Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,838 Year: 3,095/9,624 Month: 940/1,588 Week: 123/223 Day: 2/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 301 of 968 (593460)
11-27-2010 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 8:07 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Kaichos Man writes:
What an absolute crock. Take a look around at the millions of fossils that are forming right now. And then think that, according to evolution, we've had lakes and rivers and oceans and snow and wind for millions of years with thousands of deluges and floods of varying intensity and expanse. We would be up to our freaking armpits in transitional fossils- if evolution was true.
As others have pointed out, all your arguments depend upon fossilization being a commonplace event, so let me ask you, when you're out taking a walk in the woods do you find it very annoying to be tripping over all the deer, raccoon, squirrel, chipmunk and bird skeletons in the process of fossilizing?
By the way, about Haldane's Dilemma that you mentioned earlier, Wikipedia describes what has been known for about a half century:
Wikipedia writes:
Haldane stated at the time of publication "I am quite aware that my conclusions will probably need drastic revision", and subsequent corrected calculations found that the cost disappears.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 8:07 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-28-2010 6:55 AM Percy has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 302 of 968 (593462)
11-27-2010 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 8:07 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Wow, that's great, Fraco. So there's no more need for punctuated equilibrium? That's a relief. As theories go, it was a real dog anyway.
If there is some lie that you would like to tell about punctuated equilibrium, perhaps you could have the guts to tell it outright.
Making cryptic allusions to standard creationists errors will not be informative except to those of us already familiar with the ritual lies of creationists.
What an absolute crock. Take a look around at the millions of fossils that are forming right now.
* takes a good look around, giggles *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 8:07 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(1)
Message 303 of 968 (593464)
11-27-2010 9:42 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 7:35 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Kaichos Man writes:
You see, if it was science, it would be quite straightforward. But your dealing with faith here. The religion of atheism.
Why do you continue to post things you know are false and have been refuted over and over again?
The Theory of Evolution has no connection to either Atheism or Faith and you have been shown conclusive evidence that falsifies that assertion.
In case you have a short term memory problem I once again refer you to the Clergy Project Letter where over 13,000 Clergy endorse the Theory of Evolution.
It appears that you really don't understand falsification at all.
For example, a documented case of Special Creation would falsify the Theory of Evolution, but of course, no such event has ever been placed in evidence. Your example (in addition to simply misrepresenting the facts) does not. You even admit in your post that some examples of transitional fossils exist.
I understand that your normal tactic is classic hit-n-run and not to engage in honest discussion and fully expect to see you return in the future and once again make the claim that Evolution is an Atheist religion.
It is a shame that a culture of Ethics seems foreign to you.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 7:35 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 9:53 AM jar has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 304 of 968 (593465)
11-27-2010 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 293 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 7:35 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Result: The fossil record shows only a handful of (highly disputed, even among evolutionists) transitional species.
But you see, that's not a result. That's a lie.
Now, there is nothing in the theory of evolution that predicts that creationists won't lie. Indeed, it is a minor corollary of the theory that anyone who needs to defend creationism will pretty much have to lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 293 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 7:35 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 305 of 968 (593467)
11-27-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 303 by jar
11-27-2010 9:42 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
jar writes:
Why do you continue to post things you know are false and have been refuted over and over again?
The Theory of Evolution has no connection to either Atheism or Faith and you have been shown conclusive evidence that falsifies that assertion.
No offense meant, but that is off-topic and just a rabbit hole for KM to lure you into.
There are more than enough on-topic errors to address first.
Edited by Panda, : tyops

