How can Creationism be falsified?

[W2L]

Your inability to understand how the universe came into existence doesn't affect other peoples ability to understand it.

Your inability to understand God and how He works doesnt effect other peoples knowledge of him.

 

[W2L]

All that demonstrates is that you don't know what evidence is.

I am evidence, have a nice day, got to go now. Ttyl

 

[Skreeper]

Your inability to understand God and how He works doesnt effect other peoples knowledge of him.

As soon as you present evidence for your claims I will start to believe you.

 

[W2L]

As soon as you present evidence for your claims I will start to believe you.

Its my opinion. I never expected anyone to believe me. So, its all good...

 

[xianghua]

Why can't I know if those are homologous or not?

because you cant know if those structures originated from the same tissues through the same pathways.

 

[xianghua]

Both mammals and reptiles are amniotes:

they are also both animals. so what? you said that:

"Humans evolved from vertebrates. We are still vertebrates. With evolution, you never leave the branch you are a part of"

so its not always true.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

they are also both animals. so what? you said that:

"Humans evolved from vertebrates. We are still vertebrates. With evolution, you never leave the branch you are a part of"

so its not always true.

How did you get that from what Loudmouth said?

 

[PsychoSarah]

but how do you know that its a new trait and not something that have been lost and then reactivated?

Because the offspring are born with the trait. Do you not understand that traits activated by the environment are never the default someone is born with? No matter how much a pregnant woman tans, her baby will not be born any tanner. Furthermore, it's super easy to test: force lizards from the original population outside of the island to eat the island lizard diet. Lo and behold, they don't get the new intestinal structure over time. How do I know this? The lizards are notorious situational eaters that have been known to go on diets of plant material for periods of time before; they just hadn't done it for generations prior to the population isolated on the island.

even according to the paper its not sure:

"Although the presence of cecal valves and large heads in hatchlings and juveniles suggests a genetic basis for these differences, further studies investigating the potential role of phenotypic plasticity and/or maternal effects in the divergence between populations are needed."

Certainty is irrelevant, you should know. The data suggests it's genetic, and the lizards have been revisited.

so again: we dont know. and again: even according to evolution its too fast.

-_- not if the lizards already had some of the genes for making cecal valves, but unlikely to have all of them as you would suggest. I know how gene activation works; it would be outrageous to suggest such a huge physiological change in the digestive tract could have occurred without any genetic mutation. It would be far more likely that there was a genetic mutation that reactivated pre-existing genes. I never said that the lizards lacked any of the genes to form cecal valves to begin with, I simply doubt that it is a matter of environment alone.

Science isn't about knowing for sure. For all I know, I didn't exist until yesterday, and the world was built around such that I would not be able to tell. It's a matter of probability, which is why I conclude that the world existed before yesterday, and that there is some genetic influence on the changes in the digestive tracts of the lizards. It's the most likely conclusion to be right.

combine it with the fact that some species in the same family also shared this trait and its very likely that this trait just lost and reactivated.

Same family does not equal having the same traits, I don't think you understand how genetically distant two species that only share the family level of classification are. Humans and gorillas are in the same family, but a person is never going to be as strong as a gorilla, no matter how much they work out.

so if those lizards had a simple eye it may evolve into a complex eye in about 40 years?

Bad comparison, given that there is much more to eye structure than to the structure of a digestive tract, so it takes more time. All organ systems are not equally complex to each other. The circulatory system is more simplistic than the digestive tract which is more simplistic than the eye, as examples. Furthermore, the digestive tract of the lizard became more complex, but the difference between having cecal valves and not having them is not an equivalent amount of change as would be the transition between a simple eye and a complex eye.

if so why we dont see a cat evolving into a dog (even in small populations in some places)? its much less complex because you even dont need a new structure. you even said that such a case will disprove evolution. but why actually?

-_- cats have 38 chromosomes, and dogs have 78. Need I say more on why a cat population couldn't evolve into a dog population in 36 years? Because there are plenty more reasons why that wouldn't be evolutionarily sound, I just don't feel like dedicating a page worth of dialogue to it without invested interest from you.

 

[PsychoSarah]

because you cant know if those structures originated from the same tissues through the same pathways.

-_- you act like we have never done tissue analysis before. Through comparative biology, the conclusion that the structures of a whale flipper and human hand share an origin is the best conclusion; the one that is most likely to reflect reality. It could be disproven, sure, because proof is only an item of math, not science. However, is it likely to be disproven? No.

