How can Evolution be falsified?

[USincognito]

the tiktaalik are not even in the right geological age:

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

Terrestrial tetrapods evolved from basal Craniates and Sarcopterygians, therefore amphioxus and lungfish shouldn't exist today, right?

 

[USincognito]

the id model also predict "missing links" between a designed objects: for example: a commercial car is a missing link between a car and a truck. but it doesnt prove any evolution.

Whenever cars and trucks start reproducing sexually and imperfectly passing along DNA you may have an analogy.

 

[USincognito]

: if we will find a cat with wings we can claim that wings evolved twice (in borth birds and mammals).

Wings evolved FOUR times - bats, birds, flying reptiles and insects. None of them have the same wing structure and thus are analogous not homologous as Loudmouth pointed out.

 

[Loudmouth]

Wings evolved FOUR times - bats, birds, flying reptiles and insects. None of them have the same wing structure and thus are analogous not homologous as Loudmouth pointed out.

We could add fish to the list, if we are including gliding. Yet another wing that is not homologous to wings in other species.

 

[USincognito]

We could add fish to the list, if we are including gliding. Yet another wing that is not homologous to wings in other species.

Good point, which wraps around itself when we look at penguins and how their wings function better as fins than wings.

 

[Speedwell]

Good point, which wraps around itself when we look at penguins and how their wings function better as fins than wings.

Which is another good example--the avian ancestors of penguins were capable of flight and evolved their "fins" from wings. That is, they don't swim with fish fins but with adapted wings.

 

[Loudmouth]

Which is another good example--the avian ancestors of penguins were capable of flight and evolved their "fins" from wings. That is, they don't swim with fish fins but with adapted wings.

Continuing the theme, the dolphin front fin is homologous to the human arm and only analogous to the fish fin.

 

[HitchSlap]

the tiktaalik are not even in the right geological age:

Discovery pushes back date of first four-legged animal : Nature News

So, you're suggesting four legged "fishopods" should not have been found in the geological strata they were, but that Dr. Shubin was just lucky?

 

[xianghua]

So, you're suggesting four legged "fishopods" should not have been found in the geological strata they were, but that Dr. Shubin was just lucky?

again: evolution predict this order: a fish--> a missing link (fishpod)--> a tetrapod. instead we find a fish--> a tetrapod-->a missing link. the wrong order.

 

[Loudmouth]

again: evolution predict this order: a fish--> a missing link (fishpod)--> a tetrapod. instead we find a fish--> a tetrapod-->a missing link. the wrong order.

You are assuming that Tiktaalik must be a direct ancestor. It doesn't have to be.

You seem to be using a different version of the tired old creationist argument, "If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?". Creationists, for whatever reason, can't understand that evolution is a tree, not a ladder.

 

[xianghua]

Convergent evolution is a perfect example of a nested hierarchy. Convergent adaptations are not homologous, they are analogous. They fit quite nicely into a nested hierarchy.

So you are wrong from the start. There is a nested hierarchy, and ID can't explain it. Evolution can explain it.



That's not convergent evolution.



A "wing" describes a function, not an anatomical feature. As you can see, the wings of a bird and bat are not homologous. They are analogous.

lets go step by step. first: even if those wings (in a cat) was with a similar anatomy to a bird anatomy: we can still claim for convergent evolution. there is not a real limit between an analog trait and a convergent one.

 

[Loudmouth]

lets go step by step. first: even if those wings (in a cat) was with a similar anatomy to to a bird anatomy:

What cats have wings with similar anatomy to birds? Show us.

we can still claim for convergent evolution.

If there were cats with anatomically identical wings to that of birds then it would falsify evolution. It could not be convergent evolution.

there is not a real limit between an analog trait and a convergent one.

Yeah, there is a limit.

 

[Loudmouth]

For edification:

 

[HitchSlap]

again: evolution predict this order: a fish--> a missing link (fishpod)--> a tetrapod. instead we find a fish--> a tetrapod-->a missing link. the wrong order.

Please explain how Dr. Shubin was able to find T. roseae, if not using ToE.

 

[KWCrazy]

Well, we know it wasn't, so No.

You know nothing of the kind.
If God could have created life thousands of years ago He still can. There are no restrictions that said He had to stop creating on day 6.
If God decides he likes the idea of a Jackalope and decides to create one, can YOU tell Him He can't?

Maybe God got along better with the Aborigines than He did with the "civilized" people so He shoved the continent a little further south so we wouldn't find it.

 

[Speedwell]

You know nothing of the kind.
If God could have created life thousands of years ago He still can. There are no restrictions that said He had to stop creating on day 6.
If God decides he likes the idea of a Jackalope and decides to create one, can YOU tell Him He can't?

Nobody is telling Him He can't. But if He did, it would easily be identifiable as not a product of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

You know nothing of the kind.
If God could have created life thousands of years ago He still can. There are no restrictions that said He had to stop creating on day 6.
If God decides he likes the idea of a Jackalope and decides to create one, can YOU tell Him He can't?

Maybe God got along better with the Aborigines than He did with the "civilized" people so He shoved the continent a little further south so we wouldn't find it.

Yeah, it's just a complete coincidence that God just happens to create species in the one pattern out of billions that matches what evolution would produce. Just a coincidence . . .

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, it's just a complete coincidence that God just happens to create species in the one pattern out of billions that matches what evolution would produce.

Not if you're good at connect-the-dots.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not if you're good at connect-the-dots.

Thank you once again for pointing to the evidence for evolution. The very fact that you can connect the dots is evidence for evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Please explain how Dr. Shubin was able to find T. roseae, if not using ToE.

The answer is in the name.

The locals had been talking about it for decades if not centuries.

You talk about something long enough, and eventually scientists will show up to investigate and test their theories.

Like they did in WW2.