How can Creationism be falsified?

[Speedwell]

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

If it is evolving by variation and. Selection it can only change into a flying car, not an airplane. Just as a small mammal can change into a bat but never a bird.

 

[xianghua]

If it is evolving by variation and. Selection it can only change into a flying car, not an airplane. Just as a small mammal can change into a bat but never a bird.

but according to evolution criteria small steps+time =big step. so according to this small steps in a regular car (its a fact that a car can get small changes over time) will change it into a flying car. even without the replication ability.

 

[xianghua]

Then they are not homologous structures.

so your are saying that if 2 structures shared several similar traits then they are homologous structures? if so i can say the same for the shared traits of both a tasmanian wolf and a dog:

Thylacine - Wikipedia

so they are homologous according to your critieria. right?

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.

but they do have a trait that is very similar to a leg, and whale doesnt have this trait.

 

[Loudmouth]

but according to evolution criteria small steps+time =big step.

A car can't take one step because it can't have children.

 

[Loudmouth]

so your are saying that if 2 structures shared several similar traits then they are homologous structures? if so i can say the same for the shared traits of both a tasmanian wolf and a dog:

Thylacine - Wikipedia

so they are homologous according to your critieria. right?

Which traits are you talking about?

but they do have a trait that is very similar to a leg, and whale doesnt have this trait.

A "leg" is a description of a function, not an anatomical structure. Not all legs are homologous.

 

[PsychoSarah]

no, because its not a regular situation. they are also doesnt look like feets but like hands and anyone can tell the difference.

http://www.mainlesson.com/books/gibson/discovery/zpage080.gif and these structures look nothing alike to you?
You honestly think the one on the left looks more like the fin bones of this fish http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-FWMPEcDZD.../sbP2_O65Ras/s1600/fish-skeleton-1024x437.jpg ? Also, the plural is feet, not feets.

Also, some medical knowledge for you, there are multiple mental conditions people can have that would make them entirely unable to distinguish feet from hands. Agnosia comes to mind, specifically: people with this condition can see objects just fine, but cannot distinguish them. Just FYI.

Furthermore, hands and feet don't always look super different, such as in monkeys http://skeletonpictures.org/large/122/Monkey-Skeletons-Pictures-1.jpg . You tell what a bone structure does by the shape and its relation to other bone structures you may have of the same species.

not realy. first- the flu virus doesnt change into something that is not a virus.

No individual changes into something they are not; the process of evolution is extremely gradual and across an entire population over generations: to see something as significant as the transition from invertebrate to vertebrate, you'd need tens, if not hundreds, of millions of years: we don't live long enough to see it. However, we have been lucky enough to see some very significant developments in some species: for example, the evolution of the digestive tract of a lizard that transitioned from being primarily carnivorous to being herbivorous. That is, over time, the most recent population is no longer remotely the same as the initial population. And this all happened because a group of these lizards got stranded on an island away from the rest of the population which didn't have their primary food source. Extreme selective pressures upon small populations can make evolution occur much faster than is typical.

"But Sarah, they are still lizards". Of course they are still lizards, evolution hasn't even been a theory long enough for us to observe any lizard population transition on the "order" classification level. To give you an idea of how ridiculous it would be for us to observe that, chimpanzees and humans share the same "family" classification, making them two entire taxonomic ranks more related than organisms that only share the same "order". I do not need to demonstrate a lizard becoming "not a lizard" in my lifetime to show evidence for evolution, because having that happen in such a short period of time would DISPROVE evolution as much as a chicken hatching from a snake egg would.

Furthermore, even over time, organisms retain traits of their ancestral species. In fact, they always retain far more similarities than differences; genetically speaking, we share 50% of our genes with a banana. And bananas are not considered by any means closely related to us. Bananas have more genes than we do too: 36,000 compared to our 20,000.

so its not evolution of a new organism. and secondly- scienstis will still be able to make vaccines even if evolution was not true. so it doesnt have any connection to evolution.

Sure it is; that herbivorous population of lizards with the carnivorous lizard ancestry are not identical organisms to their parent species. -_- also, evolution is the unifying theory of biology, and thus is related to literally anything to do with biology, so yes, virology is encompassed by evolution.

 

[PsychoSarah]

so your are saying that if 2 structures shared several similar traits then they are homologous structures? if so i can say the same for the shared traits of both a tasmanian wolf and a dog:

Thylacine - Wikipedia

so they are homologous according to your critieria. right?

There are many homologous structures between those organisms, yes. You do realize that homologous structures can be shared with organisms that aren't super closely related, right? I mean, humans share homologous structures with whales, for crying out loud.

but they do have a trait that is very similar to a leg, and whale doesnt have this trait.

