|
Author
|
Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22475 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
|
Message 316 of 968 (593578)
11-27-2010 8:10 PM
|
Reply to: Message 314 by ICANT
11-27-2010 7:48 PM
|
|
Re: First things first
Only those with some specific evidence or line of argument constituting a potential falsification of the theory of evolution should be posting to this thread. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 314 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
dwise1
Member Posts: 5945 Joined: 05-02-2006 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 317 of 968 (593586)
11-27-2010 8:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 314 by ICANT
11-27-2010 7:48 PM
|
|
Re: First things first
It is not a question of intelligence, but rather of knowledge vs ignorance. If one intends to argue against some teaching or idea, would it not be in that person's own interest to learn everything he can about that teaching or idea? Or should that person keep himself pig-ignorant about the subject that he is trying to argue against? All too often, we observe creationists keep themselves ignorant about that which they are trying to argue against. All too often, we observe creationists trying to disprove strawmen of their own construction, or constructed by other creationists who do know better. I would hope that you are not arguing in favor of ignorance and dishonesty.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 314 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Tanypteryx
Member Posts: 4407 From: Oregon, USA Joined: 08-27-2006 Member Rating: 5.4
|
|
|
Message 318 of 968 (593590)
11-27-2010 9:33 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? yes
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? Well, the Theory of Evolution did not start until someone started studying living things. We do have life forms and that is what is evolving.
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 ToE explains how living organisms have changed since the earliest ancestors right up to the diversity of life we see today.
The problem is there is no verifiable direct evidence that such an occurance has ever taken place. Good! Scientists love problems.  Are you saying that you have evidence that falsifies the Theory of evolution (the topic of this thread)? The fossil record and genetics are both verifiable direct evidence of the past history of life and how all life is related.
There is no evidence of transmutation evertaking place. I have no idea what you mean by transmutation. I thought that was what alchemists were trying to do (turn lead into gold). 
There is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution' having ever taken place from all the little mutations that occur in species. We are going to need more than your word for it if you are going to give us a potential falsification of the ToE. We do have a huge amount of evidence that micro-evolution happens. In the Can I disprove Macro-Evolution thread Message 237 I addressed your mis-understandings about Macro-Evolution. Here is some of that post.
Tanypteryx writes: In this discussion, the point that we are trying to make, is that there is really ONLY micro-evolution. Micro-evolution keeps going on and on and on In the populations during and after a speciation event micro-evolution keeps right on happening, continuing on and on and on and if another speciation event happens, it keeps going on and on and on in the new populations. but, in each of the new populations the micro-evolution that is happening is different from all of the others, because they were all separated at each speciation event. So, the only thing that is happening to these species is micro-evolution. There is no separate mechanism that suddenly starts happening called macro-evolution. The species are micro-evolving and slowly getting a little more different from each other each generation and the differences may not even be noticeable for many generations. The micro-evolution continues on forever until the species goes extinct. If an individual in a population dies before it has a chance to reproduce, then the long line of micro-evolution that happened to all of its ancestors, back through the past, to the first common ancestor ends. If other members of the species are still alive then every time they reproduce micro-evolution is continuing on in each generation. We humans love to categorize things into various groups. Animals and plants and other organisms seem to fall into some obvious groupings. We find it convenient name the groups and we have been doing this as long as people have been studying living things. Macro-evolution is just a label that we use to denote points along those long lines of micro-evolution that are happening in every lineage in every species when they reproduce. It is not a separate or different kind of evolution. If you are going to give us a potential falsification of the Theory of Evolution it needs to be a little more precise than what you have said so far. Enjoy
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python You can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 314 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 319 by frako, posted 11-28-2010 4:33 AM | | Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied |
|
frako
Member (Idle past 324 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: 09-04-2010
|
Re: First things first
Tanypteryx The problem is most creos and IDists have their facts wrong, they have been either lied to or they never understud what evolution is. They think that at some point a chicken gives birth to a half crocodile half chicken, while that is not the case. Small steps add to big steps every generation changes only a bit and after a lot of generations those little bits add up to a lot. There is no real big transmutation from the parrent to the offspring there is a big transmutation between a grate grate........ and "a few hundred grates more" parent and the new generation.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 318 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-27-2010 9:33 PM | | Tanypteryx has seen this message but not replied |
|
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: 10-03-2009
|
|
|
Message 320 of 968 (593629)
11-28-2010 6:55 AM
|
Reply to: Message 301 by Percy
11-27-2010 9:31 AM
|
|
Re: Potential falsifications
By the way, about Haldane's Dilemma that you mentioned earlier, Wikipedia describes what has been known for about a half century The entry for Haldane's Dilemma on Wikipepedia has been edited no fewer than 279 times. That's because an evolutionist troll sits on it and re-institutes his own mendacious viewpoint whenever somone tries to correct it. However, we don't have to put up with that unscientific childishness, Percy. Simply furnish your own peer-reviewed solution to Haldane's Dilemma and the case is closed. We're waiting!
