If a mythical creature such as a griffin existed.....

(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.

Which is the "Q: What if we found an animal that didn't disprove evolution? Would it disprove evolution? A: No." scenario.If we found a creature that was unconnected to other creatures development (e.g. had a completely different form of phenotype instruction system) then we would probably assume it was alien - which would still match the above scenario.As HDB mentions in his post: what kind of animal would be required to 'break' the ToE?
Would we be correct to assume 'alien origin' for any anomalous species?The problem with disproving evolution is that it has already been proved beyond most doubt.
It is similar to trying to prove that water isn't wet or that the earth is not round.Sure - we can discover the Earth is a sphere.
We can then discover that it is an oblate ellipsoid.
But at no point will we discover that the earth is flat.And at no point will we discover that random mutations + natural selection do not play an important role in creating the diversity of species that we see today.

I agree.
At this point, the only things that I can imagine producing a chimera are us, aliens and gods.If the source of the chimera was either us or aliens then the ToE is safe.
If a god magically 'pooofed' it into existence then that would undermine our confidence in anything being true - including all the sciences.

I did think of mentioning some form of LastThursdayism - but I was a bit rushed and decided to leave it out.
(I think your 'alien' example is more useful than a literal LastThursdayism though.)But, even in your example, evolution would still be true.
We saw evolution happening yesterday. We see it happening today. And (if we are not killed by the massive space rock) we will see it happening tomorrow.Using RAZD's ToE summary (Thanks RAZD!):

quote:

---

[E]volution (the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities) and speciation (the divergence -via evolution- of one or more daughter populations from parent populations) are sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it.

---

This is still true.
{abe}Changing "are sufficient" to "would be sufficient" would probably be necessary.The difference your 'alien' example makes is when asked "Did evolution cause the diversity of life on Earth?" we would have to reply "No, not all of it.".LastThurdayism though, would make evolution (and 99.9% of all knowledge) unevidenced - maybe right; maybe wrong.
I can't think of anything other than LastThurdayism that could prove the ToE false.
(And if we found out that the entire universe was created last Thursday, how do we know the universe wasn't made to look that way last Friday?)Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

{abe}Re-reading my previous post, I see I made the mistake of interchanging the words 'evolution' and 'theory of evolution'.
But I think my previous post is equally true using either term. I'll use RAZD again:

quote:

---

[E]volution (the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities)

---

It is the same definition we currently use.
Which part do you think would be false? I believe most biologists would also agree with that.
Which part do you think would be false? So....when I say that the Theory of Evolution would still be true - what I am actually talking about is Darwinism?
And it would be dishonest for me to talk about the Theory of Evolution?I don't see how I can talk about the ToE...without talking about the ToE.
And I don't see how I can talk about evolution without talking about evolution.
Perhaps you could clarify?Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Here it is again:

quote:

---

[E]volution (the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation, in response to ecological opportunities)

---

Can you underline the part where it asserts anything about griffins?
If not, then I ask again: which part do you think would be false? Here it is again:

quote:

---

So now when you say that "evolution is true", you mean that natural selection will still go on operating on random mutation.

---

Can you underline the part that mentions griffins?
If not, then I ask again: which part do you think would be false? These should remove whatever ambiguity you currently perceive:
Evolution: Evolution - Wikipedia
The Theory of Evolution: Modern synthesis - WikipediaOr would you prefer to use non-standard definitions?

Let's look at your statement:

quote:

---

The bit where someone asserts that the griffin is certainly produced by the processes that comprise the theory of evolution.

---

No-one has asserted "that the griffin is certainly produced by the processes that comprise the theory of evolution".
I don't see anyone making that claim.
In fact, I see the opposite being claimed: "we could meet the super intelligent alien who faked up the Earth".
So where did you get it from?
If it is mentioned in the ToE then I must have missed it. . It is the same evolution that we often talk about on this forum - and a super intelligent alien creating chimera does not invalidate it.We saw evolution happening yesterday. We see it happening today. And (if we are not destroyed by the super intelligent aliens) we will see it happening tomorrow.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

No...not after you are married.