Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Hi AOk, welcome back! Well, yes and no... You can't act as though all creationists agree on their mutual position here, that's just not the case. Some will accept that there is some common ancestry, others will not accept any form of common ancestry at all. But of course, there is no agreement amongst creationists upon what these "kinds" might have been. The only case where almost all creo's agree is the alleged lack of common ancestry between humans and other primates. In other groupings, there is little agreement, save for a sort of "I know it when I see it" approach. Yes, but one that is so well evidenced that it is rather essential to the whole.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi AOk, I understand that. However, I believe that you are still generalising even now. I agree with that, but I still think that you are papering over the cracks somewhat. I suspect that the vast majority of those who might legitimately be described as creationists have never heard of "created kinds" or baraminology. Those creo's who, like yourself, have chosen to become involved in the debate, on the internet or elsewhere, will be aware of such arguments. Most creo's, the laity if you like, will not be aware and will have a naive belief that species were created in their currant form.This is backed up by polling. A 2005 poll by Pew Research asked whether species had "...existed in their present form since the beginning of time,", a position clearly incompatible with baraminology. 42% were happy to agree with that. A Gallup poll that same year had 45% for the same question. SourceNow you can argue that the polls had limited options and that the answer given was the closest to a creationist position. I agree with that to a point, but it still seems to me that a lot of ordinary creationists, who are not engaged in creo apologetics are completely unaware of "created kinds" and imagine that species were created in Eden, just as they appear today.Your position is held by many creo's, but it is not universal, not even amongst YECs. Need I drag out the rantings of YECs who deny microevolution? I can assure you, they do exist. What scientists hope for is to be able to answer interesting questions. Abiogenesis is one example of such a question.You claim that there is "evidence for biogenesis", but I can only suppose that you are making the same absurd argument here that you have made on these forums before; that the "law" of biogenesis disproves abiogenesis. That was a false argument then and it is still wrong now.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi AOK, Now there's a vague claim. It's a lot like these vague claims from your last stint here; SourceHere is a rather less exaggerated claim; SourceNone of this qualifies you to describe yourself as a "scientist", at least not to the extent that it gives your claims any more credibility. You manage a company. That gives your arguments no more weight than if you were a chef or a road sweeper, so quit making vague arguments from authority, okay.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

I do not believe you. I think you're lying. It bothers me that you would lie about it yes. Why then do you even bring it up, if not to add weight to your opinion?You have made several vague claims around this topic, without ever telling us specifically what your alleged expertise consists of. Are you a professional biologist or not? Because if not, you should stop trying to imply that you are.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi Percy, I think I have fair idea. Another candidate for the engineering/computer programming hall of shame perhaps? Only two? Amateur. Duly noted. I'll back off.Mutate and SurvivePS: Personally, I work in a shop.

AOk, I'm gobsmacked. In a modern context, they are almost exclusively those species that are threatened by human activity. The leading causes of extinction are loss of habitat (due to human activity), competition for resources (with humanity), non-native species (introduced by humans), climate change (caused by humans), overexploitation (by humans), pollution (humans again) and the spread of pathogens (by humans). Genetic entropy is not on the list.It astonishes me that a Christian, who, one assumes, believes that God placed us in stewardship over the animals, would be so keen to spread misinformation about the loss of biodiversity.According to the International Union for the Conservation of Nature, the current extinction rate is about a thousand times what we might reasonably expect compared to the fossil record. That isn't nature. It's us. Quit trivialising it please.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi AOk, Well, lots of reasons I guess but mainly it's your trivialisation of the environmental disaster going on about us and your attempt to hijack that for your religious apologetics. That and your apparent lack of any sympathy. Little things, y'know. Certainly. But to attempt to colour all human activity as natural somewhat defeats the point of having the word "artificial". But I suppose that you could call the current mass extinction event natural selection if you liked, but you could equally call it artificial. Calling it natural without any further refinement of meaning is simply disingenuous though. No. It's an artificial situation.From here on, you repeat the same fallacy several times, and the same childish rhetoric too, so I'll only respond to it the once. Pay attention, because this is astonishingly simple and I'm rather surprised that you could miss it in the first place;Just because I know that evolution is real, does not mean that I approve of it on a moral or aesthetic level.Okay? Super.Also, you know perfectly well that the current extinction event is far more serious and much, much faster than any normal natural process, such as locusts or (of all things ) plate tectonics. Your insistence on playing dumb here is only serving to make you look like a callous and infantile ass. Come on. You are not this stupid.As for your linked articles, you have either failed to understand them or you are trying to pull a fast one. The last addresses animals in captivity and is thus completely irrelevant. The others deal with the effects of population depletion. This is also irrelevant.The papers deal with populations that have been severely depleted by human activity. They are under genetic pressure because most of the individuals carrying the variant alleles have been wiped out. This is a far cry from the kind of "genetic entropy" that you have been pushing throughout this thread. Your version of genetic entropy would, according to your scenario, inevitably affect any population, regardless of