proving evolution as just a "theory"

[xianghua]

Please go on. What is the falsifiable test for ID?

scientific theory can be prove and not just falsify. on the other hand: how evolution can be falsify or prove?

 

[bhsmte]

scientific theory can be prove and not just falsify. on the other hand: how evolution can be falsify or prove?

Still waiting for you to support your own claim.

 

[Speedwell]

scientific theory can be prove and not just falsify. on the other hand: how evolution can be falsify or prove?

You've been at this too long to make a mistake like that. Scientific theories are never proven, only provisionally confirmed. Scientific theories are conclusions of inductive logic and so are not subject to "proof" like the conclusions of deductive logic.

 

[xianghua]

Still waiting for you to support your own claim.

again? check my signature link...

 

[xianghua]

You've been at this too long to make a mistake like that. Scientific theories are never proven, only provisionally confirmed. Scientific theories are conclusions of inductive logic and so are not subject to "proof" like the conclusions of deductive logic.

yep. since creation is a fact its not even a theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

yep. since creation is a fact its not even a theory.

Simply claiming it is a fact will not convince anyone.

Elephants can fly when no one is looking.

 

[bhsmte]

again? check my signature link...

Your claim was a falsifiable test for ID. Whenever you are ready, feel free to share.

 

[Speedwell]

yep. since creation is a fact its not even a theory.

But it is irrelevent to the discussion. God's creation of the Universe and all it contains is regarded as a fact by all Christians, and I presume by all of whatever religion you belong to, whatever that is. But we regard it as a fact whether evolution is true or not.

 

[PsychoSarah]

scientific theory can be prove and not just falsify. on the other hand: how evolution can be falsify or prove?

I have literally given you lists of ways to disprove the theory of evolution, and you are still posting this garbage. Every time someone shows you a way to disprove the theory, you just go "nuh uh, that wouldn't disprove it" and give absolutely no evidence to defend your claim.

 

[bhsmte]

I have literally given you lists of ways to disprove the theory of evolution, and you are still posting this garbage. Every time someone shows you a way to disprove the theory, you just go "nuh uh, that wouldn't disprove it" and give absolutely no evidence to defend your claim.

That garbage, is all he has.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Scientific math is based on provable patterns across all fossil records. One governing equation should be interconnected between species. There exists no such math.

-_- that's because, again, the variables aren't the same all the time. A human cannot reproduce as quickly as a mouse, so why expect humans to be able to evolve as fast as mice? If one made a single equation for all of the variables, it'd be stupidly long and practically useless, given that one usually only needs to track a few of them for practical applications. For example, all you need in order to determine how long ago chimpanzees and humans had their lineages split is by counting the consistent differences between their genomes, and plugging in averaged mutation rates and reproduction rates between the two. Yet, since during that time, mutation rates could have changed for either species, it is impossible to get an exact number, so you only will get reasonable ranges for organisms that are fairly closely related.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Me? I didn't hijack anything -- I'm not a Christian, remember?



Indeed, which is why for most of the first century AD, Christianity was considered a sect of Judaism, and not a separate religion. You can google the word "schism," to understand how that generally works.



Pretty much different -- the Jews tend to base their relationship with God not on the events of their creation story, but on the covenant -- so long as the Jews keep to the laws that God set for them to follow, He would provide for them.

Along comes Jesus, an observant Jew, who proposes a new covenant... Same God, different relationships...

Anything else I can help you with tonight?

Except Jesus supported Genesis and all the Old Testiment scriptures. The only thing he objected to is interpretation of said scriptures.

So to say creation is inconsistent but Jesus and sinful nature is not, is inconsistent since Jesus supported both.

The only thing inconsistent with reality is belief in evolution. It’s those interpretations that are flawed, as were the Pharisees.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

-_- that's because, again, the variables aren't the same all the time. A human cannot reproduce as quickly as a mouse, so why expect humans to be able to evolve as fast as mice? If one made a single equation for all of the variables, it'd be stupidly long and practically useless, given that one usually only needs to track a few of them for practical applications. For example, all you need in order to determine how long ago chimpanzees and humans had their lineages split is by counting the consistent differences between their genomes, and plugging in averaged mutation rates and reproduction rates between the two. Yet, since during that time, mutation rates could have changed for either species, it is impossible to get an exact number, so you only will get reasonable ranges for organisms that are fairly closely related.

But mice don’t evolve. They stay the same until mated with another breed of mice. Every animal alive does.

 

[PsychoSarah]

But mice don’t evolve. They stay the same until mated with another breed of mice. Every animal alive does.

Triops experiment sir. Triops. Experiment.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

None of those support your claim. You do not appear to understand them. And worse yet you have yet to substantiate your claim about Darwin's finches. You have supplied articles that some of them could interbreed, not that all of them could interbreed.

Because you never read a single link about them. The DNA showed they had each and every one been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. But O understand the ostrich maneuver is your only defense.

And then there are ring species which is undeniable speciation. A can breed with B which can breed with C etc. but when A meets up with the last in the series they can no longer interbreed. That is a reasonable outcome from evolution but one that creationists are unable to explain at all.

It is easily explained. It’s like claiming finches couldn’t interbreed for 200+ years. Oops that claim didn’t hold up either, it only took 200 some years before they figured it out even if they were more studied than claimed ring species... not that mating going unnoticed for 200 some odd years would affect your belief or fanatic outlook on them never being wrong.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Triops experiment sir. Triops. Experiment.

Yes, I am aware that people think variations of Triops are new species, but they are no different than varieties of dogs, or humans.

