How can Creationism be falsified?

[xianghua]

How does that show Tagliatellimonster is wrong?

he claimed that there is a nested hierarchy in nature. so figure c show this is not true. you can see that some species have more modern traits then their suppose ancestor.

 

[xianghua]

no, no there isn't.

so a regular car is changing over time: its color changing because of the sun, wheels get air loss and so on. does it mean that the car evolving?

 

[USincognito]

so a regular car is changing over time: its color changing because of the sun, wheels get air loss and so on. does it mean that the car evolving?

CARS DON'T REPRODUCE! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

 

[xianghua]

CARS DON'T REPRODUCE! WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

so if they was able to reproduce you will conclude that those cars evolved by a natural process?

2) he claimed that there is no difference between "evolving" and "changing". so it doesnt matter if car reproduce or not in this case. because even a regular cars changing over time.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so a regular car is changing over time: its color changing because of the sun, wheels get air loss and so on. does it mean that the car evolving?

Did this regular car love another car very much & have a little car that carried over these changes?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

there is a big difference between "evolving" and "changing".

lol!

evolution = change over generations



ps: poe?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

he claimed that there is a nested hierarchy in nature. so figure c show this is not true. you can see that some species have more modern traits then their suppose ancestor.

How does it show that, specifically?

Explain it.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so if they was able to reproduce you will conclude that those cars evolved by a natural process?

2) he claimed that there is no difference between "evolving" and "changing". so it doesnt matter if car reproduce or not in this case. because even a regular cars changing over time.

Seriously, how long do you think a flu virus particle lasts on its own? The change/evolution happens to a population, not an individual so your Car analogy is a face-skater (i.e. not only falls flat on its face, but has done so at speed causing egregious comic relief for everyone watching) because the evolution/change happens to offspring, not just the original population (let alone an individual).

 

[Jimmy D]

he claimed that there is a nested hierarchy in nature. so figure c show this is not true. you can see that some species have more modern traits then their suppose ancestor.

Isn't figure C a diagram of a nested hierarchy?

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...hints-that-wings-evolved-for-show-not-flight/

But Ornithomimus belonged to a group that appeared much earlier. If it had pennibrachia, these structures must have been older innovations than we thought. “They fill a significant gap in the record of fossil feathers,” says Zelenitsky. “This is the earliest and most primitive occurrence of wings in that group of dinosaurs that led to birds.”

Ornithomimus was a relatively big dinosaur, four metres long from nose to tail, and around 170 kilograms in weight. There was no way it could have flown. This implies, as Zelenitsky says, that “wings didn’t initially evolve for flight”. Nor is it likely that wings evolved to give predators better balance as they latched onto their prey.

Instead, Zelenitsky thinks that the first winged dinosaurs used their long feathers for courtship or display. The fact that the juvenile Ornithomimus didn’t have pennibranchia, but the adult did, supports her idea. These feathery fans only developed as the animal got older and was ready to mate. The same structures eventually evolved into the flight-capable wings of the maniraptorans.

It certainly looks like we’re living in the golden age of feathered dinosaur discovery. Since 1996, more than 30 plumed species have been identified, including giant tyrants, glossy four-winged gliders, and even (stretching the imagination a bit) a squirrel mimic. It’s now clear that if you travelled back in time to the Cretaceous, you’d have sat in a world replete with feathers, from simple fuzzy filaments to proper flight-capable plumage.


How on Earth can you cite an article about feather evolution and claim that it doesn't support evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

Would it be safe to say that you would not accept any fossil as evidence without DNA from that fossil?

 

[xianghua]

lol!

evolution = change over generations



ps: poe?

if this is your definition of evolution then also even if all creatures on earth was created by an intelligent designer evolution is still true. because according to this criteria any change is evolution. so even if all creatures doesnt shared a commondescnet evolution is still true. so its a problemtaic definition.

