How can Creationism be falsified?

[rjs330]

Do you really think you're asking a question that has not been asked (and answered) already?
Evolution of vertebrate eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/12/21/evolution-of-vertebrate-eyes/
Evolution of metazoan eyes:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/11/15/the-eye-as-a-contingent-divers/

Once again we have only assumption. None of that is shown to actually have occurred. Much like the rest of evolution.

 

[rjs330]

No, that's wrong, too. For example, all those stages still exit in mollusks. Would you like me to show you?



Your assumption is incorrect. There is evidence showing each stage, and each stage is useful.

I'm not talking about an adaptation of a creature. I am talking about the eye specifically.
No where can you show or reproduce the evolution of the eye or anything else for that matter.
We all know and agree that creatures can adapt to their environment. Yet they remain the same type of creature they have always been.

 

[USincognito]

Once again we have only assumption. None of that is shown to actually have occurred. Much like the rest of evolution.

Magic words and vacuous rhetoric are not the same as actually addressing the evidence. When are you guys going to learn this is an evidence based subforum and you're going to need to do more than hand wave away the evidence?

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not talking about an adaptation of a creature. I am talking about the eye specifically.

So am I. All those intermediate stages are still found in living mollusks.

No where can you show or reproduce the evolution of the eye or anything else for that matter.
We all know and agree that creatures can adapt to their environment.

That's all evolution needs.

Yet they remain the same type of creature they have always been.

No, that's wrong. For example, we can show things like fish evolving to tetrapods, roaches evolving to termites, apes evolving to hominids, and so on.

 

[Jimmy D]

Once again we have only assumption. None of that is shown to actually have occurred. Much like the rest of evolution.

Creationists are their own worse enemy, how can anyone read responses like this and take it seriously? I realize they really, really want to believe that they know better than every scientific establishment in the world but c'mon.

 

[xianghua]

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)

the same can be said for a modern whale:

whale skeleton‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

their front fins intnernal sructure looke like hands internal stucture. but the fact is that they have fins. not hands.

according to this we can claim that sharks evolvled from land creature:

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

if its look like legs- then its legs. this is your criteria.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I got that interpretation from reading Genesis and believing what God's Word says... if you feel it is wrong, then I suggest you take it up with God.

Why would it have to be taken up with God, if it is you who's misinterpreting the text?

Deflecting a bit are we? Biological evolution also requires a long age of the earth

Not "also". Geology doesn't "require" an old earth.
But indeed, evolution theory requires a long history. The independent findings of geology didn't have to agree with it. But it so happens that it does.

Exactly one of the reasons why evolution is such a strong theory... it makes predictions about other things that are independently studied and investigated. Geologists aren't evolutionary biologists, after all. The study of rocks and geological formations doesn't require a phd in biology.

It just so happens that the findings of geology align perfectly with the predictions of evolution.

.. both of which, btw, aren't supported by God's Word.

In your opinion. Plenty of christians reading the same book, disagree. And that includes the pope.

Tell me, if it's easy to disregard God's explanation of how He created the earth and the creatures on it, is it just as easy to disbelieve other portions of scripture?

As far as I am concerned: off course. I don't have any problem treating the bible in the same way like you treat every other religious scripture.

How do you really know what's truth or what's a fable?

Extra-biblical evidence.
When the facts of reality don't match up with the details of a story - then the story is wrong, not the facts of reality.

Surely, Satan would want you to think you can't believe any of it right? Seems he's doing a bang up job of convincing Christians of that.

So, is it your opinion that Satan planted all the old-earth evidence just to deceive us?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

First section: DNA. Like human and ape DNA, similarity in DNA does not prove ancestry, but similarity in form and function

Determining wheter to 2 DNA samples share ancestry, does not happen by merely looking at similarities, but rather hierarchical patterns.

Which is a very specific kind of "similarities".

And known descent or assumed descent? Known being we have documented every generation between.

Or "known" as in "these are my children, those are my parents, those are my cousins, those are my grandchildren,...".

Or in terms of breeding programs, where the breeders always have a full and accurate record of the bloodlines involved.

I know many, including some creationists, believe in intermediary forms. I have no problem believing that God was not limited to reptiles, birds, fishes, etc., but made many animals like the duck-bill platypus or the spiny anteater, that fit no neat classification.

You believe incorrectly. There is nothing wrong with the classification of the platypus etc. They fit the nested hierarchy of evolution quite neatly. And btw, they are modern animals... ie, not transitional fossils.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

It's about body movement. Not the tail or tows or ears or tongue or nose.
But about the body. The totality of loco-motion, with the spine at the center.

Whales and dolphines swim by moving up and down - just like land mammals do.
Fish swim by moving sideways.

It's a spine and surrounding anatomy thingy.

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

"Yes, you can"... and in the next breath you "answer" his question with yet another question.

Awesome.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm not talking about an adaptation of a creature. I am talking about the eye specifically.

And I'm pointing out that the evolution of the mollusk eye is documented by the existence of all those transitional eyes, showing that they evolved in a step wise fashion.

No where can you show or reproduce the evolution of the eye or anything else for that matter.

As you have learned, that has been demonstrated several times.

We all know and agree that creatures can adapt to their environment.

And as you see, we know that a series of adaptations can produce complex structures in series of steps from simpler structures.

Yet they remain the same type of creature they have always been.

Your assumption is incorrect. Even honest creationists admit there is strong evidence for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

And I'm pointing out that the evolution of the mollusk eye is documented by the existence of all those transitional eyes, showing that they evolved in a step wise fashion

And as you see, we know that a series of adaptations can produce complex structures in series of steps from simpler structures.

we can say the same for those ferarri cars:


evolution of ferrari‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

but it doesnt prove any evolution. by the way; we can arrange also eyes from simple to complex without a commondescent. this is because eyes suppose to evolve about 50 times convergently. so we can arrange some eyes from simple to complex without any commondescent.

