How can Creationism be falsified?

[USincognito]

In my opinion, The complexities of creation are so vast that only God can create it. All creation seems impossible without a creator. Not only did man miraculously grow heart, lungs and the other organs, but both male and female evolved at the same time as well? Its too incredible to be without God the creator.

Oh wow. You think that other primates don't have hearts, lungs, penises and vaginas?

 

[USincognito]

No, you misunderstand me. I can form a logical opinion based on what i see

Not being aware that human organs and systems are only slightly modified versions of those found in all other eurherians is hardly a "logical opinion".

 

[USincognito]

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

It's so rare to the "I know you are, but what am I" tactic outside of an elementary school playground.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm confident in making the claim that most creationists reject evolution because they just don't understand the science behind it.

"People are usually down on things they aren't up on."
Everette Dirkson

 

[The Barbarian]

When have you observed a seed grow into a 100 ft. redwood tree? Does that mean it doesn't happen? If you think so, we've found the problem.

we know it can happen because we can test the tree growth. we can see its growing every year.

We know common descent can happen, because we can test changes in genes. We can see the genetics of a population changing every year.

So its exactly the same case.

 

[The Barbarian]

POE?

Yes, notice better at English than originally claimed, and trotting out all the American creationist games. So might be a Poe trying to make creationists look bad.

 

[xianghua]

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.

.

so the dorsal fins of both dolphin and ichthyosaur are homologous?

Convergent evolution - Wikipedia

 

[The Barbarian]

so the dorsal fins of both dolphin and ichthyosaur are homologous?

Specifically, what structures in the fins say so?

 

[xianghua]

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.

ok. so we may both agree that this trait isnt new. like this case (otherwise we will need to claim that this fish evolved a vision system in a single generation):

Blind cave fish see the light : Nature News

fine.

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.

true. in this case i actually refer to the kind level under the creation model (because under evolutionery model gorila and human are in the same family).

-_- 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.

the chromosomes number doesnt always say a lot. even among the same family we can find species with a different chromosomes number (and also the opposite: tobacco for instance have 48 chromosomes, like human and unlike apes).

 

[xianghua]

We know common descent can happen, because we can test changes in genes. We can see the genetics of a population changing every year.

So its exactly the same case.

humans are still humans and cats are still cats. so its not the same.

 

[The Barbarian]

ok. so we may both agree that this trait isnt new.

We can if you can show that it occurred in earlier populations of Italian wall lizards. So far, no one can do that. So new trait, i.e. one that didn't exist in the population before.

Evolution never builds anything de novo; it always modifies existing features. So if it altered a gene that formerly did something else, so that it would make a cecal valve, that is what evolution does. Likely, there were several genes that had to be modified by mutation or recombination to get there.

Likewise, the stronger bite of the new lizards was almost certainly the result of modification of existing developmental genes.

That's how new things emerge in evolution.

 

[The Barbarian]

humans are still humans and cats are still cats. so its not the same.

That's like saying "humans are still primates." And yes, they are. But if you don't think the difference between humans and chimpanzees is significant, then we've found the problem.

 

[Astrophile]

humans are still humans and cats are still cats. so its not the same.

According to an article in 'Nature', the last common ancestor of all placental mammals (including humans and cats) lived a few hundred thousand years after the non-avian dinosaurs went extinct; that is, about 65 million years ago - see Face-to-face with the earliest ancestor of all placental mammals . We must be cautious about this, since the same article says that genetic studies put the origin of the placental mammals at around 100 million years ago. Nonetheless, the important conclusion, that humans and cats are descended from a common ancestor that lived within the last 100 Myr, is still valid.

 

[Loudmouth]

You're not helping.

I would argue just the opposite. It doesn't help when people say that theories aren't proven when scientists themselves say that theories are proven. What matters is the context and how the word is being used.

 

[Loudmouth]

humans are still humans and cats are still cats. so its not the same.

Humans and chimps are still primates.

 

[Speedwell]

I would argue just the opposite. It doesn't help when people say that theories aren't proven when scientists themselves say that theories are proven. What matters is the context and how the word is being used.

And creationists mean something else by it yet again. They see the presentation of the ToE and its evidences as part of an adversarial proceeding, which is their context for the meaning of "proof."

 

[Loudmouth]

And creationists mean something else by it yet again. They see the presentation of the ToE and its evidences as part of an adversarial proceeding, which is their context for the meaning of "proof."

That is why I have clarified that I mean proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the same kind of "proof" that they accept for every single other scientific theory that they have no problem with.

 

[xianghua]

Humans and chimps are still primates.

on the same base that a truck is a car, or fossa is a cat:

fossa‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

 

[Loudmouth]

on the same base that a truck is a car, or fossa is a cat:

fossa‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

On the same base that a cat is still a cat.

 

[USincognito]

I would argue just the opposite. It doesn't help when people say that theories aren't proven when scientists themselves say that theories are proven. What matters is the context and how the word is being used.

No good scientist says that. Or, more charitably, none that take their role of educating the public seriously.

How does one potentially falsify something that is proven?