How can Creationism be falsified?

[xianghua]

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

so again: even if human was created by an intelligent designer and stay as human since then- evolution is still true. because he does get changes over generations (like changing skin color).

 

[Loudmouth]

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.

It is true that evolution does not require common descent. Even Darwin himself proposed that there could have been more than one original form.

Also, only heritable changes are considered to be part of evolution. Someone losing their arm in a car accident is not considered to be an evolutionary change because that change is not heritable.

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

There is no reason that species would have to share a common ancestor in order to evolve over time. Many ID/creationist models of evolution do not have common descent between species.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Do these vestigial legs in sharks have a femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges? If not, they are not homologous.

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

Sharks Have Genes for Fingers and Toes

You can say no such thing. Those genes are found in all vertebrates.

again: it was about changes in general. heritable or not.

No, it isn't.

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.

Not a single step can evolve because none of those steps are inherited by offspring.

 

[Loudmouth]

so again: even if human was created by an intelligent designer and stay as human since then- evolution is still true. because he does get changes over generations (like changing skin color).

Not necessarily. If humans were all genetically identical, homozygous for every allele, and no humans were born with mutations, then no evolution would occur.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

Reading further down in the article:

"Another option is that really was a common feathered dinosaur ancestor, but somewhere along the line J. starki lost its feathers."

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."

That article is talking about different shapes of feathers.

as i said before- evolution doesnt predict nested hierarchy.

Yes, it does.

 

[Loudmouth]

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

If cars reproduced and had a fossil record spanning hundreds of millions of years along with a nested hierarchy, then yes, I would conclude that they evolved.

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.

The difference is heritable traits. Evolution requires heritable traits.

 

[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?

Those are not heritable traits, so it is not evolution.

Do you know how Darwin defined evolution? Darwin defined evolution as "descent with modification". Descent requires offspring and heritable traits.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

so again: even if human was created by an intelligent designer and stay as human since then- evolution is still true. because he does get changes over generations (like changing skin color).

Only problem with that is, that the genetic record shows that the evolutionary process has been running for much, much, much longer.

To the point where all life shares ancestry.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

Sure, but the car analogy doesn't apply - as has been brought to your attention by pretty much everyone here already. Evolution is the change in allele frequencies in populations over time

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.

But the car is still the same car and it hasn't reproduced. I guess you could call it evolution of form (as in a change as per a layman's definition) but it certainly doesn't fall under the biological definition of the Theory of Evolution. The Theory of Evolution only applies to living things.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so again: even if human was created by an intelligent designer and stay as human since then- evolution is still true. because he does get changes over generations (like changing skin color).

Sure, as long as heritable traits are being passed on, that's evolution. We know that we share common ancestors with pretty much all other life on this planet though, so an ID creating independent kinds from a single breeding pair has already been falsified...

 

[xianghua]

lets focus in one claim each time.

Do these vestigial legs in sharks have a femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges? If not, they are not homologous.

its wird because human and octopus eyes also shared several features:

eye squid convergent‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

but you doesnt believe they evolved from a common eye either. so again; bad criteria.

 

[xianghua]

But the car is still the same car and it hasn't reproduced. I guess you could call it evolution of form .

so do you think that small steps will not evolve into a big step in this car?

 

[bhsmte]

so do you think that small steps will not evolve into a big step in this car?

LOL

 

[Loudmouth]

lets focus in one claim each time.

Let's do.

Do these vestigial legs in sharks have a femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges?

We will get to the squid eye after we deal with the shark fin.

 

[Loudmouth]

so do you think that small steps will not evolve into a big step in this car?

Cars can't evolve because they don't reproduce.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

so do you think that small steps will not evolve into a big step in this car?

Sure, but it still isn't evolution because your car doesn't have baby cars, therefore these traits can't be passed on.

 

[xianghua]

Sure, but it still isn't evolution because your car doesn't have baby cars, therefore these traits can't be passed on.

sure? so the car can change into an airplane for instance?

 

[Loudmouth]

sure? so the car can change into an airplane for instance?

A car can't evolve because it doesn't have children.

 

[xianghua]

Let's do.

Do these vestigial legs in sharks have a femur, tibia, fibula, tarsals, metatarsals, and phalanges?
.

no. do whales have those legs-like structures?:

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

 

[Loudmouth]

no.

Then they are not homologous structures.

do whales have those legs-like structures?

In the whale front fin, they do have a humerus, radius, ulna, carpals, metacarpals, and phalanges just like those seen in terrestrial mammals. Those same bones are not found in the front fin of sharks.