|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Evolution is Not Science | ||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: LOL, well? Since you want scientific quality evidence, I only thought it reasonable that we embark on a scientific mode of enquiry. Is the prediction that mammals evolved from reptiles born out? You tell me what those fossils will look like, Jet, then we’ll have a look. As regards not providing any transitional evidence, I only didn’t do it because you would just say no it isn’t. But, hey ho, here we go. (Species-Age-Character-Source) Fusilinid-Lepidolina multiseptata Permian Proculus diameter (Ozawa 1975) Foraminifera-Afrobolivina afra Cretaceous Megalospheric proculous (Reyment 1982b) Bivalve-Nuculites planites Ordovician Prescence of anterior fold (Bretsky & Bretsky 1976) Bivalve-Various species Miocene Shell shape (Muller,Geary,Magyar, 1999) Mammal-Micrototus pyrenaicus Pleistocene Dental charcters (Brunet-Lecomte,Thouy,Chaline 1994) Mammal-Felis idiosorensis Pleistocene Postcarnassial element (Kurten 1963) Plenty more where they come from. Also, some higher taxa transitions Skulls & stapes of early tetrapods (Acanthostega, (Pholiderpeton, (Greererpeton) (Clack 1992)/ Evolution of limb joints in early tetrapods (Fox & Bowman 1966) Reptile to mammal transitions. (Kemp 1982) (Sidor & Hopson 1998) (Romer 1966)
quote: Firstly, whether you regard microevolution as evolution as evolution, or not, is irrelevant. The scientific community makes no distinction. Macro AND microevolution is evolution. It would be more accurate to say you don’t have a problem with microevolution, just macroevolution. Small point. Regarding macroevolution being unobserved & therefore unscientific is a bit disingenuous. You cannot observe electrons, protons, neutrons, or gravity, for that matter, are they unscientific? No, Ionic & covalent bonding is unobservable, yet we can observe evidence to infer these things exist/occur. As regards testing, The ToE is based on a collection of evidences. Take transitional/intermediate fossils for example. They are tested when various character traits are seen to progress over time, in various like fossils/traits fall between taxa. Obviously a falsification of whether a transitional/intermediate is exactly that, would be that the progressive transition didn’t occur/traits DON’T fall between taxa. A powerful falsification of the ToE would have been that no molecular phylogenies match, compared to a prediction that they should be congruent. In both cases the evidence & ToE is being tested
quote: Evolution is based on heritable mutation. So evolution has to wait one full generation before starting. Abiogenesis - one generation-evolution. How can evolution start before that one generation interval?
quote: See above. Evolution says NOTHING about creation/abiogenesis. It is disingenuous to conflate them.
quote: Well, how does it? There are more knowledgeable people than me fossil hominids, I’ll leave whether your fossils are interpreted correctly or not to them. But the point remains, you have fossils that don’t support evolution, they don’t contradict it either! If I gave you some fish bones & chicken bones, presumably you’ leap into the air claiming evolution never happened! What are those fossils POSITIVE evidence of?
quote: What ARE you waffling about? YOU said that discoveries had been made that disprove the ToE. We aren’t discussing my evidences for evolution, but YOUR evidences against it. Unfortunately you find yourself in the position where you have to provide positive evidence, not me. Can you?
quote: Moving the goalposts again? Positive evidence that diasproves the ToE, you said it existed. Show it.
quote: quote: I fail to see how your answer explains Evidence #7. Social & practical inconsistencies? Definition of natural selection - Any consistent difference in fitness (i.e. survival & reproduction) among phenotypically different biological entities. (Evolutionary Biology. D.J Futuyma 3rd Ed pp349). Experimental verification. NS on mutations in beta-galactosidase gene of Escherichia Coli (Dean et al 1986) Changes in frequencies of chromosome inversions in Drosophila pseudoobscura (after Dobzhansky 1970 1948) Elimination of mutant allele white in Drosophila melanogaster (Wallace 1968) Camouflage in Poecilia reticulata in & out of predatorial Crenicichla populated waters.( Endler 1980) To name but four. Now, let’s not get off topic, please explain how natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.
quote: I DO disagree, especially after you have been shown to be wrong experimentally.
quote: Bullshit. The flood doesn’t explain the fossil record at all. I even gave you some examples of WHY it didn’t. Tell you what, you present where fossils SHOULD be in the GC, & WHY, then you might have a point. May I remind you, YOU are presenting disproofs of the ToE, not me. You need to provide the evidence that the gc & fossil deposition is actually not what mainstream science expects. Polystrate fossils have been perfectly explained by mainstream geology. In fact they present more of a problem to the flood scenario. See last post. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with. [This message has been edited by mark24, 06-17-2002]
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying gravitational theory. Five examples should do it. Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying the existence of electrons (after their acceptance). Five examples should do it. etc. etc. Falsifications of theories do not have to be actively sought after. If a falsification is discovered at a later date, then the theory has to be revised/rejected. Or are you saying the ToE isn't science because those deliberate attempts weren't made? Thare have been MANY opportunities for the falsification of the ToE to have been borne out, it's not sciences fault only the predictions are. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/dave_matson/young-earth/geologic_column/out-of-place.html 'Polystrate' trees show every sign of extremely rapid burial, generally when rivers flood over their banks.(Eldredge, 1982, p.105) An example of this very thing is given by Dunbar and Waage (Dunbar & Waage, 1969, p.52). They show a photo of the Yahtse River area in Alaska, which depicts a number of upright, brokenoff stumps stripped of most of their branches. The taller stumps poke out above the alluvial mud. This is the result of natural processes accompanying river course change. A couple of pages later we find a photograph showing how trees can be buried fairly quickly in another way. In this case, volcanic ash has partially buried a forest whose trees are mostly reduced to brokenoff stumps stripped of their branches. Continuing volcanic eruptions over a period of years (dead trees last a long time!) and the interaction with wind would create variations in the strata which finally bury the stumps. In some cases, burial might well be less than instantaneous. In the San Francisco area fossils of cedar and redwood (dated at 23,000 years) are found in place 20 feet below present sea level. This may be due to a rising sea level from melting ice-caps. (Encyclopedia Americana, 1978 Annual [Geology].) A similar find exists off the coast of Japan where remnants of a forest of willows and alders are found in 70 feet of water. They are some 10,000 years old (Chorlton, 1984, p.90). Thus, we have polystrate fossils in the making, without the aid of Noah's flood. That’s polystrate fossils in the making, mate, via two different mechanisms. Now YOU explain how fossil forests, rooted in paleosols appear all through the gc. I wish you luck. BTW, I’m still waiting for your positive evidence that disproves evolution. Also, Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying gravitational theory. Five examples should do it. Show me the raw scientific data made towards falsifying the existence of electrons (after their acceptance). Five examples should do it. Or have you given up on that? Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5226 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
Schraf,
Not that you need any help, heres a phylogeny showing genera only. The actual number of fossil species belonging to the Equidae number over 200. The reason, should Blitz ask, is why genera only are shown, is that there ARE TOO MANY FOSSIL SPECIES TO FIT IN ONE DIAGRAM!! Gaps, indeed.
Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024