observation.

hmm, that's not quite right, really. it's more along the lines of a theory that couldn't possibly be proven wrong, no matter what evidence we find. it doesn't have to do with whether or not you can verify something, it has to do with whether or not you could potentially disprove that thing. so in order to be falsifiable, a theory must make predictions that could be proven wrong. a good counter-example is last-thursdayism, because no possible evidence could contradict that claim. if we can't potentially contradict a theory, then we must expect that all evidence we find fits with that theory, and thus we cannot test it.

I must be blind but I can't find anything that shows 29 ways to falsify common descent????

see part 1 through 5 of the article. each of these sections contains 5 to 8 independant lines of evidence, and in each of these, there is listed a potential falsification. just click on section one and search the page for "potential falsification".

 

[Jet Black]

there had to be a first organism, yes, because evolution doesn't start until we have one. like i said, how that ancestor got there has no bearing on evolution or common descent.

there has to be at least one imperfect replicator. Though there is no necessity for the initial imperfect replicator to be the only one from which all other imperfect replicators stem.

I am not sure you would call a replicator an organism though.

I find this common ancestry stuff a little pointless to be honest. Evolution does not explicitly say that there is one ancestor from which everything stemmed. indeed looking at bacteria and the way they work, the earler we get in life, the more hazy we can see this idea of common ancestry becoming. In some sense, evolution as we know it doesn't always really apply at an organism level in things like bacteria, because of horizontal transfer meaning you can "inherit" genes from your cousin (texas ho ho) as well as your mother and even your granddaughter. This starts to grind up the idea of common ancestry at that level, because then we have to take a gene-centric view, and look at the development of genes through time. In the very earliest stages of the development of replicative mechanisms, this sort of thing would be even more predominant.

When we start looking at eukaryotic organisms though, the idea of common ancestry starts to make more sense.