Evolution is Not Science

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
You have just basically admitted that the TOE is not falsifiable.

---

Not at all. The fact that we can't observe long-term evolution doesn't mean that we can't falsify it.If the earth is very young, that would go a long way toward falsifying it, because evolution requires a long time scale.And if the fossil record contradicted the predictions made by evolutionary theory, that would also be a falsification.

​

[This message has been edited by Brachinus, 03-16-2002]

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Not at all. The fact that we can't observe long-term evolution doesn't mean that we can't falsify it."
--Though, you do realize just how much it does infact take to discount Evolution?Well, these days it would take a lot, given how much evidence for evolution has been found. But the concept itself is still falsifiable, and many theories of evolution have in fact been falsified."If the earth is very young, that would go a long way toward falsifying it, because evolution requires a long time scale."
--Not exactly brachinus, because say that we do find that something could have been layed down in 6000 years, this does not falsify a long time scale, you just no longer have that specific evidence to back it up.Yes, if we discovered that evolution could happen in a few thousand years, that would negate the falsifying effect of a young earth. But nobody seriously thinks that the evolutionary changes we've observed "could have been layed down in 6,000 years.""And if the fossil record contradicted the predictions made by evolutionary theory, that would also be a falsification."
--If someone were to find what most skeptics thing would have been found if the Flood created the fossil record, I would have to give the whole model a complete make-over.Agreed.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
Not at all. The fact that we can't observe long-term evolution doesn't mean that we can't falsify it.
--absolutely correct

​

If the earth is very young, that would go a long way toward falsifying it, because evolution requires a long time scale.
--not necessarily evolution would just have had less of an impact on life or it occurs much more frequently.

​

And if the fossil record contradicted the predictions made by evolutionary theory, that would also be a falsification.
--fossil records only show that an animal died not that its structure was altered. it only shows stages not links between them.

​

---

As to the first point, thanks for acknowledging that evolutionary theory is falsifiable, and therefore valid science.As for the age of the earth, the point is that the evidence shows that evolution hasn't had less of an impact, and that it hasn't occurred more frequently. And has it occurred to you that it's contradictory to claim that evolution is stronger than "evolutionists" claim, but has has less impact?And while it's true that the fossil record only tells us that animals have died, the fact that the ones that died a long time ago are very different from the ones that died more recently is highly suggestive of an evolutionary scenario. Further down in this thread you acknowledge this, but claim there's no "proof." But science isn't about proof, it's about developing the best explanation possible for the available evidence. And at this point, evolution is it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cobra_snake:
Really?

​

By the way, I don't see why you think Cambrian fossils are "small mysteries."

---

What I don't see is why creationists think the Cambrian explosion supports their view. Sure, there are most of the modern phyla, but where are the modern forms? Where are the lobsters? Crabs? Oysters? And why are pretty much all of the modern phyla in marine form? Doesn't that tend to support the evolutionary view that life arose underwater before it moved to land?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
--If I might give cobra some support here.

​

"Sure, there are most of the modern phyla, but where are the modern forms? Where are the lobsters? Crabs? Oysters? And why are pretty much all of the modern phyla in marine form?"
--Speciation, for instance, your lobsters may be significant relatives to crawdad's or other species of crustateans.

​

OK, so where are the Cambrian crawdads?

​

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"OK, so where are the Cambrian crawdads?"
--Speciation, they may not have existed at the time of the formation of the geo-column.

​

---

So which Cambrian forms did they "microevolve" from? Can you put forth a candidate for their Cambrian ancestor?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"So which Cambrian forms did they "microevolve" from? Can you put forth a candidate for their Cambrian ancestor?"
--Possibly Waptia fieldensis, Penaeus speciosus, and Udora brevispina

​

---

Waptia fieldensis is an arthropod from the middle Cambrian. Are you suggesting arthropods and crustaceans have a common ancestor?The other two are from the late Jurassic. How did Jurassic creatures "microevolve" into Cambrian ones?

quote:

---

Originally posted by TrueCreation:
"Waptia fieldensis is an arthropod from the middle Cambrian. Are you suggesting arthropods and crustaceans have a common ancestor?"
--Crustaceans are arthropods.

​

"The other two are from the late Jurassic. How did Jurassic creatures "microevolve" into Cambrian ones?"
--well they didn't, I gave a list of diffferent plausable subjects for todays diversity in these phyla.

​

---

Sorry, I should have asked, "are you suggesting that crustaceans and *other* arthropods have a common ancestor?"