Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Exiledoomsayer]

Well do you mean is it going to falsify evolution, no, evolution is not falsifiable.

Hey now I realize its tempting to make snappy comebacks sometimes but you know that isnt true, repeating things like that even in jest might get you lumped in with that crowd.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Hey now I realize its tempting to make snappy comebacks sometimes but you know that isnt true, repeating things like that even in jest might get you lumped in with that crowd.

lol what crowd is that?

Tell me Exiledo, what do you think would falsify evolution?

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

lol what crowd is that?

Tell me Exiledo, what do you think would falsify evolution?

well a duck in the cambrian would do pretty nicely.
As would one kind of animal giving birth to entirely different kind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Actually, I was thinking that was more what you were doing.

And I give you kudos for your creativity -- comprehension; well, props for effort.

One billion years ago was before the Cambrian and complex life forms.

So?

It doesn't work.

Yes, yes, you said that already -- this is the part where you explain why.

Well do you mean is it going to falsify evolution, no, evolution is not falsifiable.

When I ask "are the problems insurmountable?" I mean "are the problems insurmountable?"

A pretty simple and straightforward question to which you just answered "no."

So, what's the problem?

It depends on the event.

But even a random event can still be guided by something, say, in the environment -- a lightning strike is a random event, but the Empire State Building gets hit in nearly every thunderstorm.

Einstein was wrong: God does play dice; it's just that the dice are loaded.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't know if you understand the implications of this discovery. This is a very complex mechanism that was thought to have only been present in land plants. This finding puts nearly one billion years of evolutionary history in a completely different light.

If lignin was indeed attributed to a common ancestor over a billion years ago, that means that something that is suppose to be very simplistic and relatively in the first stages of evolution as responsible for the lignin for both the green and red algae.

The genetic history is buried deep, a billion years or more. So yes, it is reappearing if it just pops up that long after the fact.

No, it isn't reappearing. Clearly it's been used all along. It may have a slightly different use in algae than in land plants, but that doesn't mean it somehow disappeared and then reappeared.

Furthermore, there is something you clearly aren't understanding about evolution: by the time multicellular life forms came around most of the history of life on our planet had already passed. Single-celled life forms had been evolving for some three billion years before any multicellular life appeared, a far longer time than little more than 500 million years that that multicellular life has been around. The vast majority of the genetic toolbox that all cells use was already put together long before even the simplest worm arrived on the scene.

 

[Nostromo]

lol what crowd is that?

Tell me Exiledo, what do you think would falsify evolution?

Do you think if the fossil record only went back 6000 years, and showed the sudden appearance of modern animals and no others, that would falsify Evolution?

 

[Psudopod]

I have spoken to the differences umpteen times, and at length, including yesterday and the day before. ...and YES, the differences are obvious. None of these replies of yours even mention my assertion of discontinuity due to lack of sophisticated language, higher reasoning ability and perception. In what language would you like me to repeat it in? You are trying to deflect out of desperation, a common evolutionists ploy when they are gobsmacked.

I really don't know how to explain in any more simply. You can't exclude something from a criteria because it contains extra traits. Otherwise daffadils would not be plants because they have trumpet like yellow flowers, and bats would not be mammals because they can fly. Flight is a property of bats which defines them apart from other mammals like dogs and whales, just as complex language is a property of humans not chimp or gorillas.But bats, dogs and whales are all mammals because they share a set of characteristics and humans, chimps and gorillas share a set of charecteristics which define them as apes. If you cannot get your head around this simple point then I really don't know how to continue.

I also have no obligation to provide what any evolutionist would consider 'satisfactory', particularly given you have no satisfactory theory that does not evoke the non plausible.

I have given no definition of evolution at all. I am only interested in getting you to provide evidence for your claim that humans are not apes.

You also have ignored the fact that you do not have to describe nephalim from an opposing view as a basis for evoluion. You are trying to divert atention fron the fact that you have no idea how to speak to my points that demonstrate science in favour of creation.

I have never seen you present any evidence for creationism, nor do I know why you are going on about mythical creatures now. If you genuinely have any evidence (not personal doubts or "this part of the puzzle of the tree of life is not quite right" then there is another thread for it.

You are not only going to keep asking me to repeat this you are going to keep ignoring my reply and the fact that the evidence is more supportive of a creationist paradigm.

I'm not ignoring your reply, I'm telling you your reply is not answering the question asked. It's only demonstrating that you don't really understand the topic at hand. If you did, you wouldn't be repeating things that make humans unique among apes and instead be providing what was requested - what part of the criteria for ape do humans not meet?