This message is a reply to:
 Message 303 by jar, posted 11-27-2010 9:42 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 306 by jar, posted 11-27-2010 9:55 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 395 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 306 of 968 (593468)
11-27-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 305 by Panda
11-27-2010 9:53 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Read the rest of the post. I use it as a stepping stone to describe what would be falsification and as an example of actual falsification.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 305 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 9:53 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 286 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 307 of 968 (593469)
11-27-2010 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 4:23 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Hm. Lack of fossil evidence of transitional species? No. That was covered by the alibi -sorry, theory- of punctuated equilibrium. A small subpopulation becomes sexually isolated, madly mutates into a superior organism, breaks out of its isolation, outcompetes and replaces its predecessor.
Hang on, though, aren't the mutations necessary for this frantic evolution mathematically more likely to occur in the larger, unisolated population? What's that? Stick my fingers in my ears and say "La-la, la-la"?
Why on earth would I do that?
Okay. Let's try something else. How about the problem of unicellular to multicellular?
Let's see- we have unicellular creatures by the number, even a few bicellular (mainly yeast). Next step up the ladder is eight-celled, but they're parasites who do not yet have a host so they don't count in the ascent of life. Next step up is twenty-two celled. So we have to believe that life jumped unaided from two to twenty-two cells, or that there were intermediate creatures that have since become extinct (despite the fact that their simplicity made them very durable) without leaving any fossil trace at all.
What's that? Again with the La-la!
Dear me, this is harder than I thought. What about the non-existence of the Trilobyte's ancestor?
Oh, that's right- they were "soft-bodied", and didn't leave any fossils. Funny, though, I mean there were plenty of soft-bodied creatures that preceded the Trilobyte that did leave fossils, and Trilobytes are so plentiful you'd think we'd find at least one of their forefathers. Come to think of it, why would a segmented creature with multiple limbs be soft-bodied?
Oh, I forgot. The theory required it. That is so much more important than concrete evidence.
Dear me, what to do.
Invertebrate to vertebrate? Exoskeletal, dorsal respiratory system, ventral nervous system to endo skeletal, dorsal nervous system and ventral respiratory system without so much as a suggestion of fossil evidence for all of these amazing transitions?
La-la? >sigh<
Cold-blooded to warm-blooded? Even though a warm-blooded creature requires 10 times as much food as a cold-blooded creature? And in turn the creature needs to be warm-blooded in order to gather 10 times as much food? So in order to become warm-blooded you have to already be warm blooded?
La-la? Thought so.
The chance assembly of a single reproducing genome? 1 to 10 followed by 4,200 zeros? And that's not counting a cell membrane, protoplasm, organelles, mitochondria, plasmids etc?
La-la? La-la-la-la-la?
Im afraid you are right, Wounded King. The Theory of Evolution cannot be falsified. Because every time it is, the leak will be plugged with some idiotically improbable just-so story.
What we are dealing with here is FAITH, not science. The theory of evolution is the doctrine of atheism, and atheism is very much a religion.
You can't falsify Faith. Believe me, I know.
The prediction that any attempt to defend creationism will be ignorant, stupid, dishonest, or all three simultaneously is once again confirmed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 4:23 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

frako
Member (Idle past 307 days)
Posts: 2932
From: slovenija
Joined: 09-04-2010


Message 308 of 968 (593470)
11-27-2010 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 296 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 8:07 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
We would be up to our freaking armpits in transitional fossils- if evolution was true.
No we would be up to our freaking armpits in all manner of fossils if your teory of how fossils form and what fossils are where true.
In most cases, the fossilization process began when a plant or animal died and was quickly covered with sediments, usually at the bottom of a body of water. The loose sediments protected the bodily remains from the elements, bacteria and other forces that cause weathering and decay. This slowed the decaying process down so that some of the remains (in most cases, only hard material like bone or shell) were preserved for thousands of years. During this time, sediment layers continued to collect above the bone. Eventually, these sediment layers became hard, solid rock.
Sometime after this hard rock layer formed, water percolated down through the rock and washed the preserved remains away. Since the rock above was hard and rigid, it didn't fall down into the empty space where the remains used to be. This empty space formed a natural mold of the animal, perfectly preserving the shape of the original remains.
In some cases, percolating water carried minerals into the mold. These minerals hardened to make a natural cast of the form, just as an artist might make a sculpture cast by filling a mold with plaster. All the original organic material disappeared, but nature left a precise mineral reproduction of the plant or animal remains. In cases where minerals did not fill the mold, paleontologists may fill it themselves, creating an artificial cast.
from What is a fossil? | HowStuffWorks
This is one of the ways fossils form, Fossils are not what some creationists think "Stuff covered by something simmilar to rock" Sorry the Stuff hasto decompose/get washed away later, and get filled whit other materials usualy some form of mineral.
You where probably shown some pitcures on some creationist site. The pitcures showed hats, water mills, the insides of a washing machine , and other stuff covered by limestone or something simmilar and they called them fossils and said well this one formed in 20 years sorry those are not fossils.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.
Edited by frako, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 8:07 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22394
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 309 of 968 (593472)
11-27-2010 10:17 AM


A Note on Kaichos Man
I took a quick look back at Kaichos Man's participation here, and his pattern is to participate for a week or two followed by a long hiatus of from weeks to months. He repeats the same arguments each time he returns as if he did not remember that on his prior visits he had abandoned discussions on the exact same topics. Don't get too invested, he'll be gone soon as part of his periodic amnesia process.
--Percy

