I'm interested in hearing from some of the more informed people here about what evidence would/could falsify evolution. I'd like something a little more detailed than a "Precambrian rabbit" and something more grounded in reality than the typical creationist arguments.
-
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Evidence that would falsify evolution
- Thread starter crjmurray
- Start date
An organism that violates the nested hierarchy that we see in the living world. An organism that is made up of parts of very different organisms. A rabbit that has a heamoglobine proteine that is closer to frogs haemoglobine than to other rodents, has a dentation of sharks rather than rodent dentation, squid eyes instead of vertebrate eyes etc etc. A fancyful designer could have created such an animal. But for some mysterious reason he didn't.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The sheer complexity and brilliance down to the molecular level flies in the face of random chance. The more complexity and interdependence that is discovered the more likely organisms were purposefully created. It's a "chances are" thing and the chances/odds all favor creation, which would, chances are, 'falsify' evolution.
Upvote
0
^That.
It is the phylogenetic evidence that supports evolution. We would need to see numerous and obvious violations of those phylogenies in order to falsify evolution. As drwiewerf explained so well, it would be child's play for an omnipotent designer to produce species that do not fall into a nested hierarchy. In fact, it is actually easier to create designs that do not fall into a nested hierarchy as shown by the fact that humans designs do not fall into nested hierarchies. If human designs did follow phylogenies, then designers would have to come up with something other than air bags for every lineage of cars other than the lineage that the air bags first appeared in.
"Although airbags are now required in every automobile sold in the United States, Hetrick's 1951 patent filing serves as an example of a "valuable" invention with little economic value to its inventor because its first commercial use did not occur until after the patent expired when in 1971, it was installed as an experiment in a few Ford cars."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airbag#Origins
Creationists tell us that a nested hierarchy is a necessary outcome of common designs being created by a common designer. Nothing could be farther from the truth. If the claim were true, then airbags would only be found in a few Ford models.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
justlookinla
Regular Member
Why leave out mutation as one of the 'workings' of certain views of evolution?
Upvote
0
No.
The infamous crocoduc was invented by Ray Comfort of one species morphing into an existing species, as somthing "evolving". (The Ray Comfort misinterpretation of evolution.) Let me rephrase the answer to the OP with a better worked out example;
consider two species closely related to each other ( a horse and a zebra) and a third species, let's say a lion.
Compare proteine after proteine (heamoglobines, immunoglobulines, phosphofructkinase etc) : the ToE requires that proteine after proteine the zebra's proteines will look very similar to the horses proteine (or even be identical) and both will differ more from the lion's proteines. Let us add an even more remote species: a fish. The zebra, horse and lion proteines will be together more similar (proteine after proteine) comparde to the fish proteine
The ToE requires this. A lazy creator could have used the same proteines throughout the entire animal kingdom. Or he could have created the differences randomly. That is a true test to differentiate both "theories". (Putting creationism on the same level as the ToE, I know it sounds awkward for most of us, but I don't find another way to express this at the moment.)
Upvote
0
I was making a joke about the Comfort/Cameron crocoduck. Not meant to be taken seriously. But thanks for some good answers!
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
The prima facie evidence is for purposeful creation. One of the problems is that we can't agree on what to examine. We are immediately directed to processes that we cannot hope to understand, and our actual questions are ignored. (Of course we know that these questions cannot be answered by science.)
Upvote
0
What evidence is that?
It isn't our fault that you can't understand the science, which begs the question of how you can reject theories that you don't even understand.
Upvote
0
- Feb 4, 2006
- 46,773
- 10,981
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
- Politics
- US-Others
Upvote
0
Similar threads
