Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,821 Year: 3,078/9,624 Month: 923/1,588 Week: 106/223 Day: 4/13 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   1 piece of evidence to disprove evolution..
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 85 (50530)
08-14-2003 10:20 AM


Hi, I'm merely curious as to how one would actually disprove evolution ( as opposed to creationism ).
Simply put, I dont have the neccesary knowlege to disprove anything really as
1. I dont have a degree in Geology forinstance, or in microbiology etc.
2. I really dont have the time to get a degree just so I can have a discussion
However I'm merely curious as to what it would take to change an evolutionists mind ? Personally I find the avian evolution theory very suspect, however I'm wondering what would be the consequences if someone could provide one foolproof piece of evidence to disprove evolution, would that mean everyone would disbelieve evolution, or would there be some theory on the anomaly, would it inspire a new theory (similar to evolution) or would everyone actually just abandon their beliefs ?
I've heard explanations for the Big bang and many other explantions, however unless one can reproduce those events, I dont see how it can be proved ? I mean, surely its all hypothetical in any case ?
Anyway, hope to hear some opinions.
[This message has been edited by Zealot, 08-14-2003]
{Note from Adminnemooseus - A simular topic (now closed) can be found at "Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution"}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 08-15-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by MrHambre, posted 08-14-2003 10:36 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 4 by Quetzal, posted 08-14-2003 10:46 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-14-2003 10:47 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 79 by Jesusfreak, posted 10-06-2003 12:36 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 85 by Chiroptera, posted 10-09-2003 8:23 PM Zealot has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 2 of 85 (50532)
08-14-2003 10:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zealot
08-14-2003 10:20 AM


You hear a lot about PreCambrian rabbits and other such anomalies, but that's the sort of thing that can cause a shift in timelines as opposed to falsifying a theory.
The real evidence against evolution should come from the place we now have copious amounts of data: molecular biology. If you could prove that traits are not hereditary, evolution certainly would collapse. Similarly, if you could prove that differential reproductive success had no bearing on the frequency of alleles in a population, evolution is quite simply a goner.
You may be interested to read this post where I answered an identical question to the one you're asking.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 10:20 AM Zealot has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 3 of 85 (50534)
08-14-2003 10:40 AM


quote:
Hi, I'm merely curious as to how one would actually disprove evolution ( as opposed to creationism ).
Simply put, I dont have the neccesary knowlege to disprove anything really as
1. I dont have a degree in Geology forinstance, or in microbiology etc.
2. I really dont have the time to get a degree just so I can have a discussion
However I'm merely curious as to what it would take to change an evolutionists mind ?
Mouse bones in fossilised dinosaur turds. Grass in a fossilised diplodocus stomach. Rabbits in a Cambrian deposit. Dimetrodon bones with marks from human butchering. Lots of possible observations that would really screw evolutionary theory.
quote:
Personally I find the avian evolution theory very suspect,
Why?
quote:
however I'm wondering what would be the consequences if someone could provide one foolproof piece of evidence to disprove evolution, would that mean everyone would disbelieve evolution
Of course it would. We don't go around believing things we know aren't true. Some Fundamentalist Christians seem to want me to, but it doesn't work that way for me.
quote:
or would there be some theory on the anomaly, would it inspire a new theory (similar to evolution) or would everyone actually just abandon their beliefs ?
It depends on exactly what the falsification was. The new theory would have to explain the existing evidence, and the anomoly.
quote:
I've heard explanations for the Big bang and many other explantions, however unless one can reproduce those events, I dont see how it can be proved ? I mean, surely its all hypothetical in any case ?
You do not need to be able to reproduce things to develop models of them, or draw scientific conclusions.
Hypothesis and theory are not the same thing. Hypothetical means "guesswork" to you here, I imagine. There's a lot more than guesswork going on here. Unless you imagine that all those people in prison, convicted on forensic evidence, are there purely on guesswork? We have theories. We also have hypotheses. We're very clear on which are which.
quote:
Anyway, hope to hear some opinions.
Glad to oblige.

