Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9057 total)
225 online now:
AZPaul3, jar, MrIntelligentDesign, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle, Theodoric (7 members, 218 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,866 Year: 978/6,534 Month: 978/682 Week: 31/182 Day: 5/26 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Ephraim7
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 968 (341506)
08-19-2006 8:38 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jimfgerard
08-19-2006 7:16 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
$$How can I tell the difference between what?

The difference between type A dying first, type B dying second,
and type C dying third (and concluding "evolution"), and A dying
first, and B dying second, then C dying last, with all three
living at the same time. How can you tell the difference by
looking at the (fossil) record of death?

$$ We infer, for example, that dinosaurs didn't exist at
$$the same time as humans because there's a huge gab in
$$the fossil record between the last known dinosaur fossil
$$and the first signs of humans being around.

You are reaching that conclusion because you have not found
human remains yet. Both are circumstantial evidence, and not
a certainty.

Edited by Ephraim7, : Format incorrect

Edited by Ephraim7, : Invalid format


Herman Cummings
Ephraim7@aol.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jimfgerard, posted 08-19-2006 7:16 PM jimfgerard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jimfgerard, posted 08-19-2006 9:08 PM Ephraim7 has not yet responded
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-22-2006 1:09 AM Ephraim7 has not yet responded

jimfgerard
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 968 (341519)
08-19-2006 9:08 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ephraim7
08-19-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
Ephraim7 wrote: The difference between type A dying first, type B dying second, and type C dying third (and concluding "evolution"), and A dying first, and B dying second, then C dying last, with all three living at the same time. How can youtell the difference by looking at the (fossil) record of death? You are reaching that conclusion because you have not found human remains yet. Both are circumstantial evidence, and not a certainty.

ME: Science relies only on what is not what isn't. If human remains ever show up from the Cambrian (or even any mammal bones in fact) then you might have something, I wouldn't bet the farm on it though.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 8:38 PM Ephraim7 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by RAZD, posted 08-20-2006 10:46 PM jimfgerard has not yet responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 48 of 968 (341826)
08-20-2006 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by jimfgerard
08-19-2006 9:08 PM


some format basics
type [qs]quote boxes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:

quote boxes are easy

type [qs=Ephraim7]The difference between type A dying first ... [/qs] and it becomes:

Ephraim7 writes:

The difference between type A dying first ...

I trust you can pass this info on to Ephraim7.

Welcome to the fray.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by jimfgerard, posted 08-19-2006 9:08 PM jimfgerard has not yet responded

Aegist
Member (Idle past 2815 days)
Posts: 23
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Joined: 08-21-2006


Message 49 of 968 (341853)
08-21-2006 4:43 AM


Falsification Principles of Evolution
Getting back on topic...

This is the list as best I can gather from this thread and from Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html)

Evolution would be falsified if:
1. There was a static fossil record;
2. True chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
3. a mechanism that would prevent mutations from occuring or accumulating;
4. observations of organisms being created.
5. Fossils found out of sequence
6. Demonstrating similar species have less genetic similarity than dis-similar species; i.e. showing Chicken DNA is closer to human DNA than Chimpanzee DNA
7. Demonstrating that the Earth is not Billions of years old

Can we add to the list?


Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 8:31 PM Aegist has responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 50 of 968 (342153)
08-21-2006 8:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Aegist
08-21-2006 4:43 AM


Re: Falsification Principles of Evolution
Welcome to the fray

It is rather humorous that many of those incredulous creatortionista(1) assertions of what is missing from the visible facts (like the hopeful monster) are things that would actually falsify evolution.

Not to nitpick but (picks up nit)

7. Demonstrating that the Earth is not Billions of years old

Would not falsify evolution, just the theory of common descent from a common ancestor.

This would still allow change {in frequency of alleles} over time in species population.

We need to distinquish which {evolution} we are talking about to really answer this question properly.

Enjoy.