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 301 by Percy, posted 11-27-2010 9:31 AM | | Percy has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3731 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
Re: Potential falsifications
Kaichos Man writes: We're waiting!
So, from your silence I take it that you accept that you were completely wrong in regards to warm/cold blooded animals? Care to aknowledge your mistake? We're waiting!
"For myself, also, I rejoice profoundly; for, thinking of so many cases of men pursuing an illusion for years, often and often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may not have devoted my life to a phantasy. Now I look at it as morally impossible that investigators of truth, like you and Hooker, can be wholly wrong, and therefore I rest in peace." Charles Darwin Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22475 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 4.7
|
Re: Potential falsifications
Kaichos Man writes: The entry for Haldane's Dilemma on Wikipepedia has been edited no fewer than 279 times. That's because an evolutionist troll sits on it and re-institutes his own mendacious viewpoint whenever somone tries to correct it. The portion of the Wikipedia article I quoted appears to be unchanged from the article's very first revision back in July of 2004. Here's the excerpt again:
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. Moving on:
However, we don't have to put up with that unscientific childishness, Percy. Simply furnish your own peer-reviewed solution to Haldane's Dilemma and the case is closed. Why ever in the world would anyone want to begin an extended discussion with you when your history says you abruptly abandon discussions and only participate for at most a couple weeks at a time, the only exception being right after you first joined. The last time I discussed Haldane's Dilemma with you over at the TOE and the Reasons for Doubt thread you ignored my last two responses and then disappeared a short while later. You're raising this concern about Haldane's Dilemma as if it were something we were hiding from, but the fact of the matter is that the last time you brought it up we discussed it with you forthrightly, but you began ignoring responses and then we didn't hear from you again. So no thanks. I'll invest my time with people who actually finish what they begin. --Percy
|
Theodoric
Member Posts: 9133 From: Northwest, WI, USA Joined: 08-15-2005 Member Rating: 3.3
|
Re: Potential falsifications
That's because an evolutionist troll sits on it and re-institutes his own mendacious viewpoint whenever somone tries to correct it.
Amazing how you state things with no evidence whatsoever. Now how about presenting evidnece that what Percy stated was false. Oh, you can't? There is no such evidence? No shit. Now how about you actually present some evidence that is on topic. OH there is none? No shit.
Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
|
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 303 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: 07-20-2006
|
Re: Potential falsifications
The entry for Haldane's Dilemma on Wikipepedia has been edited no fewer than 279 times. That's because an evolutionist troll sits on it and re-institutes his own mendacious viewpoint whenever somone tries to correct it. If it is, as you claim, "mendacious", you should be able to point out something in it that can be shown to be false. Either that or evolutionists have developed a new special sort of mendacity which involves telling the absolute truth. So, is there anything in the artcle which is not true? We're waiting.
