How can Creationism be falsified?

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

But you didn't since evolution ONLY occurs in BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS, not man-made devices.

 

[xianghua]

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.

so how you can distinguish between an anaog trait and homologous one?

in any case we assume evolution is true in both cases.

 

[xianghua]

But you didn't since evolution ONLY occurs in BIOLOGICAL ORGANISMS, not man-made devices.

again: we are talking about logic. not a biological evolution for now.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

again: we are talking about logic. not a biological evolution for now.

But if you WERE using logic, you would look up the scientific definition of evolution and see that it ONLY applies to biological organisms. Any other time evolution is used, it is being used in the colloquial sense, aka, in laymen's terms.

 

[xianghua]

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.

the echidna is also very hedgeog-like:

echidna‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

does it mean that he evolved from an hedgeog?

 

[Loudmouth]

so how you can distinguish between an anaog trait and homologous one?

Homologous traits will originate through the same developmental pathways and have similar shapes.

in any case we assume evolution is true in both cases.

We don't have to assume evolution in order to determine if a trait is analogous or homologous.

 

[Loudmouth]

the echidna is also very hedgeog-like:

echidna‏ - חיפוש ב-Google:

does it mean that he evolved from an hedgeog?

What are the homologous traits that are shared between the two species groups?

 

[The Barbarian]

the echidna is also very hedgeog-like:

No. That would be almost as foolish as saying a platypus is very beaver-like.

Again, you're confused about homologies vs. analogies.

Learn the difference, and you'll not have so much trouble with this.

 

[PsychoSarah]

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?!

-_- no, you can't say the same for it; sharks don't even have bones. Homologous structures are distinguished by having the same basic INTERNAL structure, not external similarities.

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

You ignored the rest of that, about how observing this crap in a human lifetime would disprove evolution, and all about how we have observed the significant transition of a digestive tract from carnivorous to herbivorous. I think you must not understand how different a carnivorous digestive tract is from a herbivorous one. A herbivore will have a digestive tract more than twice the length of a carnivore's, and will have different microflora and enzymes. If an entire organ system can change via evolution, how can you say that anything limits it such that birds cannot have evolved from reptilian ancestors?

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

-_- humans can only generate 12 of the 20 amino acids that we need to live. Every plant on this planet generates all 20, as well as all the nucleotides they need and more. By comparison, humans are about as genetically complex as earthworms.

 

[xianghua]

Which traits are you talking about?

the general morphology. including the skull.

 

[xianghua]

Homologous structures are distinguished by having the same basic INTERNAL structure, not external similarities.

so the fifth digit of the koala is homologous to the human fifth digit?:

If an entire organ system can change via evolution, how can you say that anything limits it such that birds cannot have evolved from reptilian ancestors?

who said that its a new trait?:

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

"What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study."

secondly- if an entire organ can evolve in about 40 years. does it prove evolution or falsified it? does its mean that a complex eye can also evolve in about 40 years from a simple one?

 

[xianghua]

Homologous traits will originate through the same developmental pathways and have similar shapes.

like those ones?:

Limb design homology - creation.com

 

[PsychoSarah]

so the fifth digit of the koala is homologous to the human fifth digit?:

https://62e528761d0685343e1c-f3d1b9.../files/17952/area14mp/jf3ryv2z-1353638860.jpg Yes.

who said that its a new trait?:

Lizards Rapidly Evolve After Introduction to Island

Your own souce does, didn't you read it? "They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

"What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a "plastic response to the environment," said Hendry, who was not associated with the study."

Said a person completely unrelated to the study. However, did you forget "All of this might be evolution," Hendry said. "The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2290806/ Were you to try to argue that these changes were adaptive in the same way tanning is in humans, then hatchlings of this lizard would NOT have the same traits in their digestive tract (much like how a woman tanning while pregnant wouldn't make her baby born tan), yet, hatchlings that haven't had a bite to eat have this trait, as put in a quote from my source from an actual scientific paper rather than National Geographic: "Morphological analysis of preserved specimens shows the presence of cecal valves (Fig. 4) in all individuals, including a hatchling (26.4-mm snout-vent length, umbilical scar present) and a very young juvenile (33.11-mm snout-vent length) examined from Pod Mrčaru."

It's genetic.

secondly- if an entire organ can evolve in about 40 years. does it prove evolution or falsified it? does its mean that a complex eye can also evolve in about 40 years from a simple one?