(1) - I use creatortionista as someone who intentionally misleads or continues to make available information that has been shown to be false


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Aegist, posted 08-21-2006 4:43 AM Aegist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Aegist, posted 08-21-2006 8:42 PM RAZD has responded

Aegist
Member (Idle past 2815 days)
Posts: 23
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Joined: 08-21-2006


Message 51 of 968 (342157)
08-21-2006 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by RAZD
08-21-2006 8:31 PM


Re: Falsification Principles of Evolution
While I agree with what you say entirely, I feel like the theory should be maintained as the complete theory UNTIl such time as evidence is presented to force a change to it.

So while showing that the earth is Billions of years old wouldn't change the fact that we have copious amounts of evidence for 'microevolution', I don't think the two attributes need to be seperated until evidence forces it to be.

At the moment all evidence points to acceptance of the complete theory. Descent with Variation under natural selection from a common ancestor billions of years ago. Any of those criteria would 'Falsify' THAT theory, and cause a revision where there would need to be forfeiture of the falsified attributes. Until such time, breaking evolutionary theory up into smaller parts seems to be inciting the creationists to act as if they must be right because we keep changing the target...

Edited by Aegist, : No reason given.


----------------------------------
http://shanegreenup.blogspot.com
www.sportsarbitrageguide.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 8:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 9:35 PM Aegist has responded

RAZD
Member (Idle past 520 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 52 of 968 (342167)
08-21-2006 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Aegist
08-21-2006 8:42 PM


Re: Falsification Principles of Evolution
But you are combining two theories there, and this is what I see as part of the definition problem.

It's not so much "micro" versus "macro" as it is being careful to talk about the {science of evolution} and the {theory(ies) of evolution}

Common descent is a theory that is based on the logical conclusion of accumulations of {change\variation} over time, and even goes beyond "macro" evolution in that regard.

Both "micro" and "macro" evolution would still be true if there were 2 or 100 or 1,000 or 10,000 species at the start, but common descent would not.

And we don't have sufficient evidence to say one way or the other. We do have some evidence to indicate that early life or proto-life shared materials and methods (as some bacteria do today), so some of the common elements we see could have come from multiple sources -- common materials rather than common descent.

We also have the problem of dead-end records, places where the spotty fossil record is just to insufficient to show where some branches started (we can guess, but that isn't knowing) and often they also went dead before any DNA etc evidence could be obtained to verify that they are on the same genetic tree.

The likelyhood is that this is so, but it could also be otherwise ...

and evolution would still be true.

Until such time, breaking evolutionary theory up into smaller parts seems to be inciting the creationists to act as if they must be right because we keep changing the target...

I prefer to think of it as keeping the focus on the actual elements of the theory -- whether "descent with variation under natural selection" or "change in species over time" or "the change in frequency of alleles in a population" or (dictionary.com definition):

ev·o·lu·tion n.
3. Biology.
- a. Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

And not being pulled off the topic by including abiogenesis or the big bang ... as creationists are wont to do.

Enjoy.


Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Aegist, posted 08-21-2006 8:42 PM Aegist has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Aegist, posted 08-21-2006 10:49 PM RAZD has responded

Aegist
Member (Idle past 2815 days)
Posts: 23
From: Sydney NSW Australia
Joined: 08-21-2006


Message 53 of 968 (342184)
08-21-2006 10:49 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by RAZD
08-21-2006 9:35 PM


Re: Falsification Principles of Evolution
Once again, i find myself agreeing with all you have said, but still feel like the core concept of Evolution is being lost if you remove the descent from a common ancestor. The very point of evolutionary theory is : How do we explain the abundance in variety of life on Earth?

Evolutionary theory can explain it, and as we can see evidence for it working around us, we hold true that the theory explains where every species on earth came from: A common ancestor. no other explanation is required to explain where Bacteria, Coral, Fish, Insects, Reptiles, Birds and Mammals came from. They came about because any organism will change over time and speciation events will occur and thus all variety in life is explained.

Without explaining the diversity of all life on earth, you are just observing what was known for long before Darwin was alive: offspring are different to their parents, and if you breed selectively you can facilitate the direction of that change. This was known intuitively for thousands of years, yet Darwin caused a revolution because he dared observe that it could apply to all life and explain everything.