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 12:25 PM Karl has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5873 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 4 of 85 (50538)
08-14-2003 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zealot
08-14-2003 10:20 AM


My opinion is that if we started consistently finding complex vertebrates (like humans, or I'd settle for field mice) in Proterozoic strata, the ToE is seriously in trouble. A single instance, otoh, might be an anomaly or contamination, but multiple finds from around the world would be a major problem. Uncontrovertable experimental or field observations of pre-adaptation would force a major revision in how we think evolution works, but might not cause the theory's downfall (although it'd be pretty revolutionary). Non-natural artefacts - like unknown metals or other stuff - discovered in the pre-Cambrian might cause serious problems for most of our abiogensis ideas (i.e., life may NOT have evolved here In the Beginning), but wouldn't necessarily have any impact on the ToE (life may have diversified naturally in accordance with RM&NS after being seeded).
Just a couple of random thoughts. I'd be curious as to what you were referring when you said, "Personally I find the avian evolution theory very suspect." What is suspect about it to the point you feel it calls into question the ToE? Even if we have a particular lineage wrong wouldn't necessarily imply anything about the ToE - just that particular lineage. Besides, it's very difficult to tell what fossil critter is directly ancestral to another. Mostly, we can tell that it's a cousin, uncle, sister, etc, species. Not often parent-child (witness the on-going and often acrimonious arguments over the placement of various hominid fossil finds in the ancestral lineage leading to modern humans).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 10:20 AM Zealot has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 85 (50539)
08-14-2003 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Zealot
08-14-2003 10:20 AM


I suggest that if you want to talk about cosmology rather than evolution you do so in a different thread.
The first thing to note is that evolution covers a lot of things (e.g. common descent and natural selection) so one piece of evidence is not necessarily going to disprove all of it.
The second thing to note is that science does not place much reliance on single data points or anecdotes. If you want to overthrow any estblished theory you need really good evidence.
Since you some to take the typical Biblical literalist view here's one suggestion. If the geological and fossil record really reflected a recent creation followed by a world wide flood a few thousand years ago then evolution would never have got started and a literal reading of the Bible would still be the accepted view.
That would entail finding almost no fossils, or those that we do find are mainly in a global layer of rapidly deposited material. That those fossils - or the unfossilised or partially fossilised remains - were almost entirely of recognisable modern life. And that those remains are found in an order that can reasonably be explained by the dynamics of a flood. That is a long way from what we actually have found.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 10:20 AM Zealot has not replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 6 of 85 (50567)
08-14-2003 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Karl
08-14-2003 10:40 AM


Hi, firstly my stance.
Currently I'm not sure about what I believe RE Evolution vs Creation.
I am a Christian, however I've pretty much grown up with the belief (TV, biology etc) that evolution is a part of life etc. I merely assumed that Time was nor relative to God, IE: 14 Billion Year is virtually equal to 3 seconds when the common denominator is infinity.
More specifically I dont understand, and haven't been able to find creditable information on Avian Evolution.
Basically my opinion of Evolution (leymans terms) is that an organism experiences a mutation of some sort, which enables it to receive some sort of benefit for survival and producing offspring AND giving those offspring an improved chance at survival.
Avian evolution I just dont grasp. Essentially this would have been a specie that experienced a mutation that would not have enabled it to fly, more likely that not hampered its development ? Simply put the very first organism to have a mutation would have had to received some sort of benefit to survive no ? Surely this mutation would have been so miniscule that it couldn't have been an advantage, more likely it would have been a disadvantage ? I have heard the theories of gliding monkeys and squirrels, however that surely would have implied that all monkeys should be able to fly (same for squirrels) as they would have had a better change of survival than other monkeys/squirrels ?
Considering the extreme complexity of a bird's wings, I cant see the progression from a squirrel / bird creature with essentialy useless limbs for wings ...
PS, should this be moved to a seperate topic ?
thanks

