Evolution - the illusion of a scientific theory

[Loudmouth]

It all depends on how robust that theory is and how well insulated it is from potential falsification via such ad-hoc adjustments.

The problem is that science deniers like yourself have insulated yourselves with ad-hoc adjustments to reject any evidence you don't like.

You are projecting.

 

[lifepsyop]

That's what science is all about. Changing your beliefs/explanations to match the evidence. Not the other way round.

I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.

Predictions are for the future. Presumably you will agree that we will continue to find and dig up fossils, yes?

The predictions is that you will never find a rabbit in the cambrian layers.
That nobody every found such a thing in the past doesn't mean that nobody will ever find one in the future, wouldn't you agree?

It's not just rabbits in the cambrian off course. We can make millions of such predictions.

And you are confused about the nature of those predictions.

Such predictions are based on the observation of the fossil pattern itself. NOT Evolution theory.

Like I said, take the Cretaceous/Paleogene and dinosuars/mammals relationship. Evolution theory makes zero predictions as to why major mammal groups could not have begun evolving simultaneously or even before the rise of dinosaurs. But since that is the pattern that was found, Evolution accommodated it.

Of course evolutionists can now "predict" that certain patterns will hold, but this is not a prediction of ToE. If the patterns were different, then evolutionists would be "predicting" the continuation of the different ones.

If you can't understand this then you need to think about it more.



Lifepsyop: In recent centuries, if a fossil pattern had emerged where most mammals appear simultaneously or even before many reptilian/dinosaurian orders, then evolutionists could just have easily built their theory around this pattern.

Not really. It would be a huge problem. It would expose that the theory is in error somewhere.

Actually nothing would be exposed. A different evolutionary history of mammals would be proposed, that's all. Maybe some bigger gaps but that's okay.

Now that you've made the claim, I'd love for you to explain how this scenario would "expose" the theory as being in error. Be specific please. This ought to be good...

Off course, the facts of evolution wouldn't change because of such a find...
Uncovering fact X wouldn't make facts A, B and C magically disappear...

DNA would still mutate.
Mutations would still be inherited.

Oh boy, save your equivocation routine for another thread please.

There's nothing complex about it. It's just comparing sequenced genomes and putting them into a diagrame based on DNA matches.

Um, are you even aware that Phylogenetics includes comparing morphological traits? It doesn't sound like it.

Can I please hear a rebuttal from someone who knows what they're talking about and not these pseudo-experts?

Every time this is done, we get a hierarchical tree. A tree that is completely consistent with comparative anatomy, the distribution of species, etc.

Well... no.

Are you aware that these days, it's not even humans doing the comparing? It's computers. You can feed those processes 2 or more sequenced genomes from random organisms and the process will generate a diagram. And it matches every single time.

No, DogmaHunter... just no... all sorts of considerations including subjective weighting of character traits goes into phylogenetic studies, and different studies done by different authors are frequently at odds with each other, because they interpret character traits differently.

I went on to give direct examples of this, which you conveniently ducked out on before you had to respond. Put simply, a molecular or morphological trait can be interpreted as either a homology or a homoplasy (convergent evolution), and this of course has the potential to drastically change phylogenetic inferences.

I don't blame you for not wanting to actually examine and consider the issues because you might have to start questioning your religion.

I'm gonna quit here. I'm starting to get dizzy from reading such ignorance drivel.

No, you're obviously going to "quit here" because next I went on to specifically explain the ad-hoc subjective interpretation invoked in phylogenetics with examples from the literature and you're completely unequipped to address such matters.

 

[Only Me]

That's what science is all about. Changing your beliefs/explanations to match the evidence. Not the other way round.

I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.

If you acquired more evidence regarding something you believed would you not change your position?
If you thought there were ten people present at the church but later found out there were twenty people would you continue to believe there was only ten people there?

 

[bhsmte]

If you acquired more evidence regarding something you believed would you not change your position?
If you thought there were ten people present at the party but later found out there were twenty people would you continue to believe there were only ten people there?

If holding onto a belief, was psychologically more important than acknowledging reality, then he likely would believe only 10 people were there, because he needs to.

 

[BL2KTN]

Be specific please. This ought to be good...

Seldom is someone so incredibly wrong and simultaneously arrogant.

