How can Creationism be falsified?

[Loudmouth]

so if i will add a part of glass to a robot- it will response to the light? ok. lets assume its possible. how it will evolve into somehintg more complex like a video camera? step by step?

Put the glass in a depression and you have rudimentary direction.

Restrict the opening to the glass and you have rudimentary focusing (like a pinhole camera).

Add a flexible and transparent covering over the opening and you have a protected retina.

Add a muscle to the flexible and transparaent covering and you have a lensed, camera style eye.

All steps are one piece at a time, and each step offers an improvement over the old eye.

 

[Queller]

how do they explain that Sudbury is almost eroded away, Chicxulub is half covered by the Yucatan peninsula and Berringer is "fresh".

"Goddidit"

That is, of course when they try to explain at all. Most times they just ignore the question, as seems to be the current case.

 

[rjs330]

It's also a history lesson.

Human artifacts don't evolve, except when we make copies of living systems.

But as you know, a population of organisms can evolve to adapt to new conditions, or to become better fitted to the existing environment. So if it's beneficial for an organism to better orient to light, a dark spot would be an advantage. A simple mutation does that.

likewise, a slightly sunken spot or more nerves under the spot would again be beneficial.

And so on. There's no point in the process where simple mutations couldn't produce the gradual changes that would result in a complex eye. And each of those changes would be favorable, which means they would tend to accumulate in the next generation.

And yet we cannot show this actually occurred. Yep still an assumptive argument.

 

[USincognito]

show me in the lab that a creature wihout a vision system evolve a vision system and it will by a good proof for evolution.

Oh great. Another person that thinks evolution = Pokemon.

 

[USincognito]

even the starting point (an eyespot) need several parts to function. so even the first step is impossible by evolution. think about a minimal light detector made by human. do you think we can make such a detector by one or two parts?

Do you really think you're asking a question that has not been asked (and answered) already?
Evolution of vertebrate eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/21/evolution-of-vertebrate-eyes/
Evolution of metazoan eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/15/the-eye-as-a-contingent-divers/

 

[USincognito]

Impact craters are one of those things they usually dance around or come up with crazy, ad hoc stuff to explain. Leaving aside for a moment how catastrophic Chicxulub alone was, but toss in Vredefort and Sudbury during a 2,000 to 1.5 year time frame (depending on when they claim the impacts happened) and the worldwide destruction would be unimaginable - how do they explain that Sudbury is almost eroded away, Chicxulub is half covered by the Yucatan peninsula and Berringer is "fresh".

And in this case the apparent response is avoidance.

 

[The Barbarian]

And yet we cannot show this actually occurred.

No, that's wrong, too. For example, all those stages still exit in mollusks. Would you like me to show you?

Yep still an assumptive argument.

Your assumption is incorrect. There is evidence showing each stage, and each stage is useful.

 

[pat34lee]

ICR claims there can be no intermediate forms between land animals and whales. Finding a transitional between those two groups would of course invalidate creationism as the ICR believes in it.

Actually, proving any transitional form between kinds is real would invalidate creationism, but you would have to have DNA proof that the three forms are actually related, and are really transitioning.

 

[pat34lee]

So, is this how coal is made then? By heating up wood, and applying pressure?

Wood, heat, pressure, water and no air to burn.

 

[pat34lee]

Put the glass in a depression and you have rudimentary direction.

Restrict the opening to the glass and you have rudimentary focusing (like a pinhole camera).

Add a flexible and transparent covering over the opening and you have a protected retina.

Add a muscle to the flexible and transparaent covering and you have a lensed, camera style eye.

All steps are one piece at a time, and each step offers an improvement over the old eye.

Problem is they all work differently, so you would have to change neural paths and how the brain uses them each time you change the eye.

 

[pat34lee]

Do you really think you're asking a question that has not been asked (and answered) already?
Evolution of vertebrate eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/21/evolution-of-vertebrate-eyes/
Evolution of metazoan eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/15/the-eye-as-a-contingent-divers/

There are multiple assumptions here. First that the separate creatures are related. That the eyes are able to change, rather than being totally different creations. The fact that in nature that you never see any gain on that level, only loss of genetic material and loss of function (blind cave fish).

 

[The Barbarian]

Actually, proving any transitional form between kinds is real would invalidate creationism, but you would have to have DNA proof that the three forms are actually related

That we have. Turns out, whale DNA shows them to be most closely related to ungulates as the fossil record also indicates. And we know it works, since we can test it on organisms if known descent.

and are really transitioning.

No, that's wrong. Populations evolve; organisms do not. Even many honest creationists admit the fact of transitional organisms.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

 

[USincognito]

Actually, proving any transitional form between kinds is real would invalidate creationism, but you would have to have DNA proof that the three forms are actually related, and are really transitioning.

1. Every time you use "proof" or "proven" in a scientific context the ghost of Carl Sagan kills a puppy.
2. Are you ever going to provide us with a scientifically useful definition of "kinds" that isn't ad hoc and has both explanatory and predictive power?
3. I know you won't read this, but we have plenty of evidence that whales evolved from land mammals. Here's three from physiology, embryology and genetics.
---------------------------------
From physiology we see that unlike fish and marine reptiles (see the ichthyosaur body plan), which move side to side, whales should move up and down just like their terrestrial counterparts do. Indeed, that is what we observe. A potential falsification would be if they undulated side to side and their flukes were shaped and positioned like those of Ichthyosaurs.

Based on the fact that we've observed atavistic legs on whales, we would expect from genetics and embryology to see that they retain anatomical or molecular vestiges for hind leg development. We observe both.