 

[xianghua]

Seriously, how long do you think a flu virus particle lasts on its own? The change/evolution happens to a population, not an individual so your Car analogy is a face-skater

change in a population always begin with a change in an individual. even so it doesnt matter because the claim was about any changes in general.

 

[Loudmouth]

again: so what? the whale still use it as flippers\fins. so they arent legs at all.

"Fins" describes a function, not an anatomically homologous structure. Whales and humans have a humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, and phalanges in their forelimb. Sharks do not.

 

[Loudmouth]

so a regular car is changing over time: its color changing because of the sun, wheels get air loss and so on. does it mean that the car evolving?

Populations evolve, not individuals. Also, evolution involves heritable traits. Oxidation of paint is not a trait that a car passes down to offspring. If you are in a car accident and lose an arm, you don't have children that are missing an arm.

 

[xianghua]

Isn't figure C a diagram of a nested hierarchy?

no it isnt. the ornithumimus have traits (like proto-wings) that more modern species ( like therizinosaurus) doesnt have.

but there is more problems:

Dinosaur Find Raises Questions about the Origin of Feathers

"The newfound species is a member of the feathered dinosaur family, but it lacks feathers. This suggests that feathers originated through convergent evolution—where one trait evolves separate in different creatures"

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v511/n7507/full/nature13467.html#affil-auth

"This indicates that the origin of flight in avialans was more complex than previously thought and might have involved several convergent achievements of aerial abilities."

if those findings are true, then when we find nested hierarchy we claiming that its evidence for evolution, and if not- we are claiming for convergent evolution.

as i said before- evolution doesnt predict nested hierarchy.

 

[xianghua]

"Fins" describes a function, not an anatomically homologous structure. Whales and humans have a humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, and phalanges in their forelimb. Sharks do not.

but whale also doesnt have claspers, that are very similar to a vestigial legs:

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/29/shark-with-legs/

add to this this trait:

New 'Walking' Shark Species Caught on Video

combine it with this fact and we can say that sharks evolve from a land creature:

Sharks Have Genes for Fingers and Toes

Populations evolve, not individuals. Also, evolution involves heritable traits. .

again: it was about changes in general. heritable or not. if small steps can evolve into a big step, we can conclude that even a regular car can change into something new, because we can see that the car is changing over time. same logic- same (wrong) conclusion.

 

[The Barbarian]

again- wrong (look at figure c):

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic...hints-that-wings-evolved-for-show-not-flight

You do realize that mammals aren't dinosaurs, right?

All the data shows that birds evolved from dinosaurs.

 

[xianghua]

You do realize that mammals aren't dinosaurs, right?
.

where i said they are?

 

[The Barbarian]

as i said before- evolution doesnt predict nested hierarchy.

It's part of Darwin's theory. So pretty hard to deny.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

if this is your definition of evolution

It is not "my" definition.
That's just what evolution amounts to. Change over generations.

then also even if all creatures on earth was created by an intelligent designer evolution is still true.

Funnily enough, yes. In the sense that the process of life is what it is:
- reproduce
- mutate
- survive
- repeat

That's the process that drives evolution, simplisticly put.
The problem for your statement, however, is that by comparing species based on anatomy, fysiology, genetics, geographic distribution, etc... we can map it out to see how far back the process has been "running".

And what we find is that life shares universal common ancestry.
Sure, they could all just be "made that way", just like what we experience as reality could be "just the matrix". But then this designer went really out of his way to make it look as if everything evolved from common ancestors instead of being created seperatly.

And since there is no reason at all to suggest such a thing, just like there is no reason to suggest that we live in the matrix, I see no reason to even entertain the idea.

I sure would, if you could give me a good reason.

because according to this criteria any change is evolution.

No, you should read more attentively.
I didn't say "any change". I said "change over generations".

so even if all creatures doesnt shared a commondescnet evolution is still true. so its a problemtaic definition.

Only because you misrepresented it.