 

[Dizredux]

DogmaHunter

That's what science is all about. Changing your beliefs/explanations to match the evidence. Not the other way round.

lifepsyop

I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.

I am really puzzled here. All science changes to fit the evidence, that is what science does. Where is the gripe? I truly don't understand.

It seems to me that this is your biggest complaint, that the Theory of Evolution is changed to fit the data. Since this is a basic part of science, I don't see the problem.

Perhaps you could explain *why* you feel this is an issue that needs correcting.


Dizredux

 

[Only Me]

If you acquired more evidence regarding something you believed would you not change your position?
If you thought there were ten people present at the church but later found out there were twenty people would you continue to believe there was only ten people there?

If holding onto a belief, was psychologically more important than acknowledging reality, then he likely would believe only 10 people were there, because he needs to.

lifepsyop .. is what bhsmte is saying true?

 

[lasthero]

Lifepsyop is, among other things, a geocentrist. Evidence isn't terribly important to him.

 

[Only Me]

Lifepsyop is, among other things, a geocentrist. Evidence isn't terribly important to him.

Not even if it's enough to slap him in the face?

 

[Naturalism]

So, why is it different for evolution?

What OldWiseGuy is also neglecting here is the sheer magnitude and age of the Universe. How many 100's of billions of galaxies, each with 100's of billions of stars, each with enumerable bodies (planets & moons) orbiting them in which even simple molecular replication (life) could arise.

 

[Loudmouth]

Such predictions are based on the observation of the fossil pattern itself.

How can a theory be based on observations that have not been made yet? The theory stated that there should have been transitional forms in the past that fell into a nested hierarchy, and this was done before fossils of those transitional fossils were found. Darwin had very, very few fossils to work from, and yet he stated that there should have been transitional species between us and apes.

So you are wrong. The predictions were made prior to the fossils being found.

Like I said, take the Cretaceous/Paleogene and dinosuars/mammals relationship. Evolution theory makes zero predictions as to why major mammal groups could not have begun evolving simultaneously or even before the rise of dinosaurs. But since that is the pattern that was found, Evolution accommodated it.

You keep ignoring that the prediction made by the theory of evolution is a nested hierarchy. That is what we are testing the theory against.

Of course evolutionists can now "predict" that certain patterns will hold,

A nested hierarchy was predicted from the very start, before transitional fossils were found.

 

[Naturalism]

This is because ToE is built on a metaphysical worldview, and not the rigid prediction-falsification criteria found in real scientific theories.

That's not entirely accurate, I will highlight a few examples. Consider when the ToE was conceptualized in the mid 19th century, prior to a modern understanding of physics, radioisotopes decay rates and the now known age of the earth.

At the time the age of the earth was understood to be maybe in the millions of years, and as discoveries in physics & how to date material become understood the age could have been only that or younger. With such an age and as the knowledge of the rate of speed of evolution as observed the theory could have been basically falsified right there or certainly would have involved some massive overhauls.

Consider the recent discoveries in the mapping of the human genome and other genomes of other organisms. At the time it was found that human's have 2 pairs of 24 chromosomes and recent analysis for the Chimpanzee revealed they have 2 pairs of 23 chromosomes (the same is true for Gorillas, Orangutans, and Bonobos). The existing theory/model on evolution and common ancestry is that we share relatively close common ancestry with members in the Great Apes family.

So how could this be if they have one less pair of chromosomes?

Well, the geneticists figured out that an entire chromosome could not have just been deleted, such a change would not allow a zygote to form or result in a living organism. The proposal was that somehow 2 chromosomes must have fused sometime in the past & the prediction was that there should be evidence for this in our Genomes. What was found? Well, let Ken Miller explain.

Ken Miller - 2nd Chromosomal Fusion - YouTube

Like I said, if a fossil pattern had emerged where major taxa groups appeared in different rock layers, than the ToE would have been developed around that pattern.

Possibly, but not necessarily, it would entirely be dependent on what was found & where geologically. What I guess is curious if you're a creationist & compelling for the model overall is that all the existing patterns, both in phylogenetic trees created via genetics and patterns in creation of clades are basically identical and are perfectly in line with common ancestry & say not at all consistent with earlier considered notions that the fossil beds are the result of a single world wide flood of a particular religion.