 

[Astrophile]

so you are not sure if the earth is round? ok. i have nothing to add.

We have abundant evidence that the earth is round, or, more precisely, that it is an oblate spheroid. So far as I know, there is no evidence for any contrary hypothesis. Until I find evidence that the Earth is not round, I am justified in assuming that it is round and in acting on that assumption.

If you have evidence that the earth is not round, would you like to share it with me?

fact isnt a proof?

Why do you need proof; why will you not be satisfied with anything less than proof? The fact that scientific theories are never proven doesn't mean that they do not have enough evidence to justify us in acting on the assumption that they are correct. Are you not able to take the risk of acting on the preponderance of the evidence even though you may turn out to be wrong? After all, all of us are wrong much of the time, and we have to learn from our mistakes.

 

[Loudmouth]

Hes a personal friend, so yes God is personal. Its personal but not fallacy.

Your incredulity is yours, and it is a logical fallacy. Just because you can't understand how evolution could work does not mean it didn't occur. Reality doesn't conform to what you can or can't imagine.

 

[Loudmouth]

they are also both animals. so what? you said that:

"Humans evolved from vertebrates. We are still vertebrates. With evolution, you never leave the branch you are a part of"

so its not always true.

Mammals and reptiles are both amniotes, as was our common ancestor. We are both on the amniote branch.

Cats and dogs are on different branches. Cats can't evolve into dogs, and dogs can't evolve into cats. Doesn't work that way. However, they are both part of the Carnivora group along with other species groups like bears and seals.

 

[Loudmouth]

because you cant know if those structures originated from the same tissues through the same pathways.

But we can compare them side by side to see if their specific morphology is similar. This is how we determine homology when it isn't possible to look at developmental pathways.

By specific morphology, I am not talking about a general and superficial shape. I am talking about specific bones.

 

[Astrophile]

I just LOVE this. It is so convenient for evolution not to have to prove anything and yet call it a fact. Not having to prove your theory and yet say it is a fact is having your cake and getting to eat it too. Is it because science is often wrong about something? I'm wondering if that's the reason why they don't have to prove anything. Or is it that they can't prove it so let's just say we don't have to. Then we can say whatever we want and when someone says "prove it" then we just get to say we don't have to cause it's science. Like I said, very convenient.

I think that you are misunderstanding the nature of facts and theory. The observable facts of biology provide evidence for evolution. The theory of evolution explains the observed facts. Almost all biologists regard the evidence for evolution as compelling; not being a biologist, I do have to accept their authority. However, if you are not convinced by the evidence for evolution you do not have to believe it, although you would probably do better to examine the evidence thoroughly before rejecting the theory.

Again, why do you insist on proof; why can you not accept a preponderance of evidence, particularly when, as I have already said, almost all biologists regard this evidence as compelling. Of course, evolution may be wrong. Scientists may have misinterpreted the facts, or the theory that explains the facts may be flawed in some way. However, at present the factual evidence appears to be overwhelmingly in favour of evolution, and until we find contrary evidence it is unreasonable to reject the evidence that we have got and the theory that explains it in favour of a non-evolutionary hypothesis.

 

[USincognito]

I just LOVE this. It is so convenient for evolution not to have to prove anything and yet call it a fact. Not having to prove your theory and yet say it is a fact is having your cake and getting to eat it too. Is it because science is often wrong about something? I'm wondering if that's the reason why they don't have to prove anything. Or is it that they can't prove it so let's just say we don't have to. Then we can say whatever we want and when someone says "prove it" then we just get to say we don't have to cause it's science. Like I said, very convenient.

Why some people have such trouble comprehending simple English and concepts? Did you actually read what I posted or the links I provided?

 

[USincognito]

when you observe a creature that evolve into another creature from another family? (cat into a dog for instance). its just a belief. not a fact. even accordig to evolution we need milion of years to obseve such evolution.

Do you not comprehend that such an observation would falsify evolution?

How about, instead of gotcha questions, you ask for explanations so you can actually about evolution before trying to attack it?

 

[USincognito]

so we both agree that we cant observe evolution in action.

So's Law.

 

[USincognito]

fossils cant prove evolution. neither genetics.

Why do you keep using "proof" in a scientific context? Did you not read what I posted or did you not understand it?

 

[USincognito]

Evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

You're not helping.

 

[USincognito]

so mammales are still reptiles?

Reptile isn't really a clade. The proper word would be Amniotes and yes, mammals are still amniotes.