Creationism=religious philosophy, evolution=science

[Astridhere]

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?

I reckon it has!

The way I see the evidence is that you do not have ancestral species that speak to changes, for example, from land animal to whale, from sea creature to tetrapod, from mythical unknown common ancestor to mankind and chimp. What you have is how a wolf may become other dog varieties or how a bird can change its beak size and not how a bird was a dinosaur or everything came from bacteria.

What I see is a stack of taxons fairly well aligned, most of the time, in their kinds back to the family or subfamily rank, whichever the lower available. However back past this there is a mess of very varied species, many made up from single bones and fragments, that resemble the kinds today, and some others that have gone extinct.

We can find cats and dogs that look alike in pictures. However, in real life they are distinctly one kind or the other and their DNA also reflects a distinct difference.

The same goes for whales and Indohyus the deer. Creodonta, cats and caninae with all sorts of bear, cat & dog bits and pieces of only God knows what else, thrown together to make it look as if these groupings actually mean something in relation to common descent. I have no doubt some are mixed fossil kinds assembled together as monsters.

You had coelecanth the walking fish fossil as an example of the rise toward tetrapods, until one was found alive and well and was not walking anywhere.

Then Tiktaalik. The fish that landed, until other tetrapod footprints were found that predate it.

You have modern birds found with their primitive ancestors. You have researchers contesting the dino to bird thing outright. You have apes making shacks, 1.7mya..and non plausible scenarios to explain it all verifying that creationist scenarios are the more parsinomous and plausible.

So you are correct in saying that one way evolution would be falsified is if there are no true intermediates in between kinds. This is unfortunately the case for evolution, with misrepresentations, non plausible scenarios and classifications of hope being no basis to give any theory merit.

 

[Davian]

...
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.
...

Yes, you have said this before, and again. It may be that you are unaware that scientific theories are, by definition, subject to revision, based on new data, experimental results, etc. This is not a weakness of the ToE or the scientific method.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

We can find cats and dogs that look alike in pictures. However, in real life they are distinctly one kind or the other and their DNA also reflects a distinct difference.

I think this honestly best demonstrates your mistake in all this.
Just because you cant tell the difference between a dog and a cat, does not mean nobody can.

 

[USincognito]

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

Not true. I'm not sure about the animals - though there are a number that are clear arthropod precoursers - but plants and fungi certainly had some. And the simple fact that life existed in the pre-Cambrian shows there were precoursers to those phyla that rose during the Cambrian.

The human and chimp Y chromosome falsified evolution yet again, and does absolutely nothing for your nested heirarchies..

Wow! So the person who didn't know the difference between Lucy and a modern H. sapiens skeleton and Salem and Lucy, who ignored for a week the fact that adult Au. afarensis skulls do have brow ridges and look nothing like a orangutan, and didn't (still doesn't) understand neotonous features is going to play the "Y chromosome shows humans are closer to chickens" card?

Wow! Just wow. You just revel in making a fool of yourself Astrid, don't you?

 

[USincognito]

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

No, we both don't know that. I know we don't see them because they are contrary to the constraints of evolution. And if we did see them, the fact that they are anomalous would be a falsification of the theory. Why is this so hard to grasp?

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.

This is some clever spin, but it's not the point I was trying to make. You boldly averred that it's impossible to falsify evolution. I provided you with numerous examples which would immediately falsify evolution. You can handwave them away if you want, but the proverb about 1 white crow is all the more true if we were to find one with wings and forelimbs.

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.

No, that's not a fact. And I wish you'd check out Theobald's 29 Evidences essays for precise examples. He bases his predictions on Darwin's writings with some modifications for the genetically based ones and gives potential falsifications. That said, let's poop or get off the pot. How about you list 3 data points that conflict with or outright falsify the original theory and we'll see if they hold water or not?

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.

This assertion is so ironic because the new data has only served to buttress evolution and contradict Creationism.

- There are no ape men.
-- Here's 15 different hominin fossils.
- Humans have 46 chromosomes, chimps have 48.
-- Here's telomeres and centomeres in human chromosome 2.
Etc. Etc.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Your crazed fantasies continue to befuddle yet amuse me. Could you explain - in detail - how a modern H. sapiens in the Cambrian would be "reworked" into evolution. You could also try the crow with forelimbs and wings. Either will be entertaining I'm sure.