For instance, if we did find mammals in the Cambrian strata how could the existing model explain this? It would require a full re-write of the ancestry of all of the tetrapoda ancestry. All the earlier ancestors of amphibians, reptiles would need to be explained in this new model somehow & it would be a major challenge.

The Cambrian explosion is another obvious enigma where many body plans "poof" into existence.

They only appear to poof info existence if you're ignoring the amount of time that is portrayed in the rocks and if you totally and completely ignore any of the precursors in the Pre-Cambrian flora & fauna.

 

[Naturalism]

The problem is that science deniers like yourself have insulated yourselves with ad-hoc adjustments to reject any evidence you don't like.

Exactly. Show a creationist any prediction that was successful or any evidence that is consistent with common ancestry or evolution & you're likely to get the token response of "God designed it that way!"

 

[lifepsyop]

There is nothing vague or mysterious about the mechanisms of evolution.
1. Natural selection
2. Genetic drift
3. Gene flow.
Some consider sexual selection to be separate, but I normally include it under natural selection.

I'm talking about what committed believers think those mechanisms can do. They turn natural selection into a superstitious magical force that can potentially build anything - just add time.

We cannot make predictions about details because we often do not have enough information to do so. There are predictions, that the theory makes, however. For example, the theory predicts that the next genome that is sequences will fall within the nested hierarchy of life.

Well a mammal genome will probably be similar to another mammal genome with a similar phenotype, insect similar to insect, etc.

There is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent, though, if that's what you were implying. I've already listed a few reasons why in the OP.

The theory predicts that if a new antibiotic, or pesticide is utilized that resistance to that compound will evolve, even in species that do not have any resistance, etc.

So extinction falsifies Evolution?

There is nothing that is a "perfect fit" to anything.

Tell that to DogmaHunter... again.

And is this incorrect? Is the fossil record not incomplete?

Of course it is incomplete, but how incomplete? The re-occurring pattern of discovery shows that we mostly keep finding the same general body plans over and over again. This is a strong indicator that the fossil record is mostly complete in terms of representatives of major types of life.

But evolutionists believe in untold billions of imaginary intermediate creatures, and in this case an incomplete fossil record just becomes an inexhaustible rescue device for a lack of evidence.

The reptile-mammal transition is very well recorded in the fossil record, primarily because mammal-like reptiles ruled the terrestrial ecosystems on earth for hundreds of millions of years. It is so well recorded, that we have fossils of species with both a reptilian and a mammalian jaw joint at the same time. There is a reason why they are called "mammal-like reptiles."

Okay it sounds like you do not understand that your "well-recorded transition" is only a subjective interpretation.

For one thing, this "transition" is an example of an "evolving body part". It focuses on the jaw/ear area and ignores otherwise diverse body plans.

However, as I was saying before, this "transition" could also be interpreted as an independent convergence of different lineages towards certain mammalian traits. This would be invoked if, say, mammal groups tended to appear in lower rocks than that jaw "transition".

(Interestingly, some paleontologists are even now saying that certain stages of this jawbone transition happened convergently multiple times.)

And actually, it is meaningless to ToE that this 'evolving body-part' "transition" is even in a stratigraphic order. If it was out of order, you could just say that it is evidence that a more primitive trait happened to fossilize before a more derived trait. Care to comment?

This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone, they are positive it happened because NS can do anything.

Bats don't fossilize very well.

Sorry but things far more delicate than bats have left plenty of fossil evidence. And bats themselves have left fossils, so there is no good reason that populations of billions of alleged bat intermediates could not have fossilized.

You may as well just appeal to pure chance.

 

[Naturalism]

I couldn't agree more. That's why Evolution is not science.

No, that is why it's science as that is how all other domains of science operate. Models/theories updated & beliefs adjusted only on empirical analysis of evidence.

Such predictions are based on the observation of the fossil pattern itself. NOT Evolution theory.

The predictions are based on both. For instance, the premise of common ancestry of humans with other Great Apes necessarily predicts specific genetic patterns, but it also predicts specific biostratigraphy for intermediates forms. Both predictions are upheld with the evidence.