----------------------------------
http://shanegreenup.blogspot.com
www.sportsarbitrageguide.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 08-21-2006 9:35 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2006 9:49 PM Aegist has responded

Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 2713 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 54 of 968 (342191)
08-21-2006 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 6:05 PM


Re: magic and mosasaurs
KingPenguin writes:

so your theory has the magical ability to change with the wind?

Scientific theories are written in pencil rather than etched in stone. This is not magic. This is the ability to accommodate new discoveries. It is a strength of science, not a weakness.

You will find that truth seekers in every field take a similar approach. All answers are provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence.

Which brings us to the gift everyone is handing you in this thread with both hands. You are actually being told ways you could go about falsifying the theory of evolution!

It's telling that, instead of taking notes and getting busy on the falsification, you choose flippancy. You mock.

Lame. You'll have to do a lot better than that if you want to send all the natural sciences back to the drawing board.

Produce a fossil mosasaur with the remains of a human in its stomach. That ought to get things rolling.

Good luck.


Archer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:05 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by AdminJar, posted 08-21-2006 11:30 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 968 (342193)
08-21-2006 11:30 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by Archer Opteryx
08-21-2006 11:26 PM


Jess a note:
You are responding to someone that stopped posting here about four years ago. Doubt you'll get a response but stranger things have happened.


Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • Proposed New (Great Debate) Topics

    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum

    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 54 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-21-2006 11:26 PM Archer Opteryx has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 57 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-22-2006 3:02 PM AdminJar has not yet responded
     Message 58 by Aegist, posted 08-22-2006 9:35 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

    Dr Adequate
    Member (Idle past 167 days)
    Posts: 16112
    Joined: 07-20-2006


    Message 56 of 968 (342228)
    08-22-2006 1:09 AM
    Reply to: Message 46 by Ephraim7
    08-19-2006 8:38 PM


    Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
    You are reaching that conclusion because you have not found
    human remains yet. Both are circumstantial evidence, and not
    a certainty.

    But don't you see that you can say that of anything? No-one has seen any flying pigs yet. This is circumstantial evidence, but, if we're going to get all philosophical about it, it doesn't provide us with certainty that they never fly.

    This is the very reason that the concept of falsification is so important. The statement "Pigs don't fly", being supported by a great mass of observations, must stand as true until falsified by a flying pig.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 46 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 8:38 PM Ephraim7 has not yet responded

    Archer Opteryx
    Member (Idle past 2713 days)
    Posts: 1811
    From: East Asia
    Joined: 08-16-2006


    Message 57 of 968 (342430)
    08-22-2006 3:02 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by AdminJar
    08-21-2006 11:30 PM


    Re: Jess a note:
    AdminJar writes:

    You are responding to someone that stopped posting here about four years ago. Doubt you'll get a response but stranger things have happened.

    Oops.

    Oh, well... either I get a response, or I get the last word, eh?


    Archer

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by AdminJar, posted 08-21-2006 11:30 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

    Aegist
    Member (Idle past 2815 days)
    Posts: 23
    From: Sydney NSW Australia
    Joined: 08-21-2006


    Message 58 of 968 (342520)
    08-22-2006 9:35 PM
    Reply to: Message 55 by AdminJar
    08-21-2006 11:30 PM


    Re: Jess a note:
    Its not always about responding to the individual. Forums are very popular in Search Engines, and I am sure far more people lurk forums and read them for information than for the goal of participation.

    When something erroneous is said, no matter who said it and no matter how long ago, for the good of the lurkers it should be set straight.


    ----------------------------------
    http://shanegreenup.blogspot.com
    www.sportsarbitrageguide.com

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 55 by AdminJar, posted 08-21-2006 11:30 PM AdminJar has not yet responded

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 520 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 59 of 968 (342528)
    08-22-2006 9:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 53 by Aegist
    08-21-2006 10:49 PM


    Re: Falsification Principles of Evolution
    ... but still feel like the core concept of Evolution is being lost if you remove the descent from a common ancestor.

    It's not, but what it is removing is the concept of an ultimate single common ancestor, a unique foci if you will, for all life, as that is not necessary to evolution.

