How can Creationism be falsified?

[xianghua]

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.<<

cow tail is actually moving from side to side and not up and down.

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)
<<

how do you know its not a vestigial fins?

 

[The Barbarian]

I just showed you how a light detector could evolve from zero parts.

 

[USincognito]

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.

Did you actually read the articles, especially the second one?

>> It’s one big happy gene family, with members all related to one another. The major family members are the r-opsins, used in the rhabdomeric eyes of invertebrates, and the c-opsins, used in the ciliary eyes of vertebrates, but note that there is considerable overlap. We vertebrates also have an r-opsin: melanopsin is a visual pigment molecule expressed in ganglion cells (not classically considered photoreceptors) in our eyes, and are involved in detecting general light levels to reset our circadian clocks. Some invertebrates have both rhabdomeric and ciliary eyes and use both r-opsin and c-opsin in vision. <<

He's discussing how the genes that make our eyes function are found in the most basal of beings and deep in evolutionary history.

 

[USincognito]

cow tail is actually moving from side to side and not up and down.

I'm not talking about the tail. I'm talking about the entire body. Look at how a dolphin moves through the water and look at how a cheetah runs after prey. Their movement is identical and unlike that of tuna, sharks or ichthyosaurs.

how do you know its not a vestigial fins?

They're not vestigial because whales have completely lost their hind limbs. The hind limb buds and atavistic hind limbs found on some dolphins for example are atavisms, not vestiges. The broken Sonic Hedgehog/Hand2 pathway, however, is a molecular vestige of when cetacean ancestors walked the land on all four limbs.

Your job, Mr. ID, is to explain why whales develop atavistic hind limbs in utero and have a broken pathway for hind limbs if they never had hind limbs or walked the land on all fours.

Can you actually do that or is the only tactic you have to "answer" questions with questions?

 

[The Barbarian]

I showed you a light detector requiring 0 changes.

Doesn't seem like a lot to me.

 

[xianghua]

I just showed you how a light detector could evolve from zero parts.

its not realy a light detector. if you will add this to a robot it cant use it as a vision system.

 

[xianghua]

He's discussing how the genes that make our eyes function are found in the most basal of beings and deep in evolutionary history.

those genes are function in other complex systems. so he basically replace one complex system by another one. also there is a different between those two system. we know that even among homologous proteins we can see a big difference in their sequence.

I'm not talking about the tail. I'm talking about the entire body. Look at how a dolphin moves through the water and look at how a cheetah runs after prey. Their movement is identical and unlike that of tuna, sharks or ichthyosaurs.

but the whale tail is moving up and down (unlike cow). so its contradiction to the suppose claim of commondnescent.

Your job, Mr. ID, is to explain why whales develop atavistic hind limbs in utero and have a broken pathway for hind limbs if they never had hind limbs or walked the land on all fours.

Can you actually do that or is the only tactic you have to "answer" questions with questions?

yep i can. but first: are you claiming that those hip bone in the whale pelvis arent functional?

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

No, that's wrong. The same retina, the same optic nerves would work with all of them. Indeed, if you lost the lens of your eye, it would still be able to focus a very fuzzy image from other parts.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
I just showed you how a light detector could evolve from zero parts.

its not realy a light detector.

It detects light. That's what light detectors do.

if you will add this a robot he cant use it as a vision system.

In fact, there are robots that do use that ability. The ability to get a rough indication of the direction and intensity of light is very useful. As you just learned, the "0 parts" eye is quite useful to many organisms.

 

[xianghua]

In fact, there are robots that do use that ability. The ability to get a rough indication of the direction and intensity of light is very useful. As you just learned, the "0 parts" eye is quite useful to many organisms.

so according to this any robot can detect light and move by this detection? (zero parts)

 

[The Barbarian]

those genes are function in other complex systems. so he basically replace one complex system by another one.

No. The old system still works. The new one is just an adaptation of the existing one. That's how evolution works. It never makes anything from nothing; it just adapts something existing to a new use.

also there is a different between those two system. we know that even among homologous proteins we can see a big difference in their sequence.

