|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: If a mythical creature such as a griffin existed..... | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CoolBeans Member (Idle past 3636 days) Posts: 196 From: Honduras Joined: |
But we would need to fi d evidence that its an outlier. What if it shares dna with us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
A single griffin is not extraordinary evidence ... I myself would be somewhat less blas ...
Such an extraordinary claim ... It's not a claim, it's a doubt. Once we'd found the griffin, would we be justified in saying: "But we know that nothing else was produced by the same process"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
But we would need to fi d evidence that its an outlier. What if it shares dna with us? If it is the only one in existence, DNA or not, it is an outlier and would not crash all of TOE. I do not know what it might be but there would have to be a rational explanation for the thing. Throwing away TOE on one unstudied outlier would be foolish. That is not the way the universe works.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8529 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
"But we know that nothing else was produced by the same process"? Exactly. But we could not discard the TOE on the strength of one griffin. If it was from here there would have to be a fit into Evolution somewhere, somehow. There is just no escaping this. Just because we cannot fathom what that fit might be at this moment does not collapse today's Evolution. And where and when we find that fit it will explain the griffin as well as all the other aspects of evolution we know of today including the nested hierarchy. We would probably slap our foreheads and cry, "Of course!" Finding such a wonderful thing would be an extraordinary find indeed, but it would not be extraordinary evidence against evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10038 Joined: Member Rating: 5.3
|
We already have species that are similar to the griffin. How did they come about? We designed them. For example, the Glofish:
These little fish carry an exact copy of a jellyfish gene that causes them to fluoresce. This is an anamoly and can not be explained by evolution. Of course, we know that this feature did not evolve. We designed it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3734 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
(This addresses Dr. A's posts too.)
The problem with hypothetical questions is that the goal-posts are not fixed. In this case we end up with 2 circular 'arguments': Q: What if we found an animal that disproved evolution? Would it disprove evolution?A: Yes. Q: What if we found an animal that didn't disprove evolution? Would it disprove evolution?A: No. The discussion can be fun, but the arguments often end up going around in circles until they swallow themselves. Edited by Panda, : No reason given."There is no great invention, from fire to flying, which has not been hailed as an insult to some god." J. B. S. Haldane
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
herebedragons Member (Idle past 879 days) Posts: 1517 From: Michigan Joined:
|
Although I think this is pretty much a silly question, I would take it as asking what kind of creature could we imagine finding (I presume in the fossil record?) that would falsify the ToE.
If it was from here there would have to be a fit into Evolution somewhere, somehow. There is just no escaping this. Your statement seems to indicate that there is no creature we could ever find that would falsify the ToE. "It would have to fit somehow." I would have to disagree. Maybe we would not jump right to the conclusion that the ToE was false, but it would give us pause to question our understanding and the workings of the theory in general.
But we could not discard the TOE on the strength of one griffin. I do agree with this statement. We do expect anomalies from time to time. That is just how the world works, our understanding is incomplete. There is however, a line - where an anomaly is so far out of place - that if crossed, should cause us to question our present theory. That's how science works, the theory is NOT infallible. So ... all you YECs out there ... get out there and find us a griffin!! Or a minotaur - that would be cool too!! HBDWhoever calls me ignorant shares my own opinion. Sorrowfully and tacitly I recognize my ignorance, when I consider how much I lack of what my mind in its craving for knowledge is sighing for. But until the end of the present exile has come and terminated this our imperfection by which "we know in part," I console myself with the consideration that this belongs to our common nature. - Francesco Petrarca "Nothing is easier than to persuade people who want to be persuaded and already believe." - another Petrarca gem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
But we could not discard the TOE on the strength of one griffin. How many mythical chimer would it take?
If it was from here there would have to be a fit into Evolution somewhere, somehow. Or not. There's no need to be dogmatic about it.
And where and when we find that fit it will explain the griffin as well as all the other aspects of evolution we know of today including the nested hierarchy. We would probably slap our foreheads and cry, "Of course!" Or we'd need another theory. There were people who thought the precession of Mercury could be explained within the Newtonian paradigm, but in the end a whole new theory was required. I am unable to think of one, but then I am also unable to find a griffin, so that's OK.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Heh, yeah, I was going to reply that if a griffin existed, then we'd find examples of its ancestors in the fossil record and end up figuring out an evolutionary path for it, too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined:
|
Heh, yeah, I was going to reply that if a griffin existed, then we'd find examples of its ancestors in the fossil record and end up figuring out an evolutionary path for it, too. Yes, well, we haven't found those fossils. And we've had plenty of time to do so. The other problem is that a griffin is chimeric, it has the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion. Stuck together. Even assuming the existence of undiscovered fossil tetrapods which are actually hexapods, the independent evolution of the head, beak wings, and feathers of an eagle, and the body of a lion, would boggle the mind. I'd say it would be exactly the sort of thing that God should have made if he wanted me to be a creationist. Darwin would have given up and gone home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Yes, well, we haven't found those fossils. And we've had plenty of time to do so. That's because there's no such thing as griffons... If there were griffons, then they'd have evolved just like everything else. That's how animals emerge on this planet.