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Karl, posted 08-14-2003 10:40 AM Karl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Karl, posted 08-14-2003 12:40 PM Zealot has replied
 Message 9 by Percy, posted 08-14-2003 1:03 PM Zealot has not replied

  
Karl
Inactive Member


Message 7 of 85 (50571)
08-14-2003 12:40 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Zealot
08-14-2003 12:25 PM


It probably should be a seperate topic.
First - a quick Latin lesson. The singular of species is species. 'Specie' is not a word used in Biology, but is found in coinage. It's a minor thing I know, but (a) it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about and (b) it irritates me no end.
Moving on - the suggestion, as I understand it, is that feathers are the first stage. Feathers do not just enable flight - birds are covered with them, not just on their wings. They insulate. And this may have been their primary function.
The fact that fossil birds (e.g. Archaeopteryx) with fully functional wings still have functional claws on those wings gives a clue to the further evolution. The forelimbs were just that, albeit feathered (for insulation). In the same way as flying squirrels have done, it is not hard to envisage an arboreal reptile developing a gliding ability. From there, any modification - such as large 'flight' feathers such as those on a birds wing - that assist in gliding, in this case by massively increasing the area of the flight surface whilst adding little to weight, is going to be a benefit.
Since we are talking about gliding, these feathers do not need to be the highly specialised flight feathers of flying birds. But again, these, dependent on the barb and hook mechanism, are not hard to explain. If you are extending a gliding surface by putting feathers on the trailing edge, anything that makes the 'veins' of your feather stick together a bit is going to be of benefit, because it improves the air resistance.
This is conjecture; it may not have happened this way. But it demonstrates there is at least one way it can happen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 12:25 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Wounded King, posted 08-14-2003 12:59 PM Karl has not replied
 Message 10 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 8:28 PM Karl has not replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 8 of 85 (50577)
08-14-2003 12:59 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Karl
08-14-2003 12:40 PM


There is a 'top down' theory based on gliding and a 'bottom-up' theory based on using the proto-wing for extra propulsion when running.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Karl, posted 08-14-2003 12:40 PM Karl has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 9 of 85 (50578)
08-14-2003 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Zealot
08-14-2003 12:25 PM


Hi Zealot!
We have a huge amount of evidence that evolution happens. Demonstrating that evolution doesn't happen just doesn't seem conceivable.
Some Creationists argue that evolution across a "kind" boundary isn't possible, but there is no evidence supporting this position. The argument can still go round and round on this topic, but primarily only because Creationists insist on talking about "kinds", a non-scientific term for which Creationists supply no clear defintion, while science talks about species, a much more definitive term that nonetheless has some gray areas. When evolutionists point to a speciation event, Creationists reply that it is still the same kind, and evolutionists cannot point to any observed speciation event so dramatic as to counter this claim, primarily, they explain, because there hasn't been enough time since Darwin. But most significantly, Creationists are unable to point to any genetic barrier preventing change beyond a certain limit. Errors during the reproductive process are inevitable, and errors that aren't fatal or too disadvantageous accumulate with time.
So the bottom line is that not only does evolution happen, and this is conceded by most Creationists, but there is no evidence for any barrier limiting evolutionary change. In other words, the odds of falsifying the acceptance within the scientific community of the occurrence of evolution is very close to nil.
But you're focusing on another aspect of evolution, this historical aspect. Taking avian evolution as an example, even though the fossil evidence makes clear that evolution happened, the fossil record is still only a partial and very incomplete record, and so any reconstruction of past evolutionary events is likely to contain a great deal of speculation, and hence be very open and amenable to change in light of finding even just a single new fossil, or even due to modest reinterpretations of existing fossils. The difficulties of reconstructing evolutionary history from fossils and other data has no bearing on whether evolution happens. Someone could come along and completely revamp all our ideas about avian evolution tomorrow, and it wouldn't affect acceptance of evolution and natural selection as the driving force of change one iota.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 12:25 PM Zealot has not replied