Embryonic dolphins develop limb buds that are absorbed back into the body as the fetus grows. (see photo at bottom of page)
Cetacean Palaeobiology

Cetaceans also have the gene package for limb development. In legged vertebrates, Sonic Hedgehog and Hand2 work together to develop them, but in cetaceans that gene package is non-functioning so the limb buds never develop unless there is a problem and atavistic hand limbs actually grow.
Developmental basis for hind-limb loss in dolphins and origin of the cetacean bodyplan

Press release here:
05 » How ancient whales lost their legs, got sleek and conquered the oceans » University of Florida
>> In all limbed vertebrates, Sonic hedgehog is required for normal limbs to develop beyond the knee and elbow joints. Because ancient whales’ hind limbs remained perfectly formed all the way to the toes even as they became smaller suggests that Sonic hedgehog was still functioning to pattern the limb skeleton.

The new research shows that, near the end of 15 million years, with the hind limbs of ancient whales nonfunctional and all but gone, lack of Sonic hedgehog clearly comes into play. While the animals still may have developed embryonic hind limb buds, as happens in today’s spotted dolphins, they didn’t have the Sonic hedgehog required to grow a complete or even partial limb, although it is active elsewhere in the embryo.

The team also showed why Sonic hedgehog became inactive and all traces of hind limbs vanished at the end of this stage of whale evolution, said Cohn. A gene called Hand2, which normally functions as a switch to turn on Sonic hedgehog, was shown to be inactive in the hind limb buds of dolphins. Without it, limb development grinds to a halt. <<

 

[USincognito]

Problem is they all work differently, so you would have to change neural paths and how the brain uses them each time you change the eye.

It would be nice if people would actually read the links that are posted.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/15/the-eye-as-a-contingent-divers/

 

[USincognito]

There are multiple assumptions here.

Sorry, but nope. No magic words and hand waving. You need to address the actual evidence presented. Can you?

 

[pat34lee]

That we have. Turns out, whale DNA shows them to be most closely related to ungulates as the fossil record also indicates. And we know it works, since we can test it on organisms if known descent.

Evidences for Darwin’s second expectation - of stratomorphic intermediate species - include such species as Baragwanathia27 (between rhyniophytes and lycopods), Pikaia28 (between echinoderms and chordates), Purgatorius29 (between the tree shrews and the primates), and Proconsul30 (between the non-hominoid primates and the hominoids). Darwin’s third expectation - of higher-taxon stratomorphic intermediates - has been confirmed by such examples as the mammal-like reptile groups31 between the reptiles and the mammals, and the phenacdontids32 between the horses and their presumed ancestors. Darwin’s fourth expectation - of stratomorphic series - has been confirmed by such examples as the early bird series,33 the tetrapod series,34,35 the whale series,36 the various mammal series of the Cenozoic37 (for example, the horse series, the camel series, the elephant series, the pig series, the titanothere series, etc.), the Cantius and Plesiadapus primate series,38 and the hominid series.39 Evidence for not just one but for all three of the species level and above types of stratomorphic intermediates expected by macroevolutionary theory is surely strong evidence for macroevolutionary theory. Creationists therefore need to accept this fact. It certainly CANNOT said that traditional creation theory expected (predicted) any of these fossil finds.
Young Earth creationist Kurt Wise, Toward a Creationist Understanding of Transitional Forms
http://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j09_2/j09_2_216-222.pdf

First section: DNA. Like human and ape DNA, similarity in DNA does not prove ancestry, but similarity in form and function. And known descent or assumed descent? Known being we have documented every generation between.

I know many, including some creationists, believe in intermediary forms. I have no problem believing that God was not limited to reptiles, birds, fishes, etc., but made many animals like the duck-bill platypus or the spiny anteater, that fit no neat classification.

 

[pat34lee]

It would be nice if people would actually read the links that are posted.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/15/the-eye-as-a-contingent-divers/

Loudmouth did not post that link. My reply was to him, not your post with the link.

Now that I'm there though:

"Whoa…the differences are all over the place. Eyes look different, function differently, develop differently, and use different molecules, so where are the signs of common descent? The differences tell us that eyes have arisen in evolutionary history multiple times, but there are still deep homologies; in particular, look at those opsins, specifically the Type 2 opsins."

They tell me that each was created individually. Similar, but not the same. They have enough different traits to take advantage of slightly different ecosystems.

 

[USincognito]

First section: DNA. Like human and ape DNA, similarity in DNA does not prove ancestry,

My word! How can people write stuff like this with a straight face? Literally having similar DNA means to beings are related by common ancestry. LITERALLY.

but made many animals like the duck-bill platypus or the spiny anteater, that fit no neat classification.

No, they do fit into a neat classification - Monotremata, which are a subset of Therapsidia, which are a subset of Synapsidia, Amniota, Terrestrial Tetrapods, Craniata, Vertebrata, etc.

 

[The Barbarian]

First section: DNA. Like human and ape DNA, similarity in DNA does not prove ancestry, but similarity in form and function.

No, that's wrong. We see similar form and function, in whales, sharks, icthyosaurs, etc. But DNA shows that similar form, absent homologies, does not show common descent. However, DNA similarity does show that, and we can show this by comparing organisms of known descent.

And known descent or assumed descent?

Known. Breeding records, known historical populations, and so on. There's no point in denying it.

I know many, including some creationists, believe in intermediary forms.

Since they demonstrably exist, there's no point in denying that, either.

I have no problem believing that God was not limited to reptiles, birds, fishes, etc., but made many animals like the duck-bill platypus or the spiny anteater, that fit no neat classification.

You've been misled there, too. Turns out the monotremes are nicely intermediate between eutherian mammals and reptiles. Would you like me to show you how?

 

[xianghua]

Do you really think you're asking a question that has not been asked (and answered) already?

yep. i do think so. even in those articles they start with a light detector. but again; even a simple light detector need a big amount of dna changes.