Was the fact that new forms might arise like new forms arise in dogs or any other animal supposed to impress anyone? I’ve seen a Husky mate with a Mastiff and produce the Chinook, it’s your flawed interpretation of what is happening that leads to your error.

But we were discussing mice and your claim they evolved faster than humans, how quickly you avoid what you claimed,

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh we have, I've just given up on trying to explain how biology really works and instead am talking your own flawed interpretation to its logical conclusion. Namely that if biology really worked the way you seem to think it works (all this stuff about Huskies only producing Huskies), there would have to be numerous originally created dog kinds, wolf kinds, cat kinds, etc, to account for the variety we have today.

No there wouldn’t. Just as you know all dogs came from an ancestral wolf stock. Just as you understand that inbreeding reduces genetic variation. You seem to believe wolves haven’t inbred solely with other wolves of their own breed for the last 4,000 some years. I understand you keep claiming to understand biology, then refuse to accept the very thing you claim you do understand.

Yet inexplicably you appear to reject your own view of how biology works in favor of the evolutionary scenario when it comes to explaining, say, the domestication and resultant breeds of dogs.

Oh no, I accept it totally, I just understand what we discussed, that inbreeding lessens genetic variability. It’s you that doesn’t want to accept that grey wolves have inbred with only grey wolves for thousands of years. They are no longer as genetically diverse as was the original wolf ancestor. I have no problem, it’s only you that keeps avoiding the lessening of genetic variability through inbreeding.

You continually contradict your own views from one post to the next. It's odd.

It is odd you accept loss of genetic variability through inbreeding, then ignore grey wolves only breeding with grey wolves for thousands of years. Odd indeed that you attempt to place your contradiction on others shoulders instead of on your own shoulders.

Based on the diversity among modern wolves, you'd probably be looking at least 7 or 8 original wolf "kinds" to account for what we have today. That is, if biology worked how you seem to think it works.

There you go, forgetting reduction in genetic variability from inbreeding, then refuse to apply logic to the situation. If the wolves we see today are less genetically diverse because of inbreeding, then the original two ancestral wolves that led to them logically were more genetically diverse. You must start with more to get less from inbreeding.

Based on how you think biology works, they would have to be. You've extended the number of originally created kinds a dozen-fold at least. At least compared to what other creationists think.

No, you’ve extended them in your own mind for no reason. You seem to want to ignore the affects of inbreeding and what that must mean of the ancestral wolves before they began inbreeding to the point of setting in genetic traits.

You seem confused, you say you understand inbreeding lessens genetic variability, and when I agree that the original ancestral wolves must therefore have been more genetically diverse, try to play it off as my lack of understanding. I think you understand just fine, and are simply trying to avoid the logical conclusion of wolves inbreeding for thousands of years and what that would say about the ancestral wolves before inbreeding set in certain genetic traits.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because you never read a single link about them. The DNA showed they had each and every one been interbreeding since arriving on the islands. But O understand the ostrich maneuver is your only defense.

I read your links. None of them said that they could all interbreed. You have not been able to support your claim to date. Once again, all that you have ever shown is that some could interbreed. Some is not all.

It is easily explained. It’s like claiming finches couldn’t interbreed for 200+ years. Oops that claim didn’t hold up either, it only took 200 some years before they figured it out even if they were more studied than claimed ring species... not that mating going unnoticed for 200 some odd years would affect your belief or fanatic outlook on them never being wrong.

Did they claim that? They said that they were different species, and that appears to be the case, remember that you still do not understand Mayr's definition of species.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Have we ever observed to wolves mating to produce a husky? Can they still do it or are such miraculous transformations restricted to the past?

Was this hybrid part wolf/part husky, 100% husky, a gradual transformation towards the husky kind?

Have you got any evidence of this?




Is life "propagated" by a new species being born one at a time by two members of a different species? This first husky that was born to two wolves, what did it mate with to produce the husky population?

We observe that populations evolve, not individuals. We do not observe new species suddenly popping out of their ancestors as a brand new species. Where have you seen such a thing occuring?

We have never observed any new species. Not once, ever. You may if you wish correctly call the different breeds of dog subspecies, just as if you wish you may correctly call the different races of humans subspecies, or even those finches.

I’ve never claimed any species popped into existence. Where did you ever come up with that idea? Oh yah, from your incorrect classifications and incorrect view of how variation occurs in the species. I can see how being you think new species happen, you would automatically believe everyone else also ignores empirical observational evidence and ignores their own scientific definitions.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I read your links. None of them said that they could all interbreed. You have not been able to support your claim to date. Once again, all that you have ever shown is that some could interbreed. Some is not all.

Then I shouldn’t have to point it out to you for the twentieth time.

“The study also revealed a surprisingly large amount of "gene flow" between the branches of the family.

This indicates that the species have continued to interbreed or hybridise, after diversifying when they first arrived on the islands.”

This includes all 15 plus two from the mainlands.

But ignoring the data is your only recourse.

Did they claim that? They said that they were different species, and that appears to be the case, remember that you still do not understand Mayr's definition of species.

Oh I understand he ignores the same facts you do, that species are defined as those capable of interbreeding. That because he wants to ignore this so he can call anything he likes a species, he ignores that if two are interbreeding, they are not closely related species, but subspecies in the same species. But there you go again ignoring scientific definitions of subspecies as well.

“
a subdivision of a species: such as
a :a category in biological classification that ranks immediately below a species and designates a population of a particular geographic region genetically distinguishable from other such populations of the same species and capable of interbreeding successfully with them where its range overlaps theirs”

But following scientific definitions isn’t a strong suit of evolutionists because then they can’t claim anything they like from day to day.