The definition of ape is one derived and defined on the presumption of ancestry then applied as are your classification systems. Please see my reply below demonstrating your researchers have no clue!.

Again you demonstrate your lack of understanding. Ancient creatures are irrelevant. The definition of ape applies to all modern, existent apes.

I have never seen my dog praying!

And that means you know every thought it your head? For the record, I don't believe your dog believes in God, it's a very human trait to seek answers to proplems and give meaning to things when none is necessarily there. However, I'm willing to argue within a framework of an existent deity, and in that case, it is possible that animals can recogise their creator and worship in their own way. Given that not all humans worship in the same manner, I still believe it is conceited to say you know the mind of every living thing on the planet, just because they act in a different manner to you.

The point is, as you conceded, humans have sophisticted language alone as well as higher reasoning capability, both requirements necessary to communicate with God, understand His Law, discern right from wrong, and pay Him homage. This is the most reliable and distinguishing feature that separates mankind from beast. Mankind alone is created in the image of God.

None of this stops humans being apes, mammals, animals etc, which is the point you fail to recognise.

I tried to see what answers were out there from an evolutionary standpoint to my points that support creation and are refuted by wild and non plausible evolutionary scenarios. I found a truly vague and contradictory state of affairs.

I have spoken to the fall of Lucy and Ardi, which you have ignored and taken no stance. Wiki also reflects this conundrum. Homo Erectus, it appears, is seriously being challenged as the ancestor of homo sapiens. Scientists are postulating eragaster, and are seeing Turkana Boy as eragaster, conveniently, as well. He can be both it appears, whatever flavour of the month is.

This is going off the original discussion, but if you think this disproves evolution I've got to wonder what you think evolution is. None of this falsifies evolution in the slightest. This is the equivalent of doing a complex jigsaw puzzle with no picture and many pieces missing and occasionally finding out that a piece you put down needs to shift slightly to the left.

There are a plethora of scenarios presented in the article, and with cited research, to try to address your dilemma. However a contradictory dilemma it remains. Again non plausible scenarios are offered like 1my of speciation and then interbreeding. Your proposed evidence for evolution is no more robust than flavour of the month being offered up as irrefutable evidence for evolution, until next week.

You have Ardi at 4.4myo found with ape feet, then Selam with defined curved fingers at 3.3mya, demonstrating she was arboreal and also human footprints dated in between. So in under 1my (around 700,000 years) ape feet evolved' into human feet, did they? Not plausible. This is on the backdrop scenario that some apes 7mya remained apart for 1my of speciation and still were able to successfully interbreed, meaning they had not speciated at all really.


What you have are footprints dated 3.6myo and older. You have an ape, australopithicus afarensis at 3.3myo. You have Selam, that has curved fingers at 3 years old, meaning she was arboreal, as the curvature become defined in the ape fingers once the child starts climbing! These are obviously apes misrepresented and humanized in desperation. This is the only plausible explanation.

This is definitive evidence for mankind being here around 3.6mya according to your dating methods, while your supposed intermediates were still apes. You have found other apes that predate the human footprint. Clearly apes were created and then mankind was created independently, and this is supported by the evidence.

Creation=Science, Evolution=Philosophy.

Identifying the past from a remains that rarely form is a complex process that can be open to interpetation when examples are thin on the ground? Tell me something I don't know. That our family tree is large is not in contest, that sometimes what we thing was a great great great grandmother was in fact a great great great aunt is not in question. None of this calls into question evolution, none of it gives any credence to creationism. Creationism doesn't give proper explanations for the patterns of diversity we see, only the common designer copout. Common designer doesn't explain why some mammals can make their own vitamin C but humans cannot. And if you say The Fall didit, then what did the poor ginea pig do wrong? They also have a faulty gene, but it's broken in a different way to humans.

Why are all vertebrates tetrapod? All insects six-legged? Why do aquatic mammals have lungs, forcing them to rise to the surface to breathe? Why do such poor engineering designs like putting the breathing pipe and the eating pipe together risking choking persisted if the designer is actually intelligent? Why would an intelligent designer implement a pattern of nested heirarchy? This is not something we see in anything else designed?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you think if the fossil record only went back 6000 years, and showed the sudden appearance of modern animals and no others, that would falsify Evolution?

There was a sudden appearance of all modern phyla, which would have falsified the gradual evolution required by ToE but Gould came to the rescue with punctuated equilibrium. No falsification there.