 

[The Barbarian]

the same can be said for a modern whale:

Yep. Also not fins. Modified legs. Only more modified than the legs of Basilosaurus:

Notice that modern whales have lost their hind legs. But the genes still exist in their genomes; every now and then we see a whale with hind legs. Also notice that the hind legs of whales (when they occur) are like the hind legs of land animals, with femur,patella, tibia and fibula, tarsals and metatarsals. Their front legs have humerus, ulna and radius, carpals and metacarpals.

Just like land animals. This is another reason we know whales evolved from land animals. A gradual change in legs from those adapted for walking to those adapted for swimming.

according to this we can claim that sharks evolvled from land creature:

No, you've been misled about that...and your link says so:

It’s a male shark. Those are the shark’s claspers, or intromittent organs...


They aren’t homologous to legs at all. We also wouldn’t expect to find legs on a shark — they aren’t in the lineage that led to tetrapods.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/29/shark-with-legs/

No bones at all in claspers. Here's a shark skeleton so you can see the difference. No Femur, no pelvis, no patella, no tibia or fibula, no tarsals, metatarsals or phalanges.

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

"if it looks like legs- then it's legs." this is your criteria. And you're quite wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

we can say the same for those ferarri cars:

No. They did not develop from random mutation and natural selection. But that might change in the future. Engineers have discovered that evolutionary processes work better than design for complex problems. Even now, engineers are copying natural selection to optimize their products. Genetic algorithms solve problems that resist solution by design.
Genetic Algorithms Optimization of Diesel Engine Emissions and Fuel Efficiency with Air Swirl, EGR,Injection Timing and Multiple Injections

but it doesnt prove any evolution.

It merely demonstrates the fact of common descent by evolution. As you now see, there's really no way to avoid it.

by the way; we can arrange also eyes from simple to complex without a commondescent.

You could arrange members of a family without common descent. It doesn't change the facts.

this is because eyes suppose to evolve about 50 times convergently. so we can arrange some eyes from simple to complex without any commondescent.

If, for example, people claimed that human eyes evolved from mollusk eyes, there'd be a problem. But no one does that; it's very clear that mollusk eyes evolved in a different way, that's easy to point out.

 

[xianghua]

Yep. Also not fins. Modified legs.

this is your belief. its a fact that those are fins. not legs.

But the genes still exist in their genomes;

sharks also have them:

Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills

It’s a male shark. Those are the shark’s claspers, or intromittent organs...

No bones at all in claspers.

true. so what? i can say its a vestigial legs. so we may not find all the internal structure of a real legs. whales not even have those structure. combine it with the fact that sharks also have genes for limbs development and we have a great evidence that sharks evolved from a land creature.


.[/QUOTE]

 

[rjs330]

So am I. All those intermediate stages are still found in living mollusks.



That's all evolution needs.



No, that's wrong. For example, we can show things like fish evolving to tetrapods, roaches evolving to termites, apes evolving to hominids, and so on.

No you can't that's nonsense. You can't prove any of that. You can't show a roach evolving into a termite. It's all supposition and assumption. And the mollusc eye thing is also not evidence of the evolution of the eye from nothing to the fully developed eye. Each mollusc eye is unique to the creature. How do you know it was not created that way? You don't.

 

[USincognito]

It's about body movement. Not the tail or tows or ears or tongue or nose.
But about the body. The totality of loco-motion, with the spine at the center.

Whales and dolphines swim by moving up and down - just like land mammals do.
Fish swim by moving sideways.

It's a spine and surrounding anatomy thingy.

Thanks to you and @The Barbarian

I think XH is so focused on the tail, which does undulate up and down like the rest of the body - unlike the tails of telosts, sharks, ichthyosaurs, etc.- that they can't wrap their head around the fact that we're talking about the movement of the entire body, not just one part.

 

[USincognito]

No you can't that's nonsense. You can't prove any of that. You can't show a roach evolving into a termite. It's all supposition and assumption. And the mollusc eye thing is also not evidence of the evolution of the eye from nothing to the fully developed eye. Each mollusc eye is unique to the creature. How do you know it was not created that way? You don't.

Magic words and incredulity =/= actually addressing the evidence. Can you at least try to do so?

 

[USincognito]

this is your belief. its a fact that those are fins. not legs.

You need to learn a little physiology. Aquatic mammals and birds don't have fins, their manus is a flipper.
Manus (anatomy) - Wikipedia

 

[The Barbarian]

this is your belief. its a fact that those are fins. not legs.

As you learned, fins have fin rays. Legs have femurs, patellas, tibias, and fibulas. Notice whale flippers are legs, and fish fins are fins.

sharks also have them:

No. Nothing like that in sharks.

[/quote]Sonic hedgehog gene provides evidence that our limbs may have evolved from sharks’ gills[/quote]

Not from sharks, but from more primitive chordates. Branchial arches form gill supports in primitive chordates, but form jaws in later vertebrates.

i can say its a vestigial legs.

You can call it what you like, but it's not vestigial. Perhaps you should find out what "vestigial" means.

If your evidence was what you thought it was, it could mean that land creatures evolved from sharks. But it isn't. Sorry.

 

[xianghua]

You need to learn a little physiology. Aquatic mammals and birds don't have fins, their manus is a flipper.
Manus (anatomy) - Wikipedia

maby its because english isnt my native, but even according to scientific papers there is no problem to consider dolphins flippers as fins:

A comparison of pectoral fin contact between two different wild dolphin populations. - PubMed - NCBI