The Theory of Evolution: Defined

[AV1611VET]

For the third time, if you'd like to falsify evolution, find a fossil of a mammal with scales or feathers.

How about one that lays eggs? would that do?

 

[sfs]

How about one that lays eggs? would that do?

No. Egg-laying is the ancestral state.

 

[Allandavid]

How about one that lays eggs? would that do?

You're as desperate as the other guy...

 

[AV1611VET]

No. Egg-laying is the ancestral state.

Right ... so finding a fossil of a mammal with scales or feathers will just predicate a new species, won't it?

Biological evolution is an open source philosophy.

 

[AV1611VET]

You're as desperate as the other guy...

Ever heard of monotremes? It's a term coined to account for the embarrassingly evolution-pwning platypus.

At least it keeps educatees from accusing God of deception, though.

 

[sfs]

Right ... so finding a fossil of a mammal with scales or feathers will just predicate a new species, won't it?

No. The species that ultimately led to mammals laid eggs. It did not have feathers.

Biological evolution is an open source philosophy.

Biological evolution is an important feature of the real world. It happened, and it's still happening.

 

[sfs]

Ever heard of monotremes?

Yeah.

It's a term coined to account for the embarrassingly evolution-pwning platypus.

Careful, AV -- you're displaying the depth of your knowledge of evolution again.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Ever heard of monotremes? It's a term coined to account for the embarrassingly evolution-pwning platypus.

At least it keeps educatees from accusing God of deception, though.

Over here in the real world, there is nothing about platypus which can't be explained from the classic evolutionary framework.

No matter what creationists have to say.

 

[Allandavid]

Ever heard of monotremes? It's a term coined to account for the embarrassingly evolution-pwning platypus.

At least it keeps educatees from accusing God of deception, though.

I'm from Australia. Within an hours drive I could be within the habitat of both the platypus and echidna. You don't know what you're talking about...

 

[AV1611VET]

Careful, AV -- you're displaying the depth of your knowledge of evolution again.

That suits me just fine.

Eyes barn ignit, eyes die ignit.

 

[pitabread]

Ever heard of monotremes? It's a term coined to account for the embarrassingly evolution-pwning platypus.

The only people who think that the platypus "pwns" evolution are people who don't understand evolution.

 

[AV1611VET]

Over here in the real world, there is nothing about platypus which can't be explained from the classic evolutionary framework.

I have no doubt whatsoever evolutionists can explain it.

And I'm sure they would be able to explain a mammal with scales and feathers if they found one.

Look how quickly they explained Nebraska man.

Discovered ... issued a binomial according to Linnaeus ... sold to the public ... accolades handed out ... then falsified years later.

Pluto, on the other hand, took longer.

But as you guys like to point out, we shouldn't compare organic things with inorganic.

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm from Australia. Within an hours drive I could be within the habitat of both the platypus and echidna.

Yup.

You don't know what you're talking about...

More like you don't.

You have no idea what point I'm making, do you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I have no doubt whatsoever evolutionists can explain it.

Then your objection is meaningless.

And I'm sure they would be able to explain a mammal with scales and feathers if they found one.

They wouldn't.

Look how quickly they explained Nebraska man.

They didn't. In fact, they exposed it. How else do you know about it, do you think?

Pluto, on the other hand, took longer.

Category change when more such celestial bodies were discovered. Nothing wrong with that.

But as you guys like to point out, we shouldn't compare organic things with inorganic.

You can try though. But you will not be successfull.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then your objection is meaningless.

Just don't feed me a line like this:

... if you'd like to falsify evolution, find a fossil of a mammal with scales or feathers.

... and expect me to believe it.

If someone did find a fossil of a mammal with scales or feathers, I'm sure evolutionists would come up with a place on the phylogenetic tree to put it, rather than admit evolution has been falsified.

 

[xianghua]

Is English not your first language? For the third time, if you'd like to falsify evolution, find a fossil of a mammal with scales or feathers. Why is it that no such fossil has ever been found do you think...?

surprise: humans indeed have genes for feathers development:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/

so evolution is false now?

 

[pitabread]

surprise: human indeed have genes for feathers development:

http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2014/11/20/your-inner-feather/

so evolution is false now?

You should read what you linked:

To see how far back the evolution of feather genes went, the scientists compared birds to a wide range of vertebrates, including humans, turtles, and pufferfish. They found that the instructions for making feathers got their start a long, long time before feathers themselves. The genes that establish the basic pattern of placodes already existed in the common ancestor of living fish and birds (and us)–in other words, about half a billion years ago.

So no, this isn't a violation of evolutionary ancestry.

Now what would be weird is if humans and birds shared that genetic code, but no other animals. But that's not the case here.

 

[xianghua]

Now what would be weird is if humans and birds shared that genetic code, but no other animals. But that's not the case here.

not at all. in this case they will claim for gene loss or convergent evolution. again: evolution cant be falsified.

 

[pitabread]

not at all. in this case they will claim for gene loss or convergent evolution. again: evolution cant be falsified.

I've addressed this objection in another post in this thread: What do creationists think phylogenetic trees represent? (post #43)

Again, scientists don't simply toss out genetic loss or convergent evolution as mere answers. They look for actual evidence to understand how those things occur.

 

[USincognito]

Please quote the texts/scientists/organisations that claim that evolution is 'fact'...

Evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution explains the fact.
Evolution Resources from the National Academies
Sandwalk: Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory