Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

It is false for you to claim that we can provide no explanation. We have; you just cannot understand it. Nor are you alone. Most creationists also cannot understand the answers that science provides, because they are scientifically illiterate.As we've been exploring in the thread, Counter-Intuitive Science, so many things in science seem counter-intuitive, especially to those who have not learned science. Too many in the general population are ignorant of science, creationists and non-creationists alike -- I've coined the term "ignorati" to describe them. The more immediate problem that this poses for such discussions as we have here is that, while most non-creationist ignorati don't have any interest in such matters and do not get involved, most of the creationists who get involved in these discussions are the ignorati -- knowledgeable creationists usually know better than to get involved in public discussion or know better than to subscribe to the false claims of "creation science" (don't you dare redefine that term again!).No scientific explanation will make any sense to creationist ignorati. The only explanations that will make sense to them are false ones.For example, read my message Message 50 in that thread. While researching for information on Kent Hovind's solar-mass-loss claim, I found a site where they claimed that the then-impending crashing of the Galileo probe into Jupiter's atmosphere was an Illuminati plot to turn that planet into a star, thus ushering in the Anti-Christ (I shit thee not; that message contains a link back to their page, so you can read their own words yourself). They wrote to NASA asking about the effects of a "huge nuclear device" (the probe's plutonium reactor, which was designed to be safe in case of a crash during launch, hence it was also designed to not be a nuclear device) on Jupiter and whether it would turn that planet into a star. NASA explained to them the truth of the matter, which was that such an event would have no such effect because it's the core temperature that causes a star to burn and Jupiter doesn't have enough mass to bring the core up to the required temperature (which I recall from elementary school as being about 25 million degrees, which is why a fission bomb is needed to trigger a thermonuclear bomb). These people could not understand the answer. But they could understand Kent Hovind's answer, that there isn't any oxygen in the Jovian atmosphere to sustain the burning.To the ignorati, the true answers don't make any sense; only false answers make sense to them.I know that you are vehemently opposed to learning anything, but I'll cast this pearl before you anyway: learn something about biology, evolution, population dynamics, and human evolution so that the answers can start to make sense to you.

They are in the same spot as your cousins are with respect to the transtion from your grandparents to you. Why don't we see both Elephants and Wooly Mammoths?

That does not follow. The extinction was comparatively recent. That doe snot mean that there should have been survivors, it only means that the last survivor died quite recently. No, I can provide many explanations for their passing. Competition from other hominins, competition with non-primate species, famine or drought, failure to adapt to a changing ecosystem, or any one of a number of other explanations.The only snag is that I do not know which one was the actual cause. It was likely a combination of factors. Short of a time machine, we can only draw tentative conclusions about why the other hominins went extinct, based upon what evidence we have. I would not wish to insert an explanation which I could not back up and pretend that it was a certainty. No-one can give you a blow-by-blow account of human evolution, nor ought we expect anyone to do that. Why doesn't it make sense? Be specific. Just a small point; I do not think that any of the early hominids were hugely successful. None of them would have had populations that rivalled modern human populations. That is the nature of the fossil record. it is imperfect. Scanty records are what we normally get. Anything better is the exception, not the norm. that is an odd thing to ask. There weren't any. They didn't get wiped out in concentration camps you know. We would not expect to see any mass graves. Coyote has answered this. We would not expect to see millions of fossils. The example of the passenger pigeon, even more recently extinct, proves this.You have to understand, fossilisation is a rare process. Further, the kinds of sediment deposition that favour fossil creation are most often associated with water. Terrestrial fossils are very rare compared with aquatic ones. Humans and our ancestors are not good candidates for fossilisation. Firstly, the dinosaurs lived from about 230 million years ago to about 65 million years ago.Secondly, what do you mean by "OVERWHELMING evidence" (in ALLCAPS no less)? I wonder if you realise how many (non-avian) dinosaur species are known from only a few fossil specimens? That most dinosaur finds are far from being complete skeletons? That the taxonomy of many familiar dinosaurs is actually very controversial within the field?Dinosaurs were around for a good 165 million years and comprised almost countless species and were ubiquitous around the world. Human-like primates by contrast, existed for only five or six million years and only had a few varieties, restricted to parts Africa and Eurasia. That only gives us a tiny snapshot of their lives. There is really no comparison between them and the vast group of dinosaurs.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Hi RAZD,I hope you are doing well these days. Why? I did read the whole paragraph.But the problem is this.As I look at the so called tree of life many of the limbs and branches are missing. There is no root that exist as we don't know what produced the first life form.Thus there is no root defined.There is no trunk defined.People take the final life forms we see today and try to go backwards in time and connect them to one life form to prove evolution took place.In a thread in the past you proposed to do that and then did not carry through. Maybe you would like to do that and see how far you can go. As I said there are too many of the limbs and branches missing.It kinda looks like this:

25 mya apes                                                        195,000 tya homo sapiens
     /                                                                      /
    /                                                                      /
   /                                                                      /
Common ancestor
                           \                           \
                             \                           \
                               \                           \
                           15 mya monkey          545,000 tya chimpanzees

Then why not start with today and trace humans back to the original common ancestor above. Just remember there can be no gaps as when you get as far as you can go you are at a dead end.Would you personally disagree with this statement? Paying particular attention to the part that is underlined.Which is found in In Message 167 you said to ABO: When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated.I have asked you this question in the past and you did not respond.In Message 72 you stated: Why would anyone today refer to macroevolution as transmutation?Everyone here including you is trying to discard the word 'Macro-Evolution' and relegate it to being microevolution. Because changes to critters is a fact. 'Macro-Evolutiion' change above species is not a fact and neither is transmutation which is the word that was used in the 1800's to describe evolution above species.But to answer your question I was refering to a article that ApostateAbe had presented as evidence. It is found here.
and makes this statement: Do you disagree that Berkeley states:

quote:

---

Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.

---

My definition is that 'Macro-Evolution' is evolution above the species level. When was it invalidated that transmutation could not take place?When was it validated that transmutation did take place?You guys love the word mutation but when trans is placed in front of it then transmutation is a dirty word. Trans is across, on the other side, or beyond. So transmutation of a critter would be when that critter became a totally different critter.It would not be like the 66 million year history where 330 different species of formafiera were produced that the final product was still a formafiera. Had a snail been produced as one of those species then that would be transmutation. A creationist did not dredge up such material it was presented by ApostateAbe to support his view.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."

Passenger pigeons and sea mink are both a helluva lot more recent than Neanderthalers. Does it seem odd that none of them survive today? I'm betting that the same species is responsible for the extinctions of all three.

Back to the OP . . .And yet none of these fossil species violate the branching pattern. That is what evidences evolution (and also allows it to be falsifiable). We do not see any bird-mammal transitional fossils that have a mixture of bird and mammal features. What we do see are the transitionals that evolution predicts we should see.Each fossil we find is a test of the theory. The theory of evolution predicts which combinations of features we should see and which we should not. Therefore, the mixture of characteristics in each fossil can be used to test these predictions. On the other hand, creationism/ID makes no such predictions which makes it unfalsifiable. The root is shared characteristics which are called synapomorphies in cladistics. No we don't. We show that all life, both living and dead, fall into a nested hierarchy. That is what evidences evolution. In cladistics no single fossil species is labelled as an ancestor of any living species. All species are linked through shared characteristics which is the synapomorphy.

Hi Dawn Bertot,There are several references on the web that would answer your questions about gorillas (common ancestor population for gorillas, humans and chimps before the common ancestor population for humans and chimps).http://anthro.palomar.edu/earlyprimates/first_primates.htm
evolution of the first primates

quote:

---

About 9 million years ago, the descendants of the dryopithecines in Africa diverged into two lines--the gorillas and the line that would lead to humans and chimpanzees. Around 6 million years ago, another divergence occurred which separated the chimpanzees from the early hominids (human-like primates) that were our direct ancestors.

---

Note that these dates are tentative and await further evidence that will either confirm or alter there absolute locations, however the positions are relative -- if the common ancestor population for humans and chimps but not gorillas is found older than 9 million years, then the time for the common ancestor population for humans, chimps and gorillas would also be older.http://www.andaman.org/Related%3F/Related.htm

quote:

---

One possible genealogical tree from cretaceous insectivores to modern Homo sapiens . Many points remain in dispute and for others the evidence is unclear or missing. The available evidence would also allow other trees to be constructed. (adapted from The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution, Cambridge 1992). Humans have not descended from monkeys - but they have a common ancestor. The chart shows the chromosomal alterations that have ocurred during the evolution of Old World Simians (infraorder Catarrhini). Each dot represents an event inferred from a comparison of the karyotypes of living species. Within any branch, the sequence of dots is arbitrary. Emphasis is given to human and great apes, whose chromosomes have been more extensively studied than those of other primates. NOR = nuclear organisers. (adapted The Cambridge Encyclopaedia of Human Evolution, Cambridge 1992).

---

All other living species are just as evolved from the common ancestor population as we are, the only difference being the different ecological opportunities that were taken advantage of by the different descendant populations. Why?Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities. It is a response mechanism to changing conditions, using available mutations within each of the populations, filtered by individual success at survival and breeding.There is no goal to become human or any other form. There may be a general trend for increased intelligence, but that would be due to it offering advantages for survival and breeding. Like chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, etc? Or something intelligent, like the porpoises and whales?When we are able to communicate with these apes and other animals (via sign language etc) it is clear that the distinctions between them and humans is indeed small, with their intelligence and communication skills overlapping the boundaries of humans. Take any population of breeding individuals and watch them over many generations. The oldest die, either a natural death or one caused by failure to survive some incident, and new ones are born, carrying the genes of the individuals that succeed in survival and reproduction. The new ones age, survive and reproduce according to their individual success, and eventually they too die a natural death or one caused by failure to survive some incident, ... and new ones are born .... and the cycle continues. At every generation the individuals of that generation are different from the individuals of the previous generation/s and from the one/s to follow. These differences may be small, but they can add up to substantial change, or they can oscillate around an average, and different traits can change more or less than other traits, depending on the opportunities for survival and breeding provided by the traits within the context of the ecology in which they live.Here we see successive generations of an early primate common ancestor: Every individual at every level is a member of a transitional species, and each individual lived and died, contributing their hereditary traits to the following generations according to their success at survival and breeding.There is an overall trend from small at the bottom to larger at the top, but there is no point at which there is a sudden change from small to large - instead each population between the top and bottom is part of the transition from small to large.We also see instances of opportunities for smaller populations to branch off of the main trend and evolve to be smaller, with Copelemur constutus being about the same size as the ancestor population of Pelycodus ralstoni, thus show both a population evolving to be larger and one evolving to be smaller, due to the different ecological opportunities that each breeding population inhabits rather than any directional or goal seeking process. I get the idea that you do not understand how evolution works. At all.Recommended reading:
Evolution 101 - Understanding Evolution
An introduction to evolution - Understanding Evolution
The family tree - Understanding Evolution
Trees, not ladders - Understanding EvolutionI post these here not to debate, but so you can learn how the terms and science uses these concepts and understands them - to provide you with the common language used in the science of biology in general and evolution in particular.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)

So if you are only able to trace some line of your ancestry back to a great-grandfather, it means that his mom didn't exist? That great-grandpa was created instead of born?Barack Obama (and John McCain) and I share a common ancestor that came to Massachusetts in 1630, I think it was. But on my maternal grandmother's side, there's a "dead end" back in the middle 1800's. Does that mean I don't exist?

