Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8945 total)
32 online now:
Newest Member: ski zawaski
Post Volume: Total: 865,320 Year: 20,356/19,786 Month: 753/2,023 Week: 261/392 Day: 121/53 Hour: 9/6


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Best" evidence for evolution.
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 181 of 196 (856898)
07-03-2019 11:55 PM
Reply to: Message 180 by Faith
07-03-2019 11:19 PM


Actually, falsifiability is very important in science. Say you have an idea that birds descended from dinosaurs. That idea is falsifiable. A lack of intermediate fossils, or intermediate fossils between birds and something other than dinosaurs, would be evidence for the incorrectness of the idea. Finding intermediate fossils is evidence of the correctness of the idea.

Your claim that Pangaea split up very quickly should have something similar to make it falsifiable, but you don't say what we should look for. Instead, every piece of evidence that shows it to be incorrect, such as the extensive sediments on the floor of the Atlantic, varying from deep near the coasts to shallow near the middle where new land is being formed, you answer with another outlandish statement, something about sedimentation happening extraordinarily fast in earlier years. If you keep "multiplying entities unnecessarily" you are not working with falsifiable ideas.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 11:19 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:37 AM Sarah Bellum has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33645
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 182 of 196 (856905)
07-04-2019 12:37 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Sarah Bellum
07-03-2019 11:55 PM


I'm very aware of the principle of falsifiability, and very aware that you are wrong about the falsifiability of dinosaurs to birds etc. Although it's probably not completely impossible, science about the distant past is just not falsifiable.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-03-2019 11:55 PM Sarah Bellum has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 1:15 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2019 2:02 AM Faith has responded
 Message 190 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-04-2019 10:04 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 183 of 196 (856907)
07-04-2019 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
07-04-2019 12:37 AM


quote:

I'm very aware of the principle of falsifiability, and very aware that you are wrong about the falsifiability of dinosaurs to birds etc.

Really ? Bird-like footprints were discovered in Triassic strata. If remains of the creature that made them were discovered it could prove that birds were not descended from dinosaurs.

quote:

Although it's probably not completely impossible, science about the distant past is just not falsifiable.

Plenty of it is. If radiometric dates turned out to completely disagree with the relative dates from earlier geology, radiometric dating methods would have been falsified.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7123
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.0


Message 184 of 196 (856908)
07-04-2019 2:02 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
07-04-2019 12:37 AM


Faith writes:

I'm very aware of the principle of falsifiability, and very aware that you are wrong about the falsifiability of dinosaurs to birds etc. Although it's probably not completely impossible, science about the distant past is just not falsifiable.

Oh come on Faith how many times over the 18 years you've been posting here have you been told that finding a rabbit fossil in the Cambrian would falsify the ToE? Several thousand I'd say.

It's not just a catch phrase, it means that the fossil record is organised by time and finding organisms out of place in time would totally destroy the theory.

For example, if your flood had actually happened fossils would be scattered through the geological record randomly with respect to their age but non-randomly with respect to their size and density. That would falsify the ToE and would have been immediately obvious to the creationist geologists 200 years ago.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:37 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 6:48 AM Tangle has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20232
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 185 of 196 (856914)
07-04-2019 6:39 AM
Reply to: Message 176 by Faith
07-03-2019 6:03 PM


Tell me where I'm wrong.

All species today are descendants of the created kinds -- cats, dogs, bears, etc. etc.

Evolution only occurs via loss of genetic material

Ergo the original created kinds had all the genes of all their descendants before they were lost

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 176 by Faith, posted 07-03-2019 6:03 PM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 6:52 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33645
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 186 of 196 (856915)
07-04-2019 6:48 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by Tangle
07-04-2019 2:02 AM


Yes that's right but overall it's too easy to rationalize away anything that doesn't fit when it's in the past where it can be reinterpreted instead of definitively identified as false.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2019 2:02 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by PaulK, posted 07-04-2019 11:15 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 196 by Tangle, posted 07-04-2019 6:08 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33645
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 187 of 196 (856916)
07-04-2019 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 185 by RAZD
07-04-2019 6:39 AM


...the original created kinds had all the genes of all their descendants before they were lost

Yes. and if you wonder how that could be, it's that they had a lot more heterozygosity then than after much evolution. That's the conclusion I came to, anyway, after wondering about it a long time.