 

[USincognito]

Almost all of Darwin's predictions have been proven false...

When did that happen? And instead of alluding to it happening, could you give specific examples?

 

[USincognito]

1. Gradual evolution taking very long periods of time.

When was this falsified? And I know you're an OEC but, for the sake of discussion, could you quantify "very long periods of time"?

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

When was this falsified?

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

When was this falsified?

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

Do you have examples of this?

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

Not a prediction of evolutionary theory, but a hypothesis based on the earliest discoveries of the two. If H. habilis turns out to be a Hominin cousin of both erectus and sapiens, how does that falsify evolutionary theory? I mean, if Creationism is correct, there should be any "ape men" at all right?

6. That Neanderthal was a human ancestor.

That's been in question for at least half a century. But again, if Neanderthals are our ancestors, cousins or our step-brothers and sisters, how exactly does that falsify evolutionary theory? If Creationism is correct, then Neanderthals should only be H. sapiens with "variation" or whatever the ad hoc de jure is.

7. Biological variation is independent of need.

Huh?

 

[USincognito]

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.

Why do you keep alluding to things instead of addressing them directly? If there are "great variances that were not predicted and that there are many surprising findings", just tell us what they are so we can discuss them.

To my knowledge, there is nothing in the human or chimp genome project that changed anything regarding our common ancestry and the phylogeny derived from ERVs and human chromosome 2 remain unanswered by Creationists except with ad hoc hand waving.

 

[Astridhere]

Then you would be wrong.

Outlandish, unfalsifible scenarios offered as explanations to evidence that does falsify evolution means that evolution is unfalsifiable, as any possible non plausible explanation, no matter how ridiculous, will do to save the day.

 

[Exiledoomsayer]

Outlandish, unfalsifible scenarios

This here makes me believe you have no idea what the term even means.

offered as explanations to evidence that does falsify evolution means that evolution is unfalsifiable,

You really consider having a bird show up before a dinosaur in the fossil record is that outlandish? You'd be right, but only because according to evolution its impossible. If evolution is false then its not outlandish at all.

So really.. You are just admitting the strength of evolution here.

as any possible non plausible explanation, no matter how ridiculous, will do to save the day.

There have been alot of things offered all of which are perfectly possible if evolution is wrong, I especially like the idea of an animal with wings and front legs.

The simple fact is all these examples are perfectly reasonable if evolution were completely false, you only think they arent is cause you know your wrong.

If that is not is, explain to me in your own words why we should think its rediculous that we might one day find say..a winged rat fossil.(4legs, 2 wings.)

 

[Astridhere]

When was this falsified? And I know you're an OEC but, for the sake of discussion, could you quantify "very long periods of time"?

This was falsified when punctuated equilibrium was invented to save the fossil record for TOE. Now it is long periods of stasis, followed by rapid evolution.


When was this falsified?
That a very simple life form would evolve to more complex life forms was falsified when you found out this is not the case and many forms have supposedly 'evolved' into less complex forms.
SpringerLink - Biology and Philosophy, Volume 6, Number 3
What is complexity? - Adami - 2002 - BioEssays - Wiley Online Library



When was this falsified?That the prokaryote was the precursor of the eukaryotes

As we speak

The Darwinian Basis of the Prokaryote-to-Eukaryote Transition Collapses - Evolution News & Views


Do you have examples of this?
Genetic homplasy shows distantly and non related species can share genetic similarities that make them appear closely related, when there is huge distance between them.
Homology and homoplasy :: features and relationships | john hawks weblog



Not a prediction of evolutionary theory, but a hypothesis based on the earliest discoveries of the two. If H. habilis turns out to be a Hominin cousin of both erectus and sapiens, how does that falsify evolutionary theory? It demonstrates TOE has no predictablility, changes like the wind and offers flavour of the month up as irefutable evidence only idiots would deny, untill it it discredited tomorow and yesterdays fools win the day!
I mean, if Creationism is correct, there should be any "ape men" at all right.?
There isn't, you are correct! Apes appear in the fossil record, then mankind, fully functional, appears, as it should be.