Evolution theory makes zero predictions as to why major mammal groups could not have begun evolving simultaneously or even before the rise of dinosaurs. But since that is the pattern that was found, Evolution accommodated it.

I am not sure if this would be required of the model to predict but what is known is that after the Great Die Off in end the Permian you have at the time mammal like reptiles while some of earlier archosaurs which are ancestral to dinosaurs are around. The divergence of mammal like reptiles and reptile like mammals was occurring at that time, this is mammalian evolution.

Actually nothing would be exposed. A different evolutionary history of mammals would be proposed, that's all. Maybe some bigger gaps but that's okay.

How could it really be proposed or believed if the very principle of descent with modification appears to be out of sorts with what is apparently descendant species existing prior to ancestral ones in many lineages?

 

[lasthero]

And bats themselves have left fossil

He didn't say that bats didn't leave fossils, he said that bats don't fossilize well. Soft things like bats CAN fossilize, but it's rare. The bigger and harder something is, the more likely it's going to at least partially fossilize, so it's not a surprise that small and soft things don't fossilize that often.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm talking about what committed believers think those mechanisms can do.

And this is where you lose all credibility. You ignore the data and go straight for character assassination.

There is no objective nested hierarchy of common descent, though, if that's what you were implying.

For complex life, there absolutely is an objective nested hierarchy.

But evolutionists believe in untold billions of imaginary intermediate creatures, and in this case an incomplete fossil record just becomes an inexhaustible rescue device for a lack of evidence.

Now you are calling a prediction a belief. You can't even understand how theories work.

Okay it sounds like you do not understand that your "well-recorded transition" is only a subjective interpretation.

Now you are using denial.

However, as I was saying before, this "transition" could also be interpreted as an independent convergence of different lineages towards certain mammalian traits. This would be invoked if, say, mammal groups tended to appear in lower rocks than that jaw "transition".

Doesn't change the fact that the theory predicted we would see a nested hierarchy in the fossil record. You can make up whatever magical mechanisms you want, but that doesn't make those predictions go away.

And actually, it is meaningless to ToE that this 'evolving body-part' "transition" is even in a stratigraphic order. If it was out of order, you could just say that it is evidence that a more primitive trait happened to fossilize before a more derived trait. Care to comment?

This is no different than the "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes" argument. Transitional does not mean ancestral. I will say it again. Transitional does not mean ancestral. Please learn the terms you are using.

Transitional phenotypes can and are transmitted to later stages of descent in sister taxa. Sister taxa with transitional features are transitionals even though they are not direct ancestors.

This is also an example of that vague magical force that evolutionists make natural selection out to be. Though they have no clue why NS would even begin to favor gradually morphing a jawbone into an ear-bone, they are positive it happened because NS can do anything.

Then why don't you explain to us how a detrimental change in anatomy would become more and more prevalent in a population.

Sorry but things far more delicate than bats have left plenty of fossil evidence. And bats themselves have left fossils, so there is no good reason that populations of billions of alleged bat intermediates could not have fossilized.

You haven't come up with a good reason why they would leave a massive fossil record.

 

[lifepsyop]

DogmaHunterlifepsyop I am really puzzled here. All science changes to fit the evidence, that is what science does. Where is the gripe? I truly don't understand.

Because the central creation story of Evolution is not open to change with evidence. Models of Evolution will change, but never Evolution itself.

 

[Loudmouth]

Because the central creation story of Evolution is not open to change with evidence.

More character assassination with no evidence to back it up.

 

[lifepsyop]

He didn't say that bats didn't leave fossils, he said that bats don't fossilize well.

I didn't say he said that. I said if we have bat fossils than there's no reason not to expect a few intermediates here and there.

I'll spoil the whole surprise for you though. The reason there are no bat intermediates is because the bat didn't evolve.

Soft things like bats CAN fossilize, but it's rare. The bigger and harder something is, the more likely it's going to at least partially fossilize, so it's not a surprise that small and soft things don't fossilize that often.

The environmental conditions for fossilization probably have much more to do with the chances of fossilization than the size of the animal. Favorable environmental factors could easily offset any bias from organism structure. Again, you may as well just appeal to chance.

Bats were just the first thing that came to mind. How about icthyosaurs? You'll just say the intermediates didn't happen to fossilize.