  
Zealot
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 85 (50612)
08-14-2003 8:28 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Karl
08-14-2003 12:40 PM


HI
It probably should be a seperate topic.
First - a quick Latin lesson. The singular of species is species. 'Specie' is not a word used in Biology, but is found in coinage. It's a minor thing I know, but (a) it makes you sound like you don't know what you're talking about and (b) it irritates me no end.
My sincerest appologies. As for me not knowing what I'm talking about, quite possibly. It's pretty much why I entered the site. I realise alot of people on this site prefer to use as complicated vernacular as possibly. Perhaps it makes them sound more educated and me stupid. Either way, hope my 'leymanicity' doesn't annoy you too much
Moving on - the suggestion, as I understand it, is that feathers are the first stage. Feathers do not just enable flight - birds are covered with them, not just on their wings. They insulate. And this may have been their primary function.
I've pretty much read these theories, however recall reading that there is a distinct difference between insulating and flight feathers, so the two couldn't really be compared.
The fact that fossil birds (e.g. Archaeopteryx) with fully functional wings still have functional claws on those wings gives a clue to the further evolution. The forelimbs were just that, albeit feathered (for insulation).
I havent seen that fossil , but I'll check it out, thanks.
In the same way as flying squirrels have done, it is not hard to envisage an arboreal reptile developing a gliding ability. From there, any modification - such as large 'flight' feathers such as those on a birds wing - that assist in gliding, in this case by massively increasing the area of the flight surface whilst adding little to weight, is going to be a benefit.
This is where I have difficulty in understanding. The wing would prove pretty much useless unless it aided as a means of flight or temportal flight. I dont particularly see a feathered creature without any of these abilities, have any advantage over any other feathered creatures, infact I see any feathered animal with 2 less limbs at a distinct disadvantage. It would be fine if you assumed that a mutation would result in a massive advantage to the organism ( as in gliding abilities ), however if you've ever looked at complexity of a wing, its incredibly sophisticated. Any malformation would result in the bird unable to fly. I just dont see a small mutation increasing the feathered animal's ability to glide/fly.
Since we are talking about gliding, these feathers do not need to be the highly specialised flight feathers of flying birds. But again, these, dependent on the barb and hook mechanism, are not hard to explain. If you are extending a gliding surface by putting feathers on the trailing edge, anything that makes the 'veins' of your feather stick together a bit is going to be of benefit, because it improves the air resistance.
I see what you're saying, and I am trying to picture it from a 'flying squirrels' perspective, however any mutation would have to be significant enough for the animal to actually have an advantage right ? Also you didn't answer my question about why flying squirrels didn't replace normal squirrels ?
Forinstance take a rat, Small animal. I imagine a rat jumping from tree to tree however I just cant conceptualise a small mutation that would allow this rat even to glide. It would actually have to be a rather large mutation surely ? I mean literally something that would give this animal instant gliding ?
This is conjecture; it may not have happened this way. But it demonstrates there is at least one way it can happen. #
Well no I realise that, and I've read about both the up-down and the down-up theories, however I really fail to be able to conceptualise it (hehe, especially the down-up theory). From what I've read it seems pretty much like a 'unknown' area of evolution. For instance it still leaves me to wonder about the dragon fly, butter fly etc. Surely those creatures had no need to glide ?
In any case. thanks for your input. I think there is a new theory on this, which is suppose to be an improvement, so I'll give that a read.
cheers

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Karl, posted 08-14-2003 12:40 PM Karl has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by Coragyps, posted 08-14-2003 8:58 PM Zealot has not replied
 Message 12 by MrHambre, posted 08-14-2003 10:12 PM Zealot has not replied
 Message 13 by John, posted 08-15-2003 1:31 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 14 by mark24, posted 08-15-2003 5:10 AM Zealot has not replied
 Message 15 by Percy, posted 08-15-2003 10:20 AM Zealot has replied

