How can Evolution be falsified?

[TagliatelliMonster]

are you sure?

Yes.

are you aware about the fact that octopus is a color blind?

The blind spot is the result of a "backwards" eye design which requires all the nervous to having to cross the retina. In camera terms, you could say that it has all the wires in front of the light-sensitive machinery, which then requires additional software to "fix" the imagine by filling in the blanks.

It has nothing to do with being able to perceive color.

 

[essentialsaltes]

dont be so sure:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

so it may be a design feature after all.

Then why are invertebrate eyes poorly designed?

 

[Bugeyedcreepy]

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.

How do you know what I know, are you a God? If you want to say it's magic, then you subscribe to last Thursday-ism. You're essentially saying that we can't Science because nothing can be relied on to be accurate - but we can, and do all the time. We've mapped their genome & have found out when they diverged from our branch of the tree to be what and where they are now. Unless of course your God is out to lie to us with a mountain of concordant evidence to look just like evolution in various and independent fields of science?

 

[Loudmouth]

he doesnt:

Sequences, stratigraphy and scenarios: what can we say about the fossil record of the earliest tetrapods? | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences

"Using Hedman's [13] method, we estimate an origin for digited tetrapods at 403.6 Ma (early Emsian), with a two-tailed 95 per cent credible interval of 427.4–395.7 Myr ago"

Therefore, there would have been many species of transitional species 20 to 50 million years after that branch in the tetrapod tree making sediments 375 million years old a prime target for finding those species.

 

[Loudmouth]

dont be so sure:

Evolution gave flawed eye better vision

"
IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, “backwards” structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.

Then why did the designer give cephalopods a forward facing retina instead of the supposedly better backwards facing retina?

Why is the direction of the retina determined by the presence of a backbone?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes.



The blind spot is the result of a "backwards" eye design which requires all the nervous to having to cross the retina. In camera terms, you could say that it has all the wires in front of the light-sensitive machinery, which then requires additional software to "fix" the imagine by filling in the blanks.

It has nothing to do with being able to perceive color.

Not only is there a blind spot, but the resolution and light sensitivity of the retina is reduced because light is blocked or refracted by the nerves in front of the light sensitive cells.

 

[KWCrazy]

How do you know what I know, are you a God?

Nope. But I know one. I was in His house last night. You should try it.

If you want to say it's magic,

Never said it was magic.

then you subscribe to last Thursday-ism.

I subscribe to no such sophomoric nonsense.

You're essentially saying that we can't Science because nothing can be relied on to be accurate - but we can, and do all the time.

You'd have a better understanding of what I say if you paid attention sometimes. Science is the study or the natural world around us. It is not dependent on theories of origins.

We've mapped their genome & have found out when they diverged from our branch of the tree to be what and where they are now.

No, we found genetic commonalities and you made assumptions. Granted, a great deal of speciation would have had to occur after the Great Flood to account for all the species that exist today, but there are processes for that. We call that adaptation. It's a conservative process.

Unless of course your God is out to lie to us

My God doesn't lie. I'll not comment on yours.

 

[HitchSlap]

he doesnt:

Sequences, stratigraphy and scenarios: what can we say about the fossil record of the earliest tetrapods? | Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological Sciences

"Using Hedman's [13] method, we estimate an origin for digited tetrapods at 403.6 Ma (early Emsian), with a two-tailed 95 per cent credible interval of 427.4–395.7 Myr ago"

We seem to be talking past each other; I hope this helps.

Dr. Shubin successfully found six T. roseaes over four expeditions. He was able to do this because using ToE, he could predict what layer of strata he should find these in.


Now, if you don't believe Dr. Shubin, please demonstrate how it was just dumb luck!

If you're really interested (and I suspect you're not), you can check out this link, or actually read his book.

Tiktaalik roseae: Q&A Session with Neil Shubin

 

[Loudmouth]

No, we found genetic commonalities and you made assumptions.

We found a nested hierarchy, and we observe that evolutionary mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy. It isn't an assumption, and it isn't simply commonalities.

 

[HitchSlap]

We found a nested hierarchy, and we observe that evolutionary mechanisms produce a nested hierarchy. It isn't an assumption, and it isn't simply commonalities.

Probably a good time to mention ERV's.

 

[Loudmouth]

Probably a good time to mention ERV's.

We would probably lose KWCrazy at "endogenous".

 

[xianghua]

"Then why did the designer give cephalopods a forward facing retina instead of the supposedly better backwards facing retina?"-

who said that it will be better for cephalopods? we dont know because we dont know much about nature design. the fact is that evolutionists was wrong about this trait. so no one can claim for a "bad design" anymore.

"Why is the direction of the retina determined by the presence of a backbone?"-


again: the same can be said here.


"Therefore, there would have been many species of transitional species 20 to 50 million years after that branch in the tetrapod tree making sediments 375 million years old a prime target for finding those species."-

its a dozens my period. its a lot.

 

[Loudmouth]

who said that it will be better for cephalopods? we dont know because we dont know much about nature design. the fact is that evolutionists was wrong about this trait. so no one can claim for a "bad design" anymore.

We are saying that the type of retina falls into a nested hierarchy. That is the evidence. If some design is better than another, that is completely secondary. The evidence is the nested hierarchy.

its a dozens my period. its a lot.

I think there was something lost in translation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

No I do not know that because the Bible says: "Seek and you shall find". "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you". Matthew 7:7 FYI the Holy Spirit of God is our Comforter.

John 14:26King James Version (KJV)
26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it sees him not, neither knows him: but you know him; for he dwells with you, and shall be in you.

Sorry, but confirmed seekers have died atheists. It does happen, and you are insulting the honesty of those that did die atheists that sought god. If I died in a car accident tomorrow, I would be one of those people. If I had killed myself when I was at my most depressed, I would be one of those people.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, but confirmed seekers have died atheists.

That's because they were upstairs (brain), while Jesus was downstairs knocking (heart).

 

[PsychoSarah]

That's because they were upstairs (brain), while Jesus was downstairs knocking (heart).

You know no thought occurs literally in the heart, right? Furthermore, you can't know that for sure, since you aren't them. Technically, a person about to convert could die hours before doing so, and there is nothing preventing it.

 

[AV1611VET]

You know no thought occurs literally in the heart, right?

You know the Bible says otherwise, right?

 

[PsychoSarah]

You know the Bible says otherwise, right?

It's easy to explain as the non-literal sense of culturally associating emotions and faith with the heart, like in the phrase "think with your head, not with your heart".

Otherwise, a Christian receiving an atheist's heart in a heart transplant would make them no longer a believer, and visa versa. This does not happen. And who knows what effect an artificial heart would have, making someone emotionless, perhaps?

 

[AV1611VET]

Otherwise, a Christian receiving an atheist's heart in a heart transplant would make them no longer a believer, and visa versa. This does not happen.

Nice try, but the Christian's brain would reprogram the new heart.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Nice try, but the Christian's brain would reprogram the new heart.

And what of the artificial heart, which really is just a blood pump and no more; how would a person's brain train that to work like a normal heart in this sense, when they aren't even that great as a blood pump compared to a real heart?