However, we don't have to put up with that unscientific childishness, Percy. Simply furnish your own peer-reviewed solution to Haldane's Dilemma and the case is closed. Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 71, No.10, pp,3863-3865, October 1974
The cost of natural selection revisited, Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185-194, April 2003
|
Taq
Member Posts: 10028 Joined: 03-06-2009 Member Rating: 5.3
|
Re: Potential falsifications
Hm. Lack of fossil evidence of transitional species? The theory of evolution says nothing about the process of fossilization. The theory only states what types of species must have existed, specifically what types of transitionals should have existed. The theory also states what types of transitionals we should NOT see. So if you find a fossil with a mixture of avian and mammalian derived features then you will have falsified the theory. You can only test the theory with the fossils we do have, not with the fossils we don't have.
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. Or we can believe our observations of species making the jump from a single cell to 4 to 32 cells, finally stabilizing at 8 cells in the matter of a geologic eye blink. "Boraas (1983) reported the induction of multicellularity in a strain of Chlorella pyrenoidosa (since reclassified as C. vulgaris) by predation. He was growing the unicellular green alga in the first stage of a two stage continuous culture system as for food for a flagellate predator, Ochromonas sp., that was growing in the second stage. Due to the failure of a pump, flagellates washed back into the first stage. Within five days a colonial form of the Chlorella appeared. It rapidly came to dominate the culture. The colony size ranged from 4 cells to 32 cells. Eventually it stabilized at 8 cells. This colonial form has persisted in culture for about a decade. The new form has been keyed out using a number of algal taxonomic keys. They key out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella." Observed Instances of Speciation
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? Falsification is not based on things we have not observed, but on things we HAVE observed. You do know how falsification works, don't you?
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 326 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2010 6:28 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1424 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: 03-14-2004
|
|
|
Message 326 of 968 (593819)
11-29-2010 6:28 PM
|
Reply to: Message 325 by Taq
11-29-2010 4:24 PM
|
|
an example of macroevolution confirmed
Thanks Taq, It has always seemed a little problematical to claim speciation in asexually reproducing species, but this is a convincing example not only of speciation, but of significant change between the parent population and the daughter population -- a macroevolution event confirmed (as the term is used in biology). Enjoy.
we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 325 by Taq, posted 11-29-2010 4:24 PM | | Taq has not replied |
|
Meldinoor
Member (Idle past 4827 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: 02-16-2009
|
|
|
Message 327 of 968 (593856)
11-29-2010 9:36 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? It takes intelligence to understand anything. Including the ToE. It also takes an effort to learn, just like tying your shoelaces or riding a bicycle, basic arithmetic and advanced calculus, advanced physics and throwing a football. Without intelligence or application, none of these skills could be learned or understood. It's easy to understand some of the basics of the ToE, but it takes years of study and application to understand it the way a biologist does. Unfortunately the general public is rife with misconceptions about the ToE. Hell, I'm a layman too, so people like WoundedKing have likely forgotten more on the subject than I've ever learnt.
ICANT writes: 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? Please elaborate on why you think the theory of evolution must account for the origin of life. While you're at it, perhaps you'll tell me if you think it should also explain the origin of the universe and the formation of stars and planets. If not, then I think your question has been answered.
ICANT writes: 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. It is more than that. It is an explanation for the patterns that we see in nature, and accounts for the observed similarities of all life-forms.
ICANT writes: The problem is there is no verifiable direct evidence that such an occurance has ever taken place. For what? The origin of life? Well, there is life now, and at point there wasn't any life, so I'd say that's verifiable. Or are you talking about universal common ancestry? If so, you're mistaken when you refer to it as a single "occurrence". Speciation and evolution are easily observed in nature, and the same principles that bring about new species or traits today are the same that have acted throughout all of life's history (with a few exceptions, sex being one of them). So even common ancestry is verifiably evidenced in nature.
ICANT writes: There is no evidence of transmutation evertaking place. Ah, the "crocoduck" argument, I think. What is transmutation? If you're under the impression that it involves species crossing clades, then you are mistaken. If not, I'm not sure what you mean by "transmutation".