  
Coragyps
Member (Idle past 735 days)
Posts: 5553
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002


Message 11 of 85 (50618)
08-14-2003 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Zealot
08-14-2003 8:28 PM


Re: HI
As for small changes that make creatures "fly", or at least glide: there's a species of snake in SE Asia that has a flattish body, and is able to flatten itself a fair bit more - flexible rib joints, I guess. It will drop from a tree, 10 meters up or so, and by flattening and writhing make itself into enough of an airfoil to land 12 or 15 meters away from the tree. A pretty handy escape mechanism, or even a hunting move, eh? And with only minimal modification, at least to a casual observer like me. Now, why can't tiny improvements in that trait be passed on, and lead to better fliers? Flatness doesn't seem that useful to a snake otherwise, unless it's for sneaking under doors....
I'll dig out references/links if anyone wants them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 8:28 PM Zealot has not replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 12 of 85 (50619)
08-14-2003 10:12 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Zealot
08-14-2003 8:28 PM


Zealot,
I thought your aim in starting this thread was to find out what evidence would 'disprove' evolution. Our responses, I hope, have made it clear that heritable variation and natural selection are the driving forces behind evolution. The fact that there are plausible pathways based on step-by-step improvements to establish the evolution of flight should demonstrate that these 'mutations' that you question are the observed reality of evolution.
You say about a dozen times that you 'can't see' or 'fail to conceptualize' some detail or other, but is that the fault of descent with modification? Or is it some desire on your part to debunk the theory of evolution by natural selection?
Please offer some evidence that these changes are not in fact heritable, or that natural selection cannot preserve advantageous variants, if you want to cast the theory of evolution into doubt. Otherwise realize that the cumulative effect of these changes is responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.
------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerto es el Rey.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 8:28 PM Zealot has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 85 (50630)
08-15-2003 1:31 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Zealot
08-14-2003 8:28 PM


Re: HI
quote:
The wing would prove pretty much useless unless it aided as a means of flight or temportal flight.
Or added some other advantage-- such as allowing a predator to gain a wee bit more speed or jump just a little bit farther.
quote:
Any malformation would result in the bird unable to fly. I just dont see a small mutation increasing the feathered animal's ability to glide/fly.
Why not? Take it out of context to get a new perspective. Think about cats. Cats can survive falls from incredible heights-- note... survive, not survive unharmed. Please don't throw cats off skyscrapers. They do this by spreading themselves out like little kites. It slows their fall. If cats were in an environment where the danger of such falls were high-- say, a feral population living on cliffs-- those that manage this gliding/parachuting trick best would have an advantage. Why couldn't a small mutation alter fur texture and slow the falling cat just a bit more? From 60mph down to 58mph? Maybe that isn't much, but when you are living on the edge, any edge is an edge, right?
quote:
I dont particularly see a feathered creature without any of these abilities, have any advantage over any other feathered creatures, infact I see any feathered animal with 2 less limbs at a distinct disadvantage.
Wings aren't lost limbs. Winged creatures still have four limbs.
But on the subject of lost limbs, ever see a T-Rex skeleton? Note those tiny little arms. They are about as functional as your hands would be if they were attatched directly to your nipples. Snakes do quite well with no limbs at all, and have done quite well for about 130 million years. The 'loss of limbs isn't advantageous' approach doesn't work. Other creatures have lost limbs, and it has worked.
quote:
I see what you're saying, and I am trying to picture it from a 'flying squirrels' perspective, however any mutation would have to be significant enough for the animal to actually have an advantage right ?
For the mutation to be 'set' in the population, yes. But it doesn't have to be a big advantage. Think of it these terms. In an Olympic level competition, the difference between first place and fourth place is usually a matter of 1 or 2 percent.
quote:
Also you didn't answer my question about why flying squirrels didn't replace normal squirrels ?
Why would they? Flying squirrels don't have to be somehow better than all other squirrels. They just have to be good enough to survive in their particular environment.
quote:
I mean literally something that would give this animal instant gliding ?
Think about the cats. Really, it is the same situation.
quote:
For instance it still leaves me to wonder about the dragon fly, butter fly etc. Surely those creatures had no need to glide ?
Ever seen a small bug in the wind? Think about this. If you are a small animal you may need wings to control the flying, not to initiate it.
You may be interested in...
http://www.enchantedlearning.com/...inos/Archaeopteryx.shtml
What Good is Half a Wing [Shortened long link. --Admin]
http://www.geocities.com/RainForest/2421/evolve.htm
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
[This message has been edited by Admin, 08-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 8:28 PM Zealot has not replied