DeletedPosted in wrong placeGod Bless,Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

---

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

You do realize, I hope, that you posted this same exact message three hours ago. Your Message 394 and Message 399 are identical, and they both reply to same Message 372 from RAZD.--Percy

Hi ICANT Because you still don't get it. Context please? Are you thinking of Dogs will be Dogs will be ???? Except that all the known fossils fall into lineages predicted by the theory of common descent, and not pointing off into distant points as you have depicted. Science does not prove, it provides the best explanation for the observed evidence. The theory of common descent provides the best explanation for the sequence of fossils found in both time and location. No other theory explains those sequences. Special Creation would predict that this would not be the case, and as such it is invalidated by the evidence of sequential evolution, such as Pelycodus and Foraminifera.Common descent also predicts that new fossils will be found along existing lineages, and this has been the case time and again, the most noteworthy being the predicted location and type of fossil found with Tiktaalik. As has been pointed out by others, this rank and vile creationist canard is a ridiculous false standard of proof, as even creationists cannot provide such a sequence for their personal ancestors back to Adam with no gaps, nor to any of their beloved kind back to the ark, and thus it amounts to special pleading, asking more from the opposition than you are capable of providing for your argument.The fact remains that, while there are some missing pieces of information, there is also a plenitude of evidence that demonstrates that sequential evolution from common ancestor populations does in fact occur. Every time a new fossil is found that does not invalidate it, and every time the theory predicts new evidence, and every time it explains the known evidence better than any other theory. As I have been at some pains on another thread to show that a scientific concept is based first on evidence where specific instance/s show it has occurred, and that without such founding evidence it is just a fantasy "what-if" concept. This is the case with your transmutation - it has never been observed in any form in any location that I am aware of. If it was validated - if there was evidence that this indeed occurred - then this would be evidence that would invalidate parts of the theory of evolution, and this would be big news. It is a term from the age of alchemy, and in your usage it is more like a tired
science fiction concept from B-grade 1950's movies (giant ants etc). It is not a scientific term, or at least it is not used in biology in any way I am aware of. And evidence of such changing form of an individual critter would invalidate the theory of the evolution of populations or organisms: evolution does not occur within individuals, but in the changes in hereditary traits past to succeeding generations from the parents resulting in the changes in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.Again, it has never been observed in any form in any location that I am aware of. What I disagree with is your interpretation. Evolution above the species level is the divergence of sibling species after speciation, as they continue to evolve within their populations but respond to different ecologies, thus adding to the diversity of life. This is how the tree of life forms. That is all that "macro" evolution involves: there is no additional process needed to explain the evidence, there is nothing more needed than the continued formation of branches caused by speciation and the descent from common ancestor populations by the daughter populations as they evolve by "micro" evolution within their speicies populations. No matter what various branches may have evolved into, (a) it would forever still be a member of the foraminifera clade and (b) it would not be the same as any other existing species - they could have evolved into snail-like organisms, but (c) as fossils OTHER than foraminifera were not recorded in the study we don't know what they may have become. However we do know that they would not be snails, they would still be foraminifera. This would be like a marsupial evolving to be like a flying squirrel: It may look like, and it may behave like, a flying squirrel but it is still just a marsupial and not a different sort of critter ... it has not transmutated into a flying squirrel, but evolved into a similar appearing marsupial.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)

That seems like an intellectually dishonest approach. You look at a tree, notice that some branches are missing and decide that it's therefore not a tree? Surely it's the branches that are connected that make a tree a tree.

---

"I'm Rory Bellows, I tell you! And I got a lot of corroborating evidence... over here... by the throttle!"

no. this may be a little difficult to believe, but for all intents and purposes, neanderthals are modern humans. they were just another species of modern human, that existed along side sapiens, like you and me. they only went extinct within the last ten thousand years, iirc.the common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans is way, way down the family tree. if you saw a neanderthal walking around the street today, you'd almost certainly mistake him for a homo sapien. he'd be a bit more barrel chested, and have a bit less of a chin. but he'd look more or less like you or me. evolution is not directed -- and those living species are all "crown" species. here is a very simplified primate family tree.

---

אָרַח

Simplified to the point of leaving out the chimpanzee. Maybe if I have some time later I'll try to find a better diagram.--Percy

RAZD already posted one above.