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9077
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 310 of 968 (593473)
11-27-2010 10:22 AM
Reply to: Message 292 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 7:17 AM


It burns!!!!
Because I'm assuming that the prospect of 11 bicellular organisms forming a co-op is beyond the imagination of even the most gullible evolutionist.
Not at all. Ever hear of a colony.
I do not think anyone that knows anything about biology(obviously you do not) has any problem with organisms living in a "co-op".
You actually might want to read about and understand the subject matter before you post.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 7:17 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9077
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 311 of 968 (593475)
11-27-2010 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 295 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 7:55 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Please provide a reference for this.
Are we to provide a basic prime in biology for you? How about you study a little science at some place other than a creo/fundie website. All they do is lie.
Learn some basics then come back.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 7:55 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

subbie
Member (Idle past 1256 days)
Posts: 3509
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 312 of 968 (593478)
11-27-2010 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 288 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 4:23 AM


First things first
The initial problem that any IDiot has in falsifying the ToE, demonstrated quite aptly by Kaichos, is that before anyone can falsify anything they first have to understand it. I've yet to see any creo of any stripe who had any idea what the ToE actually says.

Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson
We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate
...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist

This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 4:23 AM Kaichos Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 313 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2010 4:52 PM subbie has seen this message but not replied

dwise1
Member
Posts: 5932
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 5.8


(1)
Message 313 of 968 (593535)
11-27-2010 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 312 by subbie
11-27-2010 10:46 AM


Re: First things first
I've yet to see any creo of any stripe who had any idea what the ToE actually says.
I have. A local creationist activist which whom I conducted a long and fruitless email correspondence. Early on, I criticized his use of the standard gross misrepresentation of PuncEq as a bird hatching from an egg that a lizard laid and urged him to learn what PuncEq really teaches. His response was a synopsis of PuncEq that was surprisingly accurate. IOW, he really did know what PuncEq is and what it teaches, and yet he continued to misrepresent it grossly.
The problem faced by creationists who actually understand evolution is that that they cannot argue against the ToE itself. If they were to try to represent evolution truthfully and attempt to argue against it, then they could not present anything that sounded at all convincing. Above all else, especially above the truth, "creation science" is about convincing their audience, and themselves. So instead of being truthful about evolution -- or even about anything at all -- , they do not hesitate to misrepresent evolution, to lie, in the myriad ways we observe.
I said that they are faced with a problem, but that would only apply to someone possessing even a shread of morality. I cannot speak for other creationists; the one I corresonded with proved to be a pathological liar, and Kent Hovind's repeated attempts to pick a fight with me over my screenname in order to avoid answering a few simple questions about his solar-mass-loss claim are rather telling.
I do not doubt that most creationists we encounter are ignorant of what evolution and science are -- the ones who do know the truth are far too cagey to try to mix it up with opponents who know what they are talking about. But many of the claims and arguments that those creationists regurgitate at us were devised by creationists who did know better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 312 by subbie, posted 11-27-2010 10:46 AM subbie has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 314 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM dwise1 has replied

ICANT
Member
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 314 of 968 (593568)
11-27-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by dwise1
11-27-2010 4:52 PM


Re: First things first
Hi dwise1
dwise1 writes:
I do not doubt that most creationists we encounter are ignorant of what evolution and science are
Does it take intelligence to understand what is preached about the ToE here at EvC?
If this old country boy is ignorant please explain to me how we can start a theory of evolution when we have no life form to begin with?
As I understand it the Toe is an attempted explanation of how that first life form has produced all the life forms on planet earth.
The problem is there is no verifiable direct evidence that such an occurance has ever taken place.
There is much evidence that many things have many similarities.
There is much evidence that many species form sub-species that cannot interbreed for one reason or another.
There is no evidence of transmutation evertaking place.
There is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution' having ever taken place from all the little mutations that occur in species.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2010 4:52 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 8:01 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 11-27-2010 8:10 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 317 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2010 8:40 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 318 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-27-2010 9:33 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 327 by Meldinoor, posted 11-29-2010 9:36 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 328 by subbie, posted 11-29-2010 10:41 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 347 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2011 7:04 PM ICANT has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3714 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 315 of 968 (593574)
11-27-2010 8:01 PM
Reply to: Message 314 by ICANT
11-27-2010 7:48 PM


Re: First things first
ICANT writes:
Does it take intelligence to understand what is preached about the ToE here at EvC?
Does it take intelligence to address the topic?
I take it from your off-topic comments that you think that there are falsifications of the theory of evolution.
But then I am left wondering why you didn't post any.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 314 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024