The Mendel square for skin color considered possible for Adam and Eve is an expression of how all that variety could exist in one genome, and i'm sure that's greatly simplified.

See Message 463

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2019 6:39 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2019 7:32 AM Faith has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20232
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


(1)
Message 188 of 196 (856919)
07-04-2019 7:32 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Faith
07-04-2019 6:52 AM


So I was right in Message 175

Thanks


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 187 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 6:52 AM Faith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 7:37 AM RAZD has responded

  
Faith
Member
Posts: 33645
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 189 of 196 (856920)
07-04-2019 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 188 by RAZD
07-04-2019 7:32 AM


I don't think you were right in that earlier post, it didn't make any sense to me at all and still doesn't. But the post I answered seemed to be clear enough.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2019 7:32 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 194 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2019 12:58 PM Faith has not yet responded

  
Sarah Bellum
Member (Idle past 7 days)
Posts: 413
Joined: 05-04-2019


Message 190 of 196 (856930)
07-04-2019 10:04 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
07-04-2019 12:37 AM


You state that it's not falsifiable. Why? I've given you examples.

For example, a claim that the top of a mountain was once much lower, on the bottom of the sea in fact, before plate tectonics pushed it up into the sky is falsifiable. Just look for fossils of sea creatures in the rock, for example.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 12:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by AZPaul3, posted 07-04-2019 10:53 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply
 Message 193 by ringo, posted 07-04-2019 12:21 PM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 07-04-2019 1:09 PM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
AZPaul3
Member
Posts: 4727
From: Phoenix
Joined: 11-06-2006
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 191 of 196 (856939)
07-04-2019 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by Sarah Bellum
07-04-2019 10:04 AM


Ahh, but with a majik flud to wave around ...

I hope you have a strong sense of humor because the answer to this might make you cry.


Eschew obfuscation. Habituate elucidation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-04-2019 10:04 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 15549
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.9


Message 192 of 196 (856944)
07-04-2019 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Faith
07-04-2019 6:48 AM


quote:

Yes that's right but overall it's too easy to rationalize away anything that doesn't fit when it's in the past where it can be reinterpreted instead of definitively identified as false.

Only for people with ridiculously low standards. For example Message 682


This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 6:48 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 17516
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 3.2


(1)
Message 193 of 196 (856964)
07-04-2019 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Sarah Bellum
07-04-2019 10:04 AM


Sarah Bellum writes:

You state that it's not falsifiable. Why? I've given you examples.


That's standard creationist argument:
Step 1. "I'm going to prove A."
Step 2.
Step 3. "I have just proved A."

It also works for conservative politics:
Step 1. "I'm going to build a wall."
Step 2.
Step 3. "Look at the wall I built."

All that are in Hell, choose it. -- CS Lewis
That's just egregiously stupid. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-04-2019 10:04 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20232
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 194 of 196 (856974)
07-04-2019 12:58 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
07-04-2019 7:37 AM


I don't think you were right in that earlier post, it didn't make any sense to me at all and still doesn't. But the post I answered seemed to be clear enough.

To me they say the same thing:

Message 175: As I recall, Faith believes that all current species have devolved from a universal donor species that carried copies of all the genomes of the species in their Kind (clade) ... through the loss of all the non-today species genomes.

Message 185: All species today are descendants of the created kinds -- cats, dogs, bears, etc. etc.

Evolution only occurs via loss of genetic material

Ergo the original created kinds had all the genes of all their descendants before they were lost

What do you see that is different?

Curious.


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 189 by Faith, posted 07-04-2019 7:37 AM Faith has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20232
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 4.1


Message 195 of 196 (856976)
07-04-2019 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Sarah Bellum
07-04-2019 10:04 AM


For example, a claim that the top of a mountain was once much lower, on the bottom of the sea in fact, before plate tectonics pushed it up into the sky is falsifiable. Just look for fossils of sea creatures in the rock, for example.

See discussion on Trilobites, Mountains and Marine Deposits - Evidence of a flood?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆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 190 by Sarah Bellum, posted 07-04-2019 10:04 AM Sarah Bellum has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019