How should we view a falsified hypothesis

[USincognito]

As the premise defined this referred to the concept of say fish becoming changed over time into amphibians or amphibians into reptiles...etc.

Amniotes are still terrestrial tetrapods. Amniotes and terrestrial tetrapods are still Sarcopterygians.

Look, let's stop with the kiddy pool stuff here and go deep. Would you agree that an eagle, a killer whale, an earthworm, a butterfly and a lobster have two sides to their bodies and a digestive tract with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other? If so you accept Bilateria as a clade... one that includes humans.

 

[USincognito]

Now I understand what you meant by splitting in two...fine so evolutionists cannot show me an actual example where one creature has become another different creature...

Ah, you want Pokemon or an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies. I can see why you're having trouble with homology, atavisms, molecular vestiges, biogeography, genetics, etc. They're too subtle and you're demanding as evidence something that would actually falsify evolution.

 

[USincognito]

There were, and are tetrapod fish...

Great post, but no "fish" are tetrapods. Tetrapods are a clade within sarcopterygian lobe-finned fish with the lungfish being our closest "fish" cousin.
The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution : Nature : Nature Research

 

[USincognito]

As I see it there are other viable theories (hypotheses)

I'd recommend you stop doing this. And if you don't know what I mean by "this", then I'd further recommend you ask more questions and make less assertions.

 

[pshun2404]

Amniotes are still terrestrial tetrapods. Amniotes and terrestrial tetrapods are still Sarcopterygians.

Look, let's stop with the kiddy pool stuff here and go deep. Would you agree that an eagle, a killer whale, an earthworm, a butterfly and a lobster have two sides to their bodies and a digestive tract with a mouth at one end and an anus at the other? If so you accept Bilateria as a clade... one that includes humans.

Homology is not science my friend, it is simply an Intelligently Designed system of classification (made up by men as a way of emphasizing their hypothesis). Even if you name twenty different animlas that maintain similar characteristics (like all those who have eyes) that does not imply one came from the other, OR shared a common ancestor. It just means these systems are normal to these forms of life.

Clades are such a system (a good one, in fact a better one, but still a made up system via intelligent design). Though basal amniotes are certainly tetrapods they are not the ancestor of mammals.

The sarcopterygian genera is just a misguided generality that includes many fish. Fish never became Lizards and Snakes....its made up!

 

[pshun2404]

Great post, but no "fish" are tetrapods. Tetrapods are a clade within sarcopterygian lobe-finned fish with the lungfish being our closest "fish" cousin.
The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution : Nature : Nature Research

I know that in reality, but they call them fishapods to make the erroneous comparison. Ancient lungfish then and modern lungfish now (though some variety has developed due to speciation) remain lungfish. They are not our cousins just a variety of fish that shows minor variation over 385 million years.

Look at the horseshoe crab...yup, millions and millions of years and still horseshoe crabs. Triops Cancriformus...oh yeah they are pretty much the same as well. Variety yes, but no transmuting into something other (such as fish to amphibians).

Just more reality without the need to create intelligently designed systems to push a theory. Astrology is also an intelligently designed system as are Reichian character types, and many ,many, more...its what we so to make our theories seem accurate....

 

[USincognito]

Homology is not science my friend...

No one here is claiming that homology itself "is science". It is, however, scientific evidence for common ancestry especially when we observe that the same genes and gene pathways are responsible for forming homologous structures.

...it is simply an Intelligently Designed system of classification (made up by men as a way of emphasizing their hypothesis).

Oh please. Just stop with sciency Mad Lib responses.

Even if you name twenty different animlas that maintain similar characteristics (like all those who have eyes) that does not imply one came from the other, OR shared a common ancestor. It just means these systems are normal to these forms of life.

Not all eyes are homologues though, so your objection isn't germane.

Clades are such a system (a good one, in fact a better one, but still a made up system via intelligent design).

Please. Just stop...

Though basal amniotes are certainly tetrapods they are not the ancestor of mammals.

Baseless assertion.

The sarcopterygian genera is just a misguided generality that includes many fish. Fish never became Lizards and Snakes....its made up!

Another baseless assertion based on nothing more than your presuppositions and worldview.

 

[pshun2404]

No one here is claiming that homology itself "is science". It is, however, scientific evidence for common ancestry especially when we observe that the same genes and gene pathways are responsible for forming homologous structures.

Oh please. Just stop with sciency Mad Lib responses.

Not all eyes are homologues though, so your objection isn't germane.

Please. Just stop...

Baseless assertion.

Another baseless assertion based on nothing more than your presuppositions and worldview.

That is the point US it is NOT scientific EVIDENCE it is a construct for convenience and my previous post demonstrates that clearly. We have all sorts of systems in almost every field...we take what we believe and THEN develop systems od classification to support our view (humans just do this).

And no it is a response to your camp's baseless assertion that they ARE ancestors of mammals, and the same with the next assumption based grouping (again for convenience to make the hypothesis appear real.

Care to produce any real examples other than speculation used to explain ancient history according the the pre-conceived belief?

Your friend,

Homo Cogito

 

[pshun2404]

Ah, you want Pokemon or an iguana hatching a clutch of puppies. I can see why you're having trouble with homology, atavisms, molecular vestiges, biogeography, genetics, etc. They're too subtle and you're demanding as evidence something that would actually falsify evolution.

No you totally miss the point...that is the problem...in nature we see no such transitions other than assumed ones...in labs when speciation is induced and mutations are introduced and lineage is allowed to occur (many many 1000s of generations in bacterium) the creature transitions into different variety of the same creature.

Observation: There are many kinds of creatures and many varieties of each kind of creature

Hypothesis: Speciation and mutation (along ith Natural selection) causing millions of microchanges in time caused the earlier creatures (say fish) to become the later creatures (reptiles, birds, humans, etc)

Experiments: None give or provide support for the hypothesis, and in FACT negate it showing that what we actually see in NATURE (not my imagination) is confirmed by the SCIENCE that these factors (speciation and mutation) ONLY produce variety of the same creature.

Theory: We must either change the hypothesis to fit the actual data OR discard the hypothesis and form a new one

Your friend,

Homo Cogito