-_- the generations of that lizard are far shorter than our own, so, of course, they evolve faster than we do. This is why we often use bacteria for evolution based experiments: the faster an organism reproduces, the faster it can evolve. Also, a "complex" eye is a trait of multicellular organisms, while a "simple" eye can be a trait of either multicellular organisms or single celled organisms, depending upon how you define it. If you started out with the simplest multicellular eye, could it evolve significantly into a far more complex version in 40 years? Yes, with extreme selective pressures, a small population, and fast reproduction rate, it could.

Factors that can affect evolution speed
1. Population size: the smaller the population, the faster the species can evolve.
2. Reproduction rate: the faster a species reproduces, the faster its evolution can be.
3. Environment: the more an environment changes, the more selective pressures there are for the species to change along with it.

Those lizards were a very small population (only 5 breeding pairs) separated from the rest in an environment different from what they had previously been in, and they reproduce relatively quickly for multicellular organisms, which is how those 10 reproduced over the course of 36 years to produce a final population of 5,000

To contrast this with humans, our population is huge, and has been in the multiple millions for centuries. Our females aren't usually of reproductive maturity until they are at least 10, and males often aren't until age 15. We actively change the environment around us to suit our needs, removing the selective pressures of the environment almost entirely. No wonder human evolution is so slow these days.

 

[xianghua]

Your own souce does, didn't you read it? "They evolved an expanded gut to allow them to process these leaves," Irschick said, adding it was something that had not been documented before. "This was a brand-new structure."

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

It's genetic.

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."

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

" If you started out with the simplest multicellular eye, could it evolve significantly into a far more complex version in 40 years? Yes, with extreme selective pressures, a small population, and fast reproduction rate, it could."-

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

 

[The Barbarian]

so how you can distinguish between an anaog trait and homologous one?

Both insects and mammals have legs. But mammalian legs evolved from the bony fins of certain fish, while insect legs evolved from primitive biramous appendages of earlier organisms. One set uses calcified tissue for support and motion, and the other involves a hardened exoskeleton.

Likewise, we see that the teeth of wolves and thylacines are superficially alike. But the cutting teeth of each developed in a different dental formula from the primitive mammalian condition. Hence analogous, not homologus. On the other hand, human arms and whale flippers are derived from the same tissues, but don't function the same way. Homologous, but not analogous.

in any case we assume evolution is true in both cases.

No, that's wrong. You can classify these structures without an assumption of evolution.

 

[xianghua]

No, that's wrong. You can classify these structures without an assumption of evolution.

so even if all those traits created by a designer at once, you will still be able to say what is homologous and what is analogous?

 

[The Barbarian]

so even if all those traits created by a designer at once, you will still be able to say what is homologous and what is analogous?

Yep. For example, suppose the designer was malicious or just liked practical jokes. He could design some organisms with homologies like bats and whale, and others with analogous organs, like insects and birds.

If God magically poofed whales and birds and humans into existence, they could still look the same. The problem for this happen by the Christian God, is that He's not dishonest.

So no assumption of evolution is necessary. Evolution isn't evidence for homologies, homologies are evidence for evolution.

 

[xianghua]

Yep. For example, suppose the designer was malicious or just liked practical jokes. He could design some organisms with homologies like bats and whale, and others with analogous organs, like insects and birds.

according to this definition homologous traits do need a commondescent assumption:

Homology (biology) - Wikipedia

"In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa."

and even berkeley site say that same. so what is your definition?

 

[USincognito]

secondly- if an entire organ can evolve in about 40 years. does it prove evolution or falsified it? does its mean that a complex eye can also evolve in about 40 years from a simple one?

Do you not realize that a cecal valve is not an organ until itself? That's it's just a part of the small intestine?

 

[USincognito]

according to this definition homologous traits do need a commondescent(sic) assumption:

Homology (biology) - Wikipedia

"In biology, homology is the existence of shared ancestry between a pair of structures, or genes, in different taxa."

and even berkeley site say that same. so what is your definition?

edit - whoops I misread XH's post.

No, it's not an "assumption" which is a magical word Creationists try and use to poof away evidence in a cloud of smoke. Homology is a conclusion based on observation and evidence. In the case of bat wings for example, there's a great amount of genetic evidence showing how they evolved from walking mammalian forelimbs. Here's just one paper.
Understanding of bat wing evolution takes flight