size. These papers only deal with artificially depleted populations. they do nothing to back up your premise. Strangely, the experts in the filed disagree with you, with the latest red list report highlighting the positive effects of conservation efforts. I have seen these effects first hand. Conservation works. I know a number of Christians who volunteer their time for my local Wildlife Trust. None of them have seen fit to blather on about genetic entropy or how conservation is a waste of time. In fact, the only Christian who has ever mentioned genetic entropy to me is you.I greatly respect those Christians who give up their time to help wildlife. It strikes me as being a good way of living up to the best of Christian principles. Sitting at a computer typing out silly falsehoods about biology over the internet strikes me as rather less emblematic of Christian altruism. Are you really so dumb that you think the ToE is proscriptive? That it is a moral guide for life? Wow. No wonder you're struggling to understand it.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Hi DB, Really? Are you sure you're not trying to be funny? Hmm. Okay, I believe you. That certainly wasn't amusing. On to more substantive points. What? No! Neanderthals are not the ancestors of chimps. Neanderthals are a comparatively recent species, part of the Homo group. Chimps, Neanderthals and humans all share a common ancestor. The most recent common ancestor of Neanderthals and chimps would be the same as the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps. Leaving aside the fact that gorillas, humans chimps and Neanderthals are all apes, they have evolved into what they are; apes. Humans are human, gorillas are gorilla. We need not speculate about what they should have become. We know what they have become. We can just look. They are not monkeys. Monkeys have tails amongst other things.But to answer what I take to be your underlying question, the chimps and gorillas are still forest dwelling simians (as opposed to having evolved into human-like forms) because that is the way their evolution happened to go. They never evolved in the direction that humanity did. Either the necessary mutations never arose or, if they did, they were not favoured by selection. Remember, evolution is not about "progress" or "improvement". It has no prearranged goal. It is only about meeting the needs of the environment. Chimps are more similar to their common ancestor simply because we changed more than they did.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Why? Seriously, why should they? No. The other Homo species, Australopithecines, etc., they are intermediate between (a) the most recent common ancestor of humans and chimps and (b) humans. Of course, not all the extinct hominids are the direct ancestors of humanity, only some. I'm not sure it does. Can you rephrase that? What makes you think they should be extinct? Be specific. Yes. What strikes you as odd about this?You seem to be assuming that human-like species somehow ought to survive. There is no special reason why this ought to be the case.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

That does not follow. The extinction was comparatively recent. That doe snot mean that there should have been survivors, it only means that the last survivor died quite recently. No, I can provide many explanations for their passing. Competition from other hominins, competition with non-primate species, famine or drought, failure to adapt to a changing ecosystem, or any one of a number of other explanations.The only snag is that I do not know which one was the actual cause. It was likely a combination of factors. Short of a time machine, we can only draw tentative conclusions about why the other hominins went extinct, based upon what evidence we have. I would not wish to insert an explanation which I could not back up and pretend that it was a certainty. No-one can give you a blow-by-blow account of human evolution, nor ought we expect anyone to do that. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific. Just a small point; I do not think that any of the early hominids were hugely successful. None of them would have had populations that rivalled modern human populations. That is the nature of the fossil record. it is imperfect. Scanty records are what we normally get. Anything better is the exception, not the norm. that is an odd thing to ask. There weren't any. They didn't get wiped out in concentration camps you know. We would not expect to see any mass graves. Coyote has answered this. We would not expect to see millions of fossils. The example of the passenger pigeon, even more recently extinct, proves this.You have to understand, fossilisation is a rare process. Further, the kinds of sediment deposition that favour fossil creation are most often associated with water. Terrestrial fossils are very rare compared with aquatic ones. Humans and our ancestors are not good candidates for fossilisation. Firstly, the dinosaurs lived from about 230 million years ago to about 65 million years ago.Secondly, what do you mean by "OVERWHELMING evidence" (in ALLCAPS no less)? I wonder if you realise how many (non-avian) dinosaur species are known from only a few fossil specimens? That most dinosaur finds are far from being complete skeletons? That the taxonomy of many familiar dinosaurs is actually very controversial within the field?Dinosaurs were around for a good 165 million years and comprised almost countless species and were ubiquitous around the world. Human-like primates by contrast, existed for only five or six million years and only had a few varieties, restricted to parts Africa and Eurasia. That only gives us a tiny snapshot of their lives. There is really no comparison between them and the vast group of dinosaurs.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi barbara, You would prefer that "they" made claims without evidence? That seems a little odd.The reality of course, is that there is ample evidence to back up the ToE. It's just that you are unaware of it or have failed to understand it. The Toe is only a "hot topic" because it falsifies certain fundamentalist religious dogmas. This is complete bullshit. I suggest that you restrict yourself to making statements about topics you actually know something about.DNA can be used to identify a specific individual, never mind a species. You plainly have no idea what you are talking about. Nonsense again. You can't tell exactly what someone will look like from their DNA, as much of what influences our development is not due to DNA. That does not mean though, that DNA cannot be used to demonstrate relatedness. Or are you arguing that DNA paternity tests are invalid? This does not follow. Science attempts to model the real world as accurately as possible. Just because some processes are complex does not mean that we should throw up our hands and surrender to ignorance. WTF? Have you heard of a thing called a "microscope"? I believe they're very popular with scientists. So if we find fingerprints at a crime scene, we can't use them in court? Why don't you try that again, only in English? Actually, on second thoughts, don't bother. You have done nothing but spout confused nonsense, I doubt that's going to change as long as you remain convinced that you are qualified to comment on matters that you patently do not understand.