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 14 of 85 (50634)
08-15-2003 5:10 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Zealot
08-14-2003 8:28 PM


Re: HI
Zealot,
I've pretty much read these theories, however recall reading that there is a distinct difference between insulating and flight feathers, so the two couldn't really be compared.
Why couldn't a wing evolve without flight feathers, just insulating feathers? Further evolution could then co-opt the feathers for flight. A wing doesn't need flight feathers. Another possibility is that stiff feathers that were more "co-optable" evolved to attract a mate, large colouful surfaces? Possibly a combination of both.
As MrHambre points out, this thread is about evidence that would falsify evolution. Not having data that shows a sep by step scale to flight feather evolution is hardly a contender, when all the evidence actually does point to feathers having evolved from scales (feather development is controlled by the same loci as scales in reptiles, I remember reading somewhere), & that birds did evolve from reptiles.
The wing would prove pretty much useless unless it aided as a means of flight or temportal flight.
There is a grouse like game bird (I forget which species, it was mentioned in the London Natural History Museum, London's display of bird evolution) who's chicks use their wings as a means of speed increase, & as an aid to overcoming small obstacles (before they can fly, obviously).
Mark
------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."
[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-15-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 8:28 PM Zealot has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 15 of 85 (50644)
08-15-2003 10:20 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by Zealot
08-14-2003 8:28 PM


Re: HI
Hi Zealot!
You began this thread by asking, "However I'm merely curious as to what it would take to change an evolutionists mind?", and you then raised the issue of avian evolution. Even if you showed that current views of the evolution of avian flight were all wrong, it would not affect the acceptance of the theory of evolution by the scientific community one bit. Falsifying reconstructions of evolutionary history has no impact on the theory of evolution. These reconstructions are merely the interpretation of the fossil record within an evolutionary framework, and given the paucity of fossil evidence there is much speculation involved.
In other words, you're taking the wrong tack. Evolution has been observed in the wild and in laboratory experiments such as with fruit flies and bacteria. How are you going to falsify observation?
As I explained in Message 9, nearly all Creationists accept evolution. They even accept one species evolving into another. What they reject is one kind evolving into another.
So you're going to have to clarify your question. Are you really asking what would "disprove evolution?" Or are you really only asking how one would disprove current speculations about evolutionary history like avian evolution? They're not the same thing. The former is unlikely in the extreme, while the latter is, in my opinion, the opposite.
I realise alot of people on this site prefer to use as complicated vernacular as possibly. Perhaps it makes them sound more educated and me stupid. Either way, hope my 'leymanicity' doesn't annoy you too much
The baseword you're looking for is "layman".
As Mark Twain apparently did not say, "When I was a boy of fourteen, my father was so ignorant I could hardly stand to have the old man around. But when I got to be twenty-one, I was astonished at how much the old man had learned in seven years." In other words, learning doesn't stop at 14. The other members here are not 14-year olds with bigger dictionaries. The only member I can think of who purposefully tried to use big words he didn't understand (badly, I might add) was a Creationist.
--Percy
PS: Mark Twain also apparently didn't say, "It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt." Neither did Abraham Lincoln. Some of the best sayings apparently sprang from nowhere.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Zealot, posted 08-14-2003 8:28 PM Zealot has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Zealot, posted 08-15-2003 12:12 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024