ICANT writes: There is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution' having ever taken place from all the little mutations that occur in species. What do you mean by "Macro-Evolution"? There is ample evidence of significant evolutionary change even throughout the time that we've been around to study it. Taking evidence of the past into account, like fossils, makes a pretty good case for these changes to have taken place throughout history. Respectfully, -Meldinoor
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 314 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
subbie
Member (Idle past 1273 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: 02-26-2006
|
|
|
Message 328 of 968 (593870)
11-29-2010 10:41 PM
|
Reply to: Message 314 by ICANT
11-27-2010 7:48 PM
|
|
Re: First things first
I'm quite curious about two things: What do you mean by "direct evidence?" Even if there is no "direct evidence," why isn't the massive body of indirect, physical, circumstantial or whatever-adjective-you-care-to-apply-to-it evidence sufficient?
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 314 by ICANT, posted 11-27-2010 7:48 PM | | ICANT has not replied |
|
Minnemooseus
Member Posts: 3944 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: 11-11-2001 Member Rating: 10.0
|
The difference between "possible" and "probable"
You can be damn sure that I wasn't probing for real (major) falsifications when I started this topic. Of course not. That would have suggested that you were a scientist first and foremost, rather than an atheist.
I know that such possibilities are very slim at best That is called pre-judging the situation. The noun (you may have heard it) is "prejudice".
Perhaps the term "hypothetical falsifications" would have been better It would certainly have been less scientific. When you dismiss the possibility of falsification a priori you have already abdicated as a scientist. The (biological) theory of evolution is the collected best thoughts of how (biological) evolution happened. It is a big, complicated theory made up of many smaller theories. While the falsification of any or all of these theories is possible, the falsification probability is much higher for the the smaller subtheories. At this point in the study of (biological) evolution, while still in concept possible, it is highly unlikely that the "big picture" theory is going to collapse - That "big picture" theory is very strong. I'm not a biologist - Geology is my training. A parallel discussion could be that of the theory of the Earth's age. The ages of various relatively small details of the Earth's geologic history may very well be subject to being found to be wrong, but none of these potential age falsifications are going to have any major impact on the age of the Earth's origin. - Again, the "big picture" theory is very strong. Moose
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. "Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle and will piss on your computer." - Bruce Graham "The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness." - John Kenneth Galbraith "Yesterday on Fox News, commentator Glenn Beck said that he believes President Obama is a racist. To be fair, every time you watch Glenn Beck, it does get a little easier to hate white people." - Conan O'Brien "I know a little about a lot of things, and a lot about a few things, but I'm highly ignorant about everything." - Moose
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 339 by Kaichos Man, posted 12-10-2010 11:29 PM | | Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied |
|
Kaichos Man
Member (Idle past 4507 days) Posts: 250 From: Tasmania, Australia Joined: 10-03-2009
|
Re: Potential falsifications
Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 71, No.10, pp,3863-3865, October 1974 The cost of natural selection revisited, Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185-194, April 2003
The entry for Haldane's Dilemma on Wikipepedia has been edited no fewer than 279 times. That's because an evolutionist troll sits on it and re-institutes his own mendacious viewpoint whenever somone tries to correct it.
If it is, as you claim, "mendacious", you should be able to point out something in it that can be shown to be false. Either that or evolutionists have developed a new special sort of mendacity which involves telling the absolute truth. So, is there anything in the artcle which is not true? We're waiting.
However, we don't have to put up with that unscientific childishness, Percy. Simply furnish your own peer-reviewed solution to Haldane's Dilemma and the case is closed. Solutions to the Cost-of-Selection Dilemma, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol. 71, No.10, pp,3863-3865, October 1974
The cost of natural selection revisited, Ann. Zool. Fennici. 40:185-194, April 2003 Dear me, Doctor. Epistasis and Soft Selection. Is that the best you can do? These two documents contain the seeds of their own destruction.
"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin
|
™ Version 4.2