The other problem is that a griffin is chimeric, it has the head and wings of an eagle and the body of a lion. Stuck together. Even assuming the existence of undiscovered fossil tetrapods which are actually hexapods, the independent evolution of the head, beak wings, and feathers of an eagle, and the body of a lion, would boggle the mind. Only because that stuff hasn't actually happened. If there were animals that evolved that way then it wouldn't be so mind-bottling.
I'd say it would be exactly the sort of thing that God should have made if he wanted me to be a creationist. Darwin would have given up and gone home. Okay, well sure. If god magically poofed an animal into existence, then yes, that animal wouldn't have evolved. We'd still have all the examples of animals evolving that we do have, like horses and whales and people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
That's because there's no such thing as griffons... If there were griffons, then they'd have evolved just like everything else. That's how animals emerge on this planet. Well, we're obviously approaching this question from different angles. I took it to mean: "What if we have the data we now have, plus a griffin?" rather than: "What if we had the data we have now, plus a griffin, plus incontrovertible evidence that griffins evolved?"
Only because that stuff hasn't actually happened. If there were animals that evolved that way then it wouldn't be so mind-bottling. It would be, within the context of the theory of evolution as it stands. The function of the theory (as opposed to the mere fact) of evolution is to place constraints on what can and can't evolve. A griffin can't. Even if we had a good set of intermediate forms, we would still have no theoretical idea that would explain how the griffin could be a chimera of two existing forms with lines of descent separate from one another and from that of the griffin.
We'd still have all the examples of animals evolving that we do have, like horses and whales and people. Sure, but as I pointed out, we'd then have to wonder whether they did evolve. Would the process that produced the griffin look so kindly on us as to ensure that every non-evolved thing was so flagrantly non-evolved that we could spot it? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Would the process that produced the griffin look so kindly on us as to ensure that every non-evolved thing was so flagrantly non-evolved that we could spot it? I think so, otherwise we'd have the fossils n'stuff that'd show us an evolutionary path.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 306 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I think so, otherwise we'd have the fossils n'stuff that'd show us an evolutionary path. I'm not sure I quite follow you. But I'll take a guess and say you mean that we could still conclude that evolved things are evolved, because we'd still have the intermediate forms. But faced with a flagrant chimera, could we be certain any more that these intermediate forms were relics of evolutionary transitions? Could not Archaeopteryx, for example, be not a representative of a transition between dinosaurs and modern birds, but a chimera formed by non-evolutionary processes? If some creationist were now to suggest that God had produced such chimeras In The Beginning, I would answer him as follows:
Why, then, did God only produce exactly those chimeras which would make evolutionists happy? Why do we only see those chimeras that would be there if we were right? Was God deliberately trying to fool us? Why did he make proto-birds with gastralia and proto-whales with legs, thus providing apparent confirmation of our ideas, and not, for example, a griffin, which wouldn't? But given a griffin, this argument wouldn't work any more. --- P.S: I was editing my previous post as you were replying to it, so you might want to look at it again so as not to let me sneak any arguments by you unawares. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I'm not sure I quite follow you. A griffon would be so obviously not-evolved that it wouldn't really cast doubt on the things that so obviously are-evolved. But I suppose there'd be creatures that we'd have to doubt if they evolved too.
previous message writes: It would be, within the context of the theory of evolution as it stands. The function of the theory (as opposed to the mere fact) of evolution is to place constraints on what can and can't evolve. A griffin can't. Even if we had a good set of intermediate forms, we would still have no theoretical idea that would explain how the griffin could be a chimera of two existing forms with lines of descent separate from one another and from that of the griffin. Ok, I feel ya. The duck-billed platypus doesn't really have the same bill as a duck, there's just a superficial resemblance. If the griffon wasn't like that, and it really was as you describe, then yeah, we would have a bit of a problem.
But faced with a flagrant chimera, could we be certain any more that these intermediate forms were relics of evolutionary transitions? Could not Archaeopteryx, for example, be not a representative of a transition between dinosaurs and modern birds, but a chimera formed by non-evolutionary processes? We already know that birds evolved from dinosaurs, so Archy fits in there. But if she had mammary glands, then yeah, we would have a bit of a problem. I don't think the ToE would be refuted in the sense that it still does describe the way that things do evolve. But you're right that there'd be some new doubts about whether or not everything evolved once we found a creature that we know didn't.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024