 

[Oncedeceived]

well a duck in the cambrian would do pretty nicely.
As would one kind of animal giving birth to entirely different kind.

This counters the way God created as well.

 

[Chalnoth]

There was a sudden appearance of all modern phyla, which would have falsified the gradual evolution required by ToE but Gould came to the rescue with punctuated equilibrium. No falsification there.

An appearance over a span of millions of years is not sudden. Unless you somehow think that hundreds of times the entire span of human civilization is sudden.

 

[Nostromo]

There was a sudden appearance of all modern phyla, which would have falsified the gradual evolution required by ToE but Gould came to the rescue with punctuated equilibrium. No falsification there.

Yeah, how about you answer the question I asked?

 

[USincognito]

Tell me Exiledo, what do you think would falsify evolution?

Ooooo, Much like my "kinds" list, I have a long one that Creationists seem to avoid. You can also check out Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences essays and note that for every one of them he presents a verification and a potential falsification.

So, let's see, potential falsifications of evolution.

An iguana with mammary glands.
A crow with wings and arms.
A rose with melanocites.
A sponge with a vertebrate brain.
A lobster with a backbone.
A sloth with chlorophyl.
The proverbial rabbit in the Cambrian.
A mouse in the Devonian.
A crow in the Ordovician with an iguana and pollen from a rose in it's stomach.
Orthologous ERVs in humans, orangutans and lemurs, but not in other primates.
A trout with fur.
A dolphin who lacked the genes for fur, but had the genes for scales.

The chimeric possibilities for falsifying evolution are endless OD. Whereever did you get the notion that there were no possible falsifications?

The fact is, we haven't found any yet so that means something after 150 years.

 

[Chalnoth]

Ooooo, Much like my "kinds" list, I have a long one that Creationists seem to avoid. You can also check out Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences essays and note that for every one of them he presents a verification and a potential falsification.

So, let's see, potential falsifications of evolution.

An iguana with mammary glands.
A crow with wings and arms.
A rose with melanocites.
A sponge with a vertebrate brain.
A lobster with a backbone.
A sloth with chlorophyl.
The proverbial rabbit in the Cambrian.
A mouse in the Devonian.
A crow in the Ordovician with an iguana and pollen from a rose in it's stomach.
Orthologous ERVs in humans, orangutans and lemurs, but not in other primates.
A trout with fur.
A dolphin who lacked the genes for fur, but had the genes for scales.

The chimeric possibilities for falsifying evolution are endless OD. Whereever did you get the notion that there were no possible falsifications?

The fact is, we haven't found any yet so that means something after 150 years.

Here's another one: the family trees inferred from genetic comparisons routinely fail to give the same trees if we use different bits of DNA. This one is particularly strong because the statistics of nested hierarchies are just so absurd. By the time you get to a comparison of, say, 20 species, the probability that two different genes would show the same family tree just by chance is very roughly in the range of one part in 10^20. So when you see phylogenetic trees routinely and repeatedly coming up with the same result, that is proof positive of evolution.

Of course, we don't expect exact concordance of different measures of these family trees, because no measurement of a family tree is perfect. But they had better match up nearly all of the time or there's a big problem, and any time they don't match up there had better be a good explanation as to why.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

This counters the way God created as well.

The question was what would falsify evolution, I answered it.

I notice that a few others have added more examples.

So can we agree than evolution is most definately falsifiable?

 

[Oncedeceived]

An appearance over a span of millions of years is not sudden. Unless you somehow think that hundreds of times the entire span of human civilization is sudden.

So you are discounting the predictions that claimed this could not be consistent with Darwinian evolution?

And yes, this is sudden due to the fact that almost all of the forms found in the Cambrian do not have any precursors. This too is inconsistent with the predictions of Darwin.

 

[Astridhere]

Uncertainty about the precise details of where Lucy fits in our family tree really doesn't place any doubt whatsoever on the theory of evolution. Having no evidence for your claim should worry you! Your objection here might as well be saying that because some things fall faster than others, our theory of gravity must be wrong.Astronauts always get to the moon but Lucy, Ardi and Erectus never made it to human. My objection demonstrates that you have a mess as opposed to a sound theory of common descent. It is a mess that you hold up as evidence for evolution, and human evolution is just one example of the mess you actually have. It is fraudulent and deceitful to represent what you have as uncontested evidence of anything that only a fool would not accept.

The gravity comparison is an old line. Gravitational theory works every time in the real world and only falls apart at the theoretical eg singularities. That my dear, is why astronausts always get to the moon.

Apart from stating the obvious, mankind did not evolve from a modern day chimp. That is what you irrefutably know from your evidence. The rest is wishy washy and you cannot deny most of it is flavour of the year at best. It is philosophical at best.

A. J. Kelso, Physical Anthropology, 1.b., 1970, pp. 221; M. D. Leakey, Olduvai Gorge, Vol 3, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971, p. 272

Findings of a 1.7 million-year-old hut shocked the scientific community. It looked like the huts used by some Africans today.

So here you have apes the like of Turkana Boy, supposedly constructing dwellings such as these, do you? Turkana Boy with his narrow ape neural canal suggesting no speech, an extra limbar verterbra like other complex apes, The shape of the vertebral canal that carries the spinal cord downwards from the brain is distinctive in the way it narrows in the region of the rib cage. This indicates a relative lack of both additional gray matter and enlarged spinal nerves in that region of the spinal column, an ape head....and this guy's family you reckon were constructing huts and using fire do you?

What I like best about your reply is that you had nothing to say about the non plausible scenario that apes like Ardi with evidence of ape feet 'evolved' in the space of around 700,000 years into modern human feet with the laetoli footprints. This is yet another non plausible scenario meant to have just inexplicably happened after millions of years of stasis.

Whenever contradictory evidence raises its head all the more do evolutionists require wildly non plausible scenarios to save the day.

Any far fetched scenario may be possible, but is it plausible? NO, your scenario is yet again not plausible at all. The most parsinomous explanation is that mankind was alive and well, fully fuctioning with highly functioning reasoning ability and sophisticated speech, way before any of these so called intermediates existed.

The evidence supports mankinds sudden appearance on the earth as a fully functioning human being, with no intermediates that trace mankind back to any sort of common ancestor. It is the philosophy of common descent that reinterprets the sound evidence for creation into an evolutionary mystery and flavour of the year.

.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you think if the fossil record only went back 6000 years, and showed the sudden appearance of modern animals and no others, that would falsify Evolution?

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.

 

[Astridhere]

Here's another one: the family trees inferred from genetic comparisons routinely fail to give the same trees if we use different bits of DNA. This one is particularly strong because the statistics of nested hierarchies are just so absurd. By the time you get to a comparison of, say, 20 species, the probability that two different genes would show the same family tree just by chance is very roughly in the range of one part in 10^20. So when you see phylogenetic trees routinely and repeatedly coming up with the same result, that is proof positive of evolution.

Of course, we don't expect exact concordance of different measures of these family trees, because no measurement of a family tree is perfect. But they had better match up nearly all of the time or there's a big problem, and any time they don't match up there had better be a good explanation as to why.

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

Yes, evolution has been falsified many times, it is just that another non plausable wildly outlandish scenario is yet again sent along to keep TOE together with stickytape. Then you've got genetic and morphological homoplasy and convergent evolution as other wildly outrageous scenarios to fix any other anomoly that disproved evolution. Evolution is the theory of grandious scenarios that are non plausible and is a philosophy.

You have modern birds found with their supposed ancestors and you have stuff all evidence for getting any extinct species into any nest at all other than by the imagination and use of predetermined assumptions.

 

[Chalnoth]

So you are discounting the predictions that claimed this could not be consistent with Darwinian evolution?

Yes. Completely and utterly.

And yes, this is sudden due to the fact that almost all of the forms found in the Cambrian do not have any precursors. This too is inconsistent with the predictions of Darwin.

You do realize that not every animal fossilizes, right?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Ooooo, Much like my "kinds" list, I have a long one that Creationists seem to avoid. You can also check out Douglas Theobald's 29 Evidences essays and note that for every one of them he presents a verification and a potential falsification.

So, let's see, potential falsifications of evolution.

An iguana with mammary glands.
A crow with wings and arms.
A rose with melanocites.
A sponge with a vertebrate brain.
A lobster with a backbone.
A sloth with chlorophyl.
The proverbial rabbit in the Cambrian.
A mouse in the Devonian.
A crow in the Ordovician with an iguana and pollen from a rose in it's stomach.
Orthologous ERVs in humans, orangutans and lemurs, but not in other primates.
A trout with fur.
A dolphin who lacked the genes for fur, but had the genes for scales.

The chimeric possibilities for falsifying evolution are endless OD. Whereever did you get the notion that there were no possible falsifications?

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

The fact is, we haven't found any yet so that means something after 150 years.

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.