Whales have the bones analogous to those in terrestrial limbs in their flippers. They aren't analogous in structure to the fins of fish. Fish fins generally are a solid bone structure (in fish that have bones in their fins), not tons of bones like in a human foot or a whale flipper.

 

[pat34lee]

You've been misled there, too. Turns out the monotremes are nicely intermediate between eutherian mammals and reptiles. Would you like me to show you how?

Through DNA evidence? Sure.

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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

It's your imaginative universe, you tell me if that's how it works. To ride your analogy as best as possible, It could very well be the case that it'll turn into a flying car, even if it looks exactly like a plane. The thing is, it was a car to start with so all the car's descendants would be cars. Analogous to how Evolution works, Whales are Mammals and always will be because they're descended from what were mammals. They're also Vertebrates, Eukaryotas, etc. for the same reason. We too are mammals btw, because we too are descendants of the same mammals Whales are descended from.

Sorry, that's as close as I can get to helping you get this.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

but according to evolution criteria small steps+time =big step. so according to this small steps in a regular car (its a fact that a car can get small changes over time) will change it into a flying car. even without the replication ability.

No it can't because cars aren't biological organisms. Evolution ONLY AFFECTS BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS.

 

[Larniavc]

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

I've read a boat load of posts telling you that cars do not evolve.

Why don't you listen?

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian asks:
You've been misled there, too. Turns out the monotremes are nicely intermediate between eutherian mammals and reptiles. Would you like me to show you how?

Through DNA evidence? Sure.

The phylogenetic relationship of key marsupial and monotreme... - Figure 1 of 5

But it goes far beyond DNA evidence. Monotremes (platypus and echidna) lay eggs. But not avian eggs. Reptilian eggs. They are warm-blooded and have the simplified mammalian jaw, but have the complex reptilian shoulder bones. They have a reptilian cloaca, but have fur and the mammalian ear.

However, the monotreme middle ear is different than that of the eutherian middle ear, indicating that they diverged before the present eutherian ear evolved. There is fossil evidence for this:

Science. 2005 Feb 11;307(5711):910-4.
Independent origins of middle ear bones in monotremes and therians.

 

[The Barbarian]

so your are saying that if 2 structures shared several similar traits then they are homologous structures?

Not necessarily. Bat wings and bird wings share several similar traits, but even a superficial look shows different structures adapted for different things. So although the bones and muscles are homologous, the wing itself is not. On the other hand, the same structures, adapted for different things, like a man's arm, a whale's flipper, and a mole's front limb are homologous, even if they do very different things. You're having difficulty distinguishing between analogous and homlogous structures.

if so i can say the same for the shared traits of both a tasmanian wolf and a dog:

They have a lot of homologous structures, like femurs, tibia and fibula, and so on. But if we look closely at functions, we see that (for example) the "carnassal teeth" of each are different, evolved from different sources in primitive mammalian tooth order.

 

[xianghua]

Which traits are you talking about?

the skull for instance.

 

[The Barbarian]

the skull for instance.

That doesn't help you. The skull of whales was first seen in a four-legged land animal.

Pakicetus skull

So whale-like, that when the skull was first found, it was assumed to be that of a primitive, flippered whale. Turns out, not so. The skull is very whale-like, but the animal had four feet and walked on land.

 

[xianghua]

and these structures look nothing alike to you?

yep. they look similar. but we can say the same for this trait:

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

or this one:

A Shark That Can Walk?!

"But Sarah, they are still lizards". Of course they are still lizards, evolution hasn't even been a theory long enough for us to observe any lizard population transition on the "order" classification level.

true. if so its just a belief. its not something that we can prove.

Bananas have more genes than we do too: 36,000 compared to our 20,000.

yep. but because of alternative splicing we may have more proteins products.

 

[xianghua]

No it can't because cars aren't biological organisms. Evolution ONLY AFFECTS BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS.

he talked about changes in genenral. not evolution. so i showed why small changes over time cant change into a big one..

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

he talked about changes in genenral. not evolution. so i showed why small changes over time cant change into a big one..

But evolution specifically only occurs in biological organisms. And to change a car in to a plane would require a COMPLETE redesign of the car, even requiring starting from scratch.

 

[xianghua]

That doesn't help you. The skull of whales was first seen in a four-legged land animal.

.

who is talking about whales?

 

[xianghua]

But evolution specifically only occurs in biological organisms. And to change a car in to a plane would require a COMPLETE redesign of the car, even requiring starting from scratch.

we dosnt talk about evolution but changes. again; according to evolutionery logic small steps+ time=big steps. so i showed why its a wrong conclusion with the car example.