Which is why mutation and natural selection are both necessary for evolution. You're learning quickly.

but the whale tail is moving up and down (unlike cow). so its contradiction to the suppose claim of commondnescent.

No, you've assumed the tail, and then supposed that it should wag to make the animal swim. Aquatic mammals don't swim by wagging their tails. They use an existing mechanism (running motions) to swim in water. So they undulate their backs vertically, in an up-and-down motion. Otters, seals, sea lions, etc. do this.

So did the ancestors of whales. Ambulocetus had huge hind feed, showing that it swam pretty much as all aquatic mammals do. So when whales evolved flukes, they were locked into the terrestrial mammalian mechanism, and they moved up and down.

yep i can. but first: are you claiming that those hip bone in the whale pelvis arent functional?

The pelvis is different in function than legs. So in whales, the pelvis is greatly reduced since it no longer needs to anchor legs. It does serve as an anchor for other muscles related to reproduction.

And yes there are transitional forms...

Tiny hind legs attached to a greatly reduced pelvis. Clearly no longer useful for moving about.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
In fact, there are robots that do use that ability. The ability to get a rough indication of the direction and intensity of light is very useful. As you just learned, the "0 parts" eye is quite useful to many organisms.

so according to this any robot can detect light and move by this detection? (zero parts)

Any robot that has the ability to detect light. Radiosondes in the atmosphere, for example can detect sunlight, even though that's not what they were designed to do. In fact, they've had to be fitted with sunshades to eliminate the spurious information. As you learned, even very simple organisms can detect light without any parts to do so at all. So it's not surprising that vision evolved as it has.

 

[The Barbarian]

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.

As you just learned, they needed 0 DNA changes. It happened as a consequence of other things like a nervous system.

 

[xianghua]

"Any robot that has the ability to detect light.

so how many parts we need to add to a robot that doesnt detect light? if i take a walking toy robot and try to add it a minimal light detector to get it moving in the light direction. in what part i should start?

and by the way: the basilosaurus had hind fins, not hind legs:

Basilosaurus - Wikipedia

 

[bhsmte]

so how many parts we need to add to a robot that doesnt detect light? if i take a walking toy robot and try to add it a minimal light detector to get it moving in the light direction. in what part i should start?

and by the way: the basilosaurus had hind fins, not hind legs:

Basilosaurus - Wikipedia

I may have missed it, but, can you provide us with a scientific definition of ID? Can you also provide us with the falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present?

 

[xianghua]

I may have missed it, but, can you provide us with a scientific definition of ID? Can you also provide us with the falsifiable test, to determine when ID is present?

id claiming that the best explanation for nature existence is by intelligent design and not a natural process. you can falsified it by proving that nature can evolve step wise without a designer.

 

[bhsmte]

id claiming that the best explanation for nature existence is by intelligent design and not a natural process. you can falsified it by proving that nature can evolve step wise without a designer.

I don't see a scientific definition in there, or do you not consider ID to be science. And, if ID is to be considered science, it should stand on it's own merits and have a falsifiable test to determine when it is present, all on it's own.

 

[The Barbarian]

and by the way: the basilosaurus had hind fins, not hind legs:

so how many parts we need to add to a robot that doesnt detect light?

Let's see... for the automobile, it was... 0. Zero parts added.

so how many parts we need to add to a robot that doesnt detect light? if i take a walking toy robot and try to add it a minimal light detector to get it moving in the light direction. in what part i should start?

and by the way: the basilosaurus had hind fins, not hind legs:

Well, let's take a look...

One of these is a leg. One is a fin. Which one looks like the leg to you?

 

[xianghua]

One of these is a leg. One is a fin. Which one looks like the leg to you?

take a look again in his reconstructions:

basilosaurus reconstruction‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

basilosaurus reconstruction‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:



do you see fins or legs?

 

[The Barbarian]

For some reason, I'm more impressed by the actual structures, than by someone's idea of what they must have looked like at one time.

Again, which of these is a leg, and which is a fin?

(Hint: the one with the femur, tibia, and fibula, and phalanges is the leg)