That's been in question for at least half a century. But again, if Neanderthals are our ancestors, cousins or our step-brothers and sisters, how exactly does that falsify evolutionary theory? If Creationism is correct, then Neanderthals should only be H. sapiens with "variation" or whatever the ad hoc de jure is.
The bent over ape man sketched from the fossils at hand demonstrate without any doubt that researchers have no clue what any organisms flesh or general constitution looks like. It took DNA to make Neanderthal human and you do not have DNA for the majority of your extinct species. Neanderthal is young compared to other finds and they could not get it right.The likelihood that your researchers can guess what any creature looked like that is millions of years old is almost zero.

This is further demonstrated by the mess erectus is in, many scientists not accepting ergaster and basically the upshot of it all is they have no clue who is who in the zoo.


Huh?Huh?

Neanderthals are humans with variation and fit the description of nephalim very well and further support the biblical scenario of creation. Meanwhile you guys are still debating Neanderthals contribution to humanity after finding Neanderthal was human not that long ago.

Neanderthal has the human variation of the foxp2 gene, which is meant to have arose in the human line, meaning apes do not share it and erectus did not have it, either.

"Coop and colleagues (2008) gave a point estimate of the time of a sweep in humans as 42,000 years ago,"
Is there a common coding variant of FOXP2 in southern Africa? | john hawks weblog

This timing does not fit the evolutionary paradigm as it is too young, even though the research was done by evolutionists. No doubt researchers are trying to come up with some other timing by tweaking the insertion values in their algorithms to arrive at a plethora of dates until they get one that aligns with their ideas.

So yep, Neanderthal are perfectly human and Yes they are different and that so beautifully fits in with the biblical account, just as it should be... and causes evolutionists to continue to debate to date.

..as usual the evidence supports creation and biblical accounts, while evolutionists need and use far fetched, non plausible scenarios to save the day.

 

[Chalnoth]

I never said he did.

Then why in the world did you say the Cambrian disproves Darwin?

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

Could you please stop lying about the Cambrian? This isn't even remotely what we see in the fossil record.

 

[Astridhere]

I think this honestly best demonstrates your mistake in all this. The fact that you chose this little aside out of the entire posts to make fun of suggests you are unable to lodge a suitable refute. Thanks
Just because you cant tell the difference between a dog and a cat, does not mean nobody can The point missed being similar bones on old fossils is not as clear as evos would like to make out it is.

Out of my entire post you decide to pay attention to this remark. What about the rest? I can only assume you are unable to refute me and creation having the stronger stance, and that is why you strain small asides.

 

[Chalnoth]

Out of my entire post you decide to pay attention to this remark. What about the rest? I can only assume you are unable to refute me and creation having the stronger stance, and that is why you strain small asides.

*sigh* You do realize that people could tell dogs and cats apart quite well for centuries without the aid of genetic analysis, right? The retracting claws, for one, are a dead giveaway.

 

[Astridhere]

Wow! So the person who didn't know the difference between Lucy and a modern H. sapiens skeleton and Salem and Lucy, who ignored for a week the fact that adult Au. afarensis skulls do have brow ridges and look nothing like a orangutan, Excuse me, Lucy's child and Salem are one and the same, and look like Bornean orangutans, not a child becoming human. Lucy doesn't look like anything as her skull is a hand full of fragments. Neotony also means that Turkana Boy would be even more ape headed as an adult... so good point from you, thanks! and likely looked just like all the other great ape heads in Erectus with their extra ape verterbra.

The biggest point being that Lucy and her mates as well as Ardi, as well as Erectus in general as human ancestors, have been dethroned, so I do not need to dethrone any of them further. Your researchers have done a splendid job for me.

The point you didn't take up was how an ape headed, 3ft tall, curved fingered creature and a child, Selam, that also had defined curved fingers by the time she was 3yo, meaning she was a climber, left the Laetoli human footprints...especially now that she is unlikely to be a direct human ancestor? Is this one to hard for you to address?

These footprints are only attributed to Afarensis because that's what was about at the time. Again, given Lucy's description, attributing these footprints to her is yet another possible, yet ridiculously, non plausible scenario to keep the philosophy of common descent alive.

.and you and didn't (still doesn't) understand neotonous features is going to play the "Y chromosome shows humans are closer to chickens" card?
Are you asserting neotonous features has anything at all to do with the Y chromosome demonstrating evolution is a philosophy?
Wow! Just wow. You just revel in making a fool of yourself Astrid, don't you? In case you did not notice the link I put up spoke to research that only a fool would not be aware of by now and is written by Hawkes an evolutionist. Here is the research below.

"The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content. The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes--a significant change in a relatively short period of time. Page points out that this is not all about gene decay or loss. He likens the Y chromosome changes to a home undergoing continual renovation."
Whitehead Institute - Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected
Access : Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content : Nature

Exuse me.... taking shots at me gets you nowhere. It demonstrates you are unable to refute me and insults are the only shot you have left.

The human/chimp Y chromosome most certainly refutes and falsified common descent and once again requires outlandish non plausible scenarios to save itself from a quick death.

 

[Astridhere]

*sigh* You do realize that people could tell dogs and cats apart quite well for centuries without the aid of genetic analysis, right? The retracting claws, for one, are a dead giveaway.

Ok then refute my assertion that your classifications fall apart once they get to sub/family rank in that a host of various representatives of differing kinds like cats, dogs bears and only God knows what else, are thrown together into some group like creodonta or canidae etc and passed off as a mid species mess.

No refute to the Coalecanth debarkle or the tiktaalik woopsie, or the fact that Erectus is an ape with an extra ape verterbra and does not have sophisticated speech, or that a half wit is not going to build a hut and control fire 1.7mya, Denial over the human/chimp Y chromosome comparison. You just want to talk about cat claws!!! I think it is bye bye for you evolutionists that can only harp on asides and ignore the big issues

 

[Nostromo]

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.

So it's unfalsifiable but it has already been falsified?

 

[Chalnoth]

Ok then refute my assertion that your classifications fall apart once they get to sub/family rank in that a host of various representatives of differing kinds like cats, dogs bears and only God knows what else, are thrown together into some group like creodonta or canidae etc and passed off as a mid species mess.

What are you even talking about? The classification we make use of within evolution is a series of groups within groups: a family tree. There is no situation under which this classification breaks down. There are situations where the classification gets a bit fuzzy, where it's not entirely clear whether we have one species or two. Ring species are a strong example of this.

No refute to the Coalecanth debarkle or the tiktaalik woopsie, or the fact that Erectus is an ape with an extra ape verterbra and does not have sophisticated speech, or that a half wit is not going to build a hut and control fire 1.7mya, Denial over the human/chimp Y chromosome comparison. You just want to talk about cat claws!!! I think it is bye bye for you evolutionists that can only harp on asides and ignore the big issues

What coelacanth debacle? What tiktaalik whoopsie? And humans are every bit as much of apes as homo erectus is. If you saw a Homo Erectus walking around, you'd think he looked one heck of a lot more like a human than a chimpanzee. You would be able to tell at a glance that he *wasn't* human, but he'd still look far more human than any non-human animal alive today.

And what denial over the human/chimp Y chromosome comparison? I already demonstrated that there is massive sequence similarity between the two. So you're just flat-out lying when you claim there isn't.

 

[Oncedeceived]

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?

Yes, it was. No, which is what I said. The examples are unseen in all the history of the world. There is no reason whatsoever to imagine a time when these type of examples would occur.

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

From what we observe in nature and what we know of nature long before we could see it, these examples are not something that would arise.

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

Anyone can see that those type of examples would require a distinct departure from the norm.

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

Well, I am sure that I could try.

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

That could be said to be true, unfortunately, the original theory was very specific about what would falsify it. Darwin said himself that if there were no swarms of life that lead up to the cambrian fauna that it would falsify his theory.

Funny thing about theories -- they evolve.

True, but when the findings are contradictory to the original theory they are usually not considered confirmation of that theory.

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

What? We are talking about the Cambrian.

Could do so; not required to do so.

It was indeed required by Darwin himself.

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

It falsifies the prediction.

Not physical distance, but variations between the two environments.

Distance in how close they are related.

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

It falsifies the prediction.

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

Again, it falsifies the prediction.

How is that a prediction of evolution?

Actually, this might be wrong. Darwin did say that natural selection would be the main force behind evolution but that others might be important as well.