    When you have speciation branching from one species into two species you have descent with modification, but also you do not have descent from a common ancestor -- you have descent from a common population of inter-related ancestors. You would be hard pressed to refine the data to the point where you could say {this individual} was THE common ancestor. You do have a change in the frequency of alleles in each daughter population that were in part inherited, some in common and some not, from the parent population.

    The very point of evolutionary theory is : How do we explain the abundance in variety of life on Earth?

    Descent with modification - change in species over time - change in the frequency in alleles within a population --- over time the variations that are successful increase and become more diversified until the available niches are filled, and the diversity reaches an equilibrium level (gains = losses) until the ecology shifts and a new equilibrium is sought.

    ... you are just observing what was known for long before Darwin was alive: offspring are different to their parents, and if you breed selectively you can facilitate the direction of that change. This was known intuitively for thousands of years, yet Darwin caused a revolution because he dared observe that it could apply to all life and explain everything.

    Again, this is where I think the science of evolution is being confused with the theory of evolution.

    The theory says that change happens over time, the science investigates how that change then makes predictions and uses other theories to explain the full diversity of life as we know it.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_descent

    A group of organisms is said to have common descent if they have a common ancestor. In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool.[1]

    A theory of universal common descent based on evolutionary principles was proposed by Charles Darwin in his book The Origin of Species (1859), and later in The Descent of Man (1871). This theory is now generally accepted by biologists, and the last universal common ancestor (LUCA or LUA), that is, the most recent common ancestor of all currently living organisms, is believed to have appeared about 3.5 billion years ago (see: origin of life).

    (yellow color for empHASis)

    And the idea of common ancestry was not new to Darwin either - his father (among others - see link for more) had proposed this system for all mammals.

    No, the 'revelation' was that there were more young produced than necessary, that there was the transmission of variations from generation to generation, and there was natural selection (survival of the fittest and reproduction of the chosen), and that this was sufficient to explain the diversity of life.

    The common creatortionista strawman that dog will only evolve into dogs, that they will always be dogs ... is not changed by the theory of common descent any more than it is changed by the theory of change in species over time: they will always be dogs from now on (just that given time and opportunity they will become different species of dogs, then different genera of dogs, families, etc) --- but common descent is a result of change in species over time, and it's extrapolation into the past is a theory based on the theory (and evidence) of evolution's change in species over time.

    I also have severe problems with "common ancestor" singular usage, as it has always been descent from a pool of genes, more of a "common genome", than from a single individual or couple. While we may understand this, it is not what the term conveys to the common individual. That however is a whole new topic.

    The point remains that you can falsify descent from a common ancestor and still not falsify evolution -- the only difference is that you would need to explain the abiogenesis of two (or more) branches of life instead of one. We could for instance find life on mars, using all the same building blocks as life on earth, complete with the same DNA made up of the same 20 amino acids, but no genetic markers in common with earth life. If there are {chemical\physical} reasons for the choices in materials used in building life from activated chemicals, one would expect those reasons to apply in similar situations regardless of (heh) origins.

    This could have occurred on the primordial earth as well as on another planet. When the two (or more) forms come into contact they can share, conquer or die. Personally I believe that, as eukaryotes came into being from the sharing of two prokaryote cells that the prokaryotes came into being from the sharing of more primitive forms of life. It seems illogical to me that the 'big experiment' only occurred once for all time, or that one pre-biotic replication system existed unchallenged for thousands of years before it reached the next level. That is my personal belief though, and would be another whole topic (discussed on some other threads).

    Enjoy.


    Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

    we are limited in our ability to understand
    by our ability to understand

    RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
    ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
    to share.


    This message is a reply to:
     Message 53 by Aegist, posted 08-21-2006 10:49 PM Aegist has responded

    Replies to this message:
     Message 60 by Aegist, posted 08-22-2006 10:05 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    Aegist
    Member (Idle past 2815 days)
    Posts: 23
    From: Sydney NSW Australia
    Joined: 08-21-2006


    Message 60 of 968 (342537)
    08-22-2006 10:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 59 by RAZD
    08-22-2006 9:49 PM


    Re: Falsification Principles of Evolution
    Thanks for the thorough replies. I guess I agree with all you have said now!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 59 by RAZD, posted 08-22-2006 9:49 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022