Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Relativity has, indeed, survived the scrutiny of experiment and passed with flying colors. It is difficult to quantify "how well" a theory has been verified, but it is difficult to make a case that relativity has an advantage over evolution in this area. Certainly there has been much more published research in evolution (because the subject of evolution is a much more complex one than the subject of relativity). How often has evolution survived a falsification test - research that could have, in principle, falsified the notion of evolution? Certainly, with the discovery of DNA it could have been found that organisms thought to be related shared little or no hereditary material. Every time a new fossil is lifted from the ground, evolution stands to be falsified... what if a new mammal fossil appears in the fossil record older than the oldest amphibians, the order from which mammals derive? Once might be a mistake in dating, but enough fossils are discovered each year that a pattern of such might be established if evolution were not true. But the fact is that of the thousands of fossils that paleontologists dig up each year, and over the past 150 years, there hasn't been a single unambiguous case of a fossil organism predating the oldest of its ancestors. To avoid making the post too long, I will stop without listing any of the many, many individual results from the lab and field that independently confirm the theory in part or in whole. I am touching on some of those in the other thread...
How much has evolution survived falsification? I don't know. Which evolution are you talking about? Evolution conforms to the evidence (naturally), but that does not mean that it is
true. It merely means that it is not yet falsified. It's difficult to falsify such a large scale theory with so much wiggle room. Why don't you present a list of ways that evolution could be falsified completely so that it wouldn't simply "morph" into another form? I see you've presented one yourself:
"what if a new mammal fossil appears in the fossil record older than the oldest amphibians"
This would not falsify evolution, it would merely rewrite the evolutionary tree. Maybe it
should, but do you really think that with all of the other evidence supporting evolution that this would falsify it completely? It would merely change a facet of it, or make it a mystery until the next in-vogue sub theory pops up. Another possibility, as you said, is a mistake in dating. They could assume a dating mistake (since fossils are found in undatable sedimentary rocks) and shuffle the dates around a bit to fix things.
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
There is a difference between historical science and non-historical science. Both are empirical (that is not the difference). The difference lies is what kind of evidence and what kind of testing is available to each. The nature of the evidence for historical events sometimes makes it too difficult to identify enough evidence to put together strong tests of a theory. Such is not the case for evolution, though.
You believe
The evidence for evolution is merely
consistant with it (and perhaps not always).
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
I think Rufus addressed this point well. Natural selection, changing environments, and speciation do guarantee large scale changes over large periods of time. You cannot split a collection of similar objects into groups, make different changes to each group, split the sub-groups, repeat again, and continue doing this for very long before the individual groups have ceased to bear the slightest resemblance to one another. That is large scale evolution. It does not necessarily guarantee the evolution of novelty, though. What does guarantee the evolution of novelty (complex adaptations like eyes and wings), is variability with a feedback mechanism. To see this illustrated, play one of those games of cellular automata. Genetic algorithms have been used to allow computers to program themselves by sucha feedback loop. They have "evolved" very novel systems (ones that engineers are challenged to even understand the workings of) that do remarkable complex tasks. For instance, a computer coupled to a box of components and re-wirable circuitry programmed itself to be a radio using genetic algorithms (a computer simulation of variation plus natural selection). A computer programmed itself to improvise jazz solos using the same methods. Both in very short periods of time, thanks to a strong selective pressure.
This is a statement of dogma. You cannot know that this is the case without verifying it by witness which is impossible given the time scale. De-evolution might be possible, but that is not what is supposedly contained in the fossil record.
As for those programs, discussing them is meaningless to me because I don't know much about them. They could be completely rigged, or slightly rigged very easily. And there's also other questions such as how much "time" the computer had to "evolve".
Originally posted by Jerry Smith
The one pictured in the x-ray only had 3 "tail" vertebrae, and they were homologous to the three small "fused" vertebrae in the coccyx. The vertebrae labeled S1-S5 are the sacral (meaning spinal) vertebrae.
We are working from the same material here, so I cannot elaborate much more than the author without going to the library. He does cite his references well for those of us who require a more in depth examination. The most important part, to me, is that the true human tail is not merely a deformity, as witnessed by:
"The true human tail is characterized by a complex arrangement of adipose and connective tissue, central bundles of longitudinally arranged striated muscle in the core, blood vessels, nerve fibres, nerve ganglion cells, and specialized pressure sensing nerve organs (Vater-Pacini corpuscles). It is covered by normal skin, replete with hair follicles, sweat glands, and sebaceous glands (Dao and Netsky 1984; Dubrow et al. 1988; Spiegelmann et al. 1985). True human tails range in length from about one inch to over 5 inches long (on a newborn baby), and they can move and contract (Baruchin et al. 1983; Dao and Netsky 1984; Lundberg et al. 1962). "
(from the same page.) The references are cited, and where possible links are given in the footnotes to the abstract on PubMed.
That's not unexpected. If the spinal cord truly extended, the genetic switches that caused it would have to extend muscle, skin, fat, blood vessels as well. It couldn't be more than a few "switches", because anything more would far to complex. The question is, does the presence of this potential demonstrate common descent by natural selection? It certainly doesn't argue against it, and it even suggests it. But it is not proof.
Spinal cord growth could be controlled by a sort of recursive growth algorithm with a base case that activates at the coccyx. If this didn't activate, the final vertebrae may continue to grow in much the same way as the previous ones. Since they protrude from the body, the skin simply grows around it. The inherent musculature gives it the ability to move. Ouila. Instant "tail".
As I said, the tail certainly doesn't hurt the case for evolution, but if you think hard enough, you can always find another explanation for everything. Now, how long do you think it will take them to learn how the human genome controls spinal cord growth?
And if you didn't understand what I meant by recursion, please ask me to clarify.
[edit]
Actually, by observing fetal growth, a scientist could observe how the spinal cord grows. Does it all appear at once, or does it start popping up one vertebrae at a time?
[edit]
Well, no this isn't necessarily true. Recursion could merely set up the growth templater recursively, while it all begins growing at about the same time. Since muscles have to interconnect throughout the spinal cord, this is probably more accurate.
