• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Do evolutionists really understand the complexity of things?

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
46
Brugge
✟81,672.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There is no evidence in this conversation that you and others consider the ToE in any way 'falsifiable'. Am I correct in this?

Every scientific idea is falsifiable. Otherwise, it's not a scientific idea.

Evolution is about one of the most falsifiable ideas out there, actually. Which incidently is also why it is also regarded as one of the most solid theories in all of science.
There's literally millions of ways that could show it to be false, at least in its current incarnation, yet it stands tall.

You want examples on how it is falsifiable? Sure...
- Find me a reptile with an inner earbone.
- Find me an amphibian with hair.
- Find me a mammal with feathers.
- ......
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Every scientific idea is falsifiable. Otherwise, it's not a scientific idea.

Evolution is about one of the most falsifiable ideas out there, actually. Which incidently is also why it is also regarded as one of the most solid theories in all of science.
There's literally millions of ways that could show it to be false, at least in its current incarnation, yet it stands tall.

You want examples on how it is falsifiable? Sure...
- Find me a reptile with an inner earbone.
- Find me an amphibian with hair.
- Find me a mammal with feathers.
- ......

The problem is that soft tissue fossil evidence is non-existent, therefore 'falsifiability' is meaningless. That's why the 'theory' stands. It's like Kylie's mousetrap argument. The 'primitive' examples are only speculation. What we do have is a complete mousetrap with no evidence that the design evolved in the way her link supposes. Same with evolution. There is no organic, biological evidence that creatures evolved.

What the fossil record shows is a wide variety of fully functioning, successful critters, that died out because of environmental changes, not design weaknesses. That said I do believe in survival of the fittest in that the biggest, strongest, most able of the species pass on those qualities.

But there are caveats to that as well.

Experiments on 'deer farms' have shown that if allowed to live even the 'runt' bucks (often culled from the herd) develop normally in a few seasons. So the idea that they have inferior genes has been proven false. Same father, same genes. They just don't get off to a good start. This can be explained by the timing of their birth not being optimal for development. Late fawns, or fawns produced by a very young doe, for example.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,398
31
Wales
✟423,765.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
The problem is that soft tissue fossil evidence is non-existent, therefore 'falsifiability' is meaningless. That's why the 'theory' stands. It's like Kylie's mousetrap argument. The 'primitive' examples are only speculation. What we do have is a complete mousetrap with no evidence that the design evolved in the way her link supposes. Same with evolution. There is no organic, biological evidence that creatures evolved.

Just... so, so much wrong in one paragraph.

What the fossil record shows is a wide variety of fully functioning, successful critters, that died out because of environmental changes, not design weaknesses.

And do you know why they died out because of environmental changes (the ones that did)? Because they couldn't adapt.

That said I do believe in survival of the fittest in that the biggest, strongest, most able of the species pass on those qualities.

And this is further proof that you know jack-all about evolution. That is not what 'survival of the fittest' means at all.

But there are caveats to that as well.

Experiments on 'deer farms' have shown that if allowed to live even the 'runt' bucks (often culled from the herd) develop normally in a few seasons. So the idea that they have inferior genes has been proven false. Same father, same genes. They just don't get off to a good start. This can be explained by the timing of their birth not being optimal for development. Late fawns, or fawns produced by a very young doe, for example.

That's no caveat. In the wild, runts will die because they are weak. A farm is not found in nature, they are human-made constructs, so the pressures that are found in nature are not present.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Just... so, so much wrong in one paragraph.

Such as?

And do you know why they died out because of environmental changes (the ones that did)? Because they couldn't adapt.

Hard to adapt to a flash flood.

And this is further proof that you know jack-all about evolution. That is not what 'survival of the fittest' means at all.

So "most able" doesn't count?

That's no caveat. In the wild, runts will die because they are weak. A farm is not found in nature, they are human-made constructs, so the pressures that are found in nature are not present.

Lots of great research comes from deer farms. Note that they are not like CAFO's.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Such as everything you've asserted is the exact opposite of what the experts say.

So there is actual proof of evolution? And those goofy mousetraps actually existed (I especially liked the one that was attached to the wall)?
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,398
31
Wales
✟423,765.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single

Well, the claim that biological life didn't evolve for one thing.

Hard to adapt to a flash flood.

And yet those form a very small amount of fossils found.

So "most able" doesn't count?

The 'most able' organism is not the strongest animal, as you incorrectly claimed. It is the animal that is able to give survive the longest to breed.

Lots of great research comes from deer farms. Note that they are not like CAFO's.

Unimportant. Great research of cows come from cow farms, but that doesn't change the fact that farms aren't natural.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Two different questions.
So there is actual proof of evolution?
Frumious just posted this in the Codes need a coder thread, and it's as good an answer as any:

"There are no absolute certainties, but when there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with the existing explanatory framework, and people reasonably well-informed about the evidence and the framework consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no scientifically adequate competing hypothesis, then I think it's justified - with the usual provisos."


And those goofy mousetraps actually existed (I especially liked the one that was attached to the wall)?
That was just banter with a person who wants desperately for ID to be true and isn't really interested in learning why it isn't.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Frumious just posted this in the Codes need a coder thread, and it's as good an answer as any:

"There are no absolute certainties, but when there are multiple lines of evidence that are consistent with the existing explanatory framework, and people reasonably well-informed about the evidence and the framework consider it to be beyond reasonable doubt, and there is no scientifically adequate competing hypothesis, then I think it's justified - with the usual provisos."

It is the "absolute certainty" of the ToE that I am arguing against.

That was just banter with a person who wants desperately for ID to be true and isn't really interested in learning why it isn't.

There is much more desperation on the part of science that evolution be believed. No doubt they are well intentioned however, much like the government reeducating the Indians.
 
Upvote 0

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
15,022
7,398
31
Wales
✟423,765.00
Country
United Kingdom
Gender
Male
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
It is the "absolute certainty" of the ToE that I am arguing against.

And yet you have no argument whatsoever.

There is much more desperation on the part of science that evolution be believed.

Wow. Projection, much?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
It is the "absolute certainty" of the ToE that I am arguing against.
Which is a figment of your imagination. I think what you are really arguing against is the certainty that YECism is wrong.



There is much more desperation on the part of science that evolution be believed.
How is that desperation expressed in Frumious' statement? I think the "desperation" a figment of your imagination as well.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Which is a figment of your imagination. I think what you are really arguing against is the certainty that YECism is wrong.

I'm an OEC, a Gapper.
 
Upvote 0

OldWiseGuy

Wake me when it's soup.
Site Supporter
Feb 4, 2006
46,773
10,976
Wisconsin
Visit site
✟1,005,212.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
How is that desperation expressed in Frumious' statement? I think the "desperation" a figment of your imagination as well.

I was responding to your use of the term.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I was responding to your use of the term.
So why are you pushing ID without seeing the necessity of understanding it better?

The originators of ID, the Discovery Institute, have made their motive very clear. They want ID in the public consciousness and in the public schools as what they call a "wedge" for their political agenda.

But ID is not essential to theistic (i.e. non YEC) creationism. What's your dog in this fight?
 
Upvote 0