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi DB, Call me eccentric, but I'd love to see you answer it with an answer. Hows about you give that a go. Well good, because that would be a stupid thing to say. We have the fossils. That means we know that the pre-human hominids existed. What matters for this discussion is exactly how each was related to the group as a whole. How exactly? And why?We would not expect to see a pre-human hominid frozen in ice. They lived in Africa. A few extended as far as Southern and central Eurasia, but, as far as we know, they were not present in the far North.There is not much ice in Africa and what there is sits at the tops of mountains. There is no reason why we would expect a hominid to blunder into a frozen death like a mammoth.I wonder why creationists so frequently demand to see precisely the evidence we wouldn't expect to see.But okay; you think there should be more evidence. What do you think we should see? Exactly why should we see that? Be specific.If you can provide exacting, evidence based reasoning explaining why we ought to see more evidence of hominids, then you might start being taken seriously. If not, all you have is "Seems wrong to me.". If that is all you have, you are in the wrong thread and you should take your incredulity to the Counter-Intuitive Science thread. "Otzi the Iceman" is an anatomically modern human (albeit one with rather unusual mtDNA). It is about 5300 years old, much younger than the hominid fossil of Africa.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Oh. Great. So you're not disputing that pre-human hominids existed. Good. But now you are questioning whether they existed! And you have been told why there isn't more evidence; fossilisation is a very patchy process and we are talking about species that did not inhabit many environments suitable for fossilisation, that did not last long, that never had huge populations, and which were relatively geographically isolated. You are yet to explain what you think is wrong with this explanation beyond repeating "It just seems wrong, there should be more".Well why should there be more? Tell us exactly why we should expect to see more? Demonstrate to us how you know that there is a real shortfall in hominid fossils. How many should we expect to see (if common descent between chimps and humans were true), and why?If you can't do that, all you have is "I dunno, seems wrong.". Yes. I know. It "seems wrong" to you. You said.The thing is, that on the one hand, we have the musing of Dawn Bertot/EMA, who thinks that it "seems wrong" and on the other, we have the hundreds of fossils from ancient hominids that actually exist. Surely you can appreciate why I find your opinion to be less impressive than actual physical evidence to the contrary? It was irrelevant, both because we would not expect to see hominids preserved that way and because we do have preserved hominids; we have their fossilised remains. We may not have enough to have reached your personal threshold of proof, but since you have neglected to tell us where that threshold might lie, I am not overly concerned.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

What you can't do is pretend that the hominid fossils we do know about don't exist. We have have the fossils, thus they existed.How do you propose that the fossils got there if the creatures didn't exist? Once again, you are being absurd. Can you cite a particular specimen that you find unconvincing? Are any of those made from a pig's tooth Dawn? No?Then they existed. Please do not play silly games. As I have repeatedly asked you, how many ought there be according to your interpretation of the ToE version?Why should there be fewer than we see?The example of the passenger pigeon proves that even incredibly numerous species, with populations in the billions can disappear, leaving few fossils. Why should humans be any different?And Dawn; "million upon million"? Just how large do you think the hominid populations were? How do you know? If you can't tell us how many fossils there ought to be, you can't tell us that we see too few. Since I already addressed this and you failed to rebut, I'll just copy and paste; Note Dawn, that's 230 million years ago to 65 million years ago. If you bothered to check your facts, you might find that you get less wrong. Yes there are hominid fossils in China. No, I did not say that they were restricted to Africa.You mentioned dinosaurs. Dinosaur fossils are found in multiple regions of Africa, Eurasia, the Americas, Australia and even Antacrtica. Hominids, by comparison, are restricted to Africa and Southern Eurasia. There is no comparison here. There a too many to put on a single image! The majority of the kind of species we're taling about are only found in Africa. So far, no Australopithecine (for example) has been found outside Africa. As far as I know, the only examples found outside Africa are from the Homo genus; i.e. they are human species.Try taking a look at the wiki page for the genus Homo,, which includes this graphic representing the spread of early humans into Eurasia; Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Dawn, you are quite the most trite and empty poster we have had here in years. All you seem capable of doing is mindlessly repeating yourself. Well go and study anthropology then. I don't really care about your doubts, given that you don't know a single damn thing about what you're talking about.If you want to have your opinions taken seriously, you need to learn more. You need to bring real objections, based upon real evidence. Your undereducated opinions count for jack shit. You ask for "great numbers" and "tons" of fossils, but in actual fact, you haven't the slightest idea how many non-human Hominina fossils exist have you? Pathetic. You opine from a position of pig ignorance. How despicable.I'm done with you. All you do is repeat yourself and fail miserably in your childish attempts at wit. You have no point, you have no argument, so I'm done wasting my time on you for now.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage