Total Posts:63|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Evolution and Falsifiability

IEnglishman
Posts: 148
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is evolution ever going to be anything more than speculation when it is just assumed to fit fossil records? It seems like nothing could ever change the view that it happened. Anyone care to give me any falasifiable prediction of evolution?
Bulproof admits he's a troll http://www.debate.org... (see post 16). Do not feed.
Subutai
Posts: 3,168
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 5:15:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
"There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

- a static fossil record
- true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together
- a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating
- observations of organisms being created"

http://www.talkorigins.org...
I'm becoming less defined as days go by, fading away, and well you might say, I'm losing focus, kinda drifting into the abstract in terms of how I see myself.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 5:40:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 5:15:26 PM, Subutai wrote:
"There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

- a static fossil record

This would only falsify evolution if change was selected for. Deviation from selection pressures would (by definition) require a metaphysical explanation, which is not within the scope of science and therefore cannot be used to falsify evolution.

- true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together

This would not falsify evolution, since evolution does not claim that such creatures do not exist (it merely doesn't purport to account for them).

- a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating

This would either require that organisms flawlessly clone themselves every time, or that genetic traits not be herible. Both of these are out of the question; even if we found such evidence, there's too much other confirming evidence that isn't going away.

- observations of organisms being created"

This would not falsify evolution, since evolution does not claim that organisms cannot be "created".

http://www.talkorigins.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 9:45:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 5:40:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/11/2014 5:15:26 PM, Subutai wrote:
"There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
- true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together
This would not falsify evolution, since evolution does not claim that such creatures do not exist (it merely doesn't purport to account for them).

If you're talking modern evolutionary science, then at best you'd need numerous ad hoc convergence hypotheses (or alternatively unobserved, unreasonable"genetic" hypotheses rivalling some of the bizarre young earth rapid post-flood divergence models). None of the independent methods currently used to infer evolutionary pathways would work, much less agree on a tree.

Note: I think Subutai meant things a bit differently than what you are looking for. You seem to be interested in a potential future discovery which would overturn evolutionary theory, whereas Subutai is saying that historically had these been the case then evolutionary theory would have been falsified (evolution hasn't been falsified because his examples were false).
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 10:08:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
How could Newton's Laws, like f = m*a, be falsified? It could be falsified by the observation that force does not equal mass time acceleration. It's not going to happen because the mass of confirming data is so large, but the principle of falsification required for scientific validity remains. Evolution could have been falsified by any of the possible routes described by talkorigins.org. At this point, the theory has been confirmed with so much data, it isn't going to happen, but the problem is the same with any true theory. All the methods of disproof have failed.
Otokage
Posts: 2,347
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 6:23:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Is evolution ever going to be anything more than speculation when it is just assumed to fit fossil records? It seems like nothing could ever change the view that it happened. Anyone care to give me any falasifiable prediction of evolution?

There's virtualy infinite predictions you could make to test evolution. Let me give you some:

-If evolution is true, and species are really related on a family sense, then you expect to find relation between species that is similar to relation between family members, this means, you expect to find: similarities on the DNA, similarities of fisiology like compatibilities of the inmune system, anatomical similarities, etc. Moreover, if species are really related on a family manner, then the closer the supposed "relatives", the closer should be the similarities.

-If evolution is true, then all mammals should share a common ancestor. Therefore, modern mammals will always be found on the fossil record in more modern stratum than their supposed common ancestor.

-This one is rather obvious, but an evolutive prediction nevertheless: If species really evolve to fit their environment, then you should expect to find on such species a high frequency of characteristics that allow them to live on that environment better than the species that supposedly did not evolve under that environment. For example, if we find a chimpancee that has gills, fishtail and fins, that would be pretty difficult to explain through evolution theory, as we would be in front of a species that clearly doesn't fit its environment as evolution predicts.

-Anotherone, which tests the coevolution concept, was made by Darwin himself: when analyzed Angraecum sesquipedale orchid flowers, he concluded that as the orchid had a spur of a length of 30 cm, which had nectar on its interior, then necessarily must exist on its environment some insect species that had a long, probably 30cm, apendix or proboscis to reach the nectar, and that it would be the main insect responsible for the pollination of the flower. Darwin himself was never able to see if this was the case, but 21 years after his death, a butterfly with a 30cm tongue that fed on this orchid. This insect was named "Xanthopan morganii preadicta" the "preadicta" part was of course because its existence was predicted by Darwin.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/14/2014 3:24:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Let us keep in mind that we are talking about specific aspects of evolution.

At 11/11/2014 5:40:16 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 11/11/2014 5:15:26 PM, Subutai wrote:
"There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:

- a static fossil record


This would only falsify evolution if change was selected for. Deviation from selection pressures would (by definition) require a metaphysical explanation, which is not within the scope of science and therefore cannot be used to falsify evolution.

Not necessarily. A sufficiently technologically advanced alien species would easily be able to manipulate, and outright reverse selection pressures.

- true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together

This would not falsify evolution, since evolution does not claim that such creatures do not exist (it merely doesn't purport to account for them).

Within our current understanding of evolution, it would falsify evolution. Specific hybrids of animals that are many millions, billions of years apart, just happened to produce features that appear exactly the same as another, would be too much of a coincidence to ignore.


- a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating

This would either require that organisms flawlessly clone themselves every time, or that genetic traits not be herible. Both of these are out of the question; even if we found such evidence, there's too much other confirming evidence that isn't going away.

Not necessarily. If a specific species were to cycle through a finite number of genome sequences, or if they somehow reverted to their original genome through some undiscovered mechanism, this would account for a mechanism that would also prevent mutations from accumulating.

But much of this is fixed by the claim from creationists that the earth is only 6000 years old, and therefore animals have only been evolving for 6000 years.


http://www.talkorigins.org...
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
IEnglishman:

There are several definitions of evolution. It would be very helpful for you to nail down exactly what you mean.

Do you simply mean "change over time"? Even a YE would not argue against this fact.

Do you mean what we call "macroevolution"? Here I can offer several good falsifications which already abound.

Do you mean the so-called "modern synthesis," which would also encompass abiogenesis. Again, in this case, many excellent falsifications exist today.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/17/2014 10:14:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Do you mean the so-called "modern synthesis," which would also encompass abiogenesis. Again, in this case, many excellent falsifications exist today.
The modern synthesis does not encompass abiogenesis hypotheses.
DanneJeRusse
Posts: 12,580
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/19/2014 11:38:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
IEnglishman:

There are several definitions of evolution. It would be very helpful for you to nail down exactly what you mean.

Do you mean what we call "macroevolution"? Here I can offer several good falsifications which already abound.

Sorry, but are there no falsifications for evolution, you would be the first to offer any, if you can. Feel free to try.
Marrying a 6 year old and waiting until she reaches puberty and maturity before having consensual sex is better than walking up to
a stranger in a bar and proceeding to have relations with no valid proof of the intent of the person. Muhammad wins. ~ Fatihah
If they don't want to be killed then they have to subdue to the Islamic laws. - Uncung
Without God, you are lower than sh!t. ~ SpiritandTruth
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 9:24:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/17/2014 10:14:11 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Do you mean the so-called "modern synthesis," which would also encompass abiogenesis. Again, in this case, many excellent falsifications exist today.
The modern synthesis does not encompass abiogenesis hypotheses.

Not explicity, but this is exactly how the modern synthesis is presented in schools and how it is commonly used. I am simply trying to communicate the concept that is so commonly expressed: that biological evolution is the end result of prebiotic evolution. Call it whatever you wish, and I will be happy to use that term. You can choose the sematic, but I believe that the concept has been effectively communicated.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:04:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Is evolution ever going to be anything more than speculation when it is just assumed to fit fossil records? It seems like nothing could ever change the view that it happened. Anyone care to give me any falasifiable prediction of evolution?

Looking quickly at the first page, I don't think I see any falsifiable prediction of evolution given by anybody. I think evo proponents need to meet three requirements to meet this challenge:

1) Tell us something that's going to happen in the future.
2) That something can not merely be a repeat of what happened today or yesterday.
3) That something must happen only if evolution is true - it must be something that could not occur by other means.

To my mind, a falsifiable prediction of evolution would be to predict something new that will happen tomorrow, which can happen if and only if evolution is correct. For instance, the sun will rise tomorrow whether you take a heliocentric or copernican model, so such a prediction would prove neither.

So, the OP may be a pretty unreasonable requirement, but it's one evolutionists regularly claim to meet, so let's have an actual example.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 10:13:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 6:23:53 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Is evolution ever going to be anything more than speculation when it is just assumed to fit fossil records? It seems like nothing could ever change the view that it happened. Anyone care to give me any falasifiable prediction of evolution?

There's virtualy infinite predictions you could make to test evolution. Let me give you some:

-If evolution is true, and species are really related on a family sense, then you expect to find relation between species that is similar to relation between family members, this means, you expect to find: similarities on the DNA, similarities of fisiology like compatibilities of the inmune system, anatomical similarities, etc. Moreover, if species are really related on a family manner, then the closer the supposed "relatives", the closer should be the similarities.


Two things: The relationships are assigned based on observing the similarities, so this is circular reasoning. Secondly, correlation between macro and micro features is equally well explained by design.

-If evolution is true, then all mammals should share a common ancestor. Therefore, modern mammals will always be found on the fossil record in more modern stratum than their supposed common ancestor.


There's a hint of evidence for evo here, if the fossil record does indeed show a clear progression. But such an inference is grossly overstated, and more importantly, doesn't rule out design either. It might suggest continuous or multiple design rather than 1 week design, so you might find a problem with the Bible, but not with design in general.

-This one is rather obvious, but an evolutive prediction nevertheless: If species really evolve to fit their environment, then you should expect to find on such species a high frequency of characteristics that allow them to live on that environment better than the species that supposedly did not evolve under that environment. For example, if we find a chimpancee that has gills, fishtail and fins, that would be pretty difficult to explain through evolution theory, as we would be in front of a species that clearly doesn't fit its environment as evolution predicts.


Again, fits equally well with design. A species would be designed for it's environment, presumably.

-Anotherone, which tests the coevolution concept, was made by Darwin himself: when analyzed Angraecum sesquipedale orchid flowers, he concluded that as the orchid had a spur of a length of 30 cm, which had nectar on its interior, then necessarily must exist on its environment some insect species that had a long, probably 30cm, apendix or proboscis to reach the nectar, and that it would be the main insect responsible for the pollination of the flower. Darwin himself was never able to see if this was the case, but 21 years after his death, a butterfly with a 30cm tongue that fed on this orchid. This insect was named "Xanthopan morganii preadicta" the "preadicta" part was of course because its existence was predicted by Darwin.

Again, fits with design, and I'd say far more elegantly. How did the butterfly survive with a 29cm tongue? Yes, I know answers can be constructed, but when you find a system, the less contorted explanation is that it was produced as a system in the first place.

So, going through all this to say that none of these meet the "if and only if" requirement of a falsifiable prediction of evolution.
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:20:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:04:22 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
1) Tell us something that's going to happen in the future.

In the future, fossils will be found to conform to the evolutionary time sequence and new species will be related to old according to DNA. Species will continue to evolve in response to environmental change.

2) That something can not merely be a repeat of what happened today or yesterday.

What? Are you saying, something like "Newton's laws are unproved unless they predict something different than the same old f = m*a that they have always predicted? confirmation of the theory requires repeatability. If a new species emerged naturally without evolutionary precursors, the theory would be disproved.

3) That something must happen only if evolution is true - it must be something that could not occur by other means.

No, if magic is allowed as an explanation, then there will always be alternative explanations. Magic is an action not a result of the forces of nature, like divine will. For example, the fossil record is explained by God having created the universe one week ago, with all the beings, fossils, and artifacts of an apparent past history created at the same time. This is known as "God the Trickster." It doesn't have to go as far as God. Many science fiction scenarios make things not as they appear. Science does not disprove magic, science is confined to natural explanations because those explanations are far more useful than magical ones.

To my mind, a falsifiable prediction of evolution would be to predict something new that will happen tomorrow, which can happen if and only if evolution is correct.

Newly discovered fossils and newly discovered species will have evolutionary precursors and conform to the evolutionary time ine only if evolution is correct.

So, the OP may be a pretty unreasonable requirement, but it's one evolutionists regularly claim to meet, so let's have an actual example.

Let's here the prediction that would prove creationism or intelligent design correct. A book was published giving examples of irreducable complexity in nature that could not have been a product of evolution. A third of them had been explained by evolution before the book found it's way into distribution. DNA is a big help in understanding the details of how structures evolved.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:40:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 11:20:28 AM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 11/20/2014 10:04:22 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
1) Tell us something that's going to happen in the future.

In the future, fossils will be found to conform to the evolutionary time sequence and new species will be related to old according to DNA. Species will continue to evolve in response to environmental change.

2) That something can not merely be a repeat of what happened today or yesterday.

What? Are you saying, something like "Newton's laws are unproved unless they predict something different than the same old f = m*a that they have always predicted? confirmation of the theory requires repeatability. If a new species emerged naturally without evolutionary precursors, the theory would be disproved.

3) That something must happen only if evolution is true - it must be something that could not occur by other means.

No, if magic is allowed as an explanation, then there will always be alternative explanations. Magic is an action not a result of the forces of nature, like divine will. For example, the fossil record is explained by God having created the universe one week ago, with all the beings, fossils, and artifacts of an apparent past history created at the same time. This is known as "God the Trickster." It doesn't have to go as far as God. Many science fiction scenarios make things not as they appear. Science does not disprove magic, science is confined to natural explanations because those explanations are far more useful than magical ones.

To my mind, a falsifiable prediction of evolution would be to predict something new that will happen tomorrow, which can happen if and only if evolution is correct.

Newly discovered fossils and newly discovered species will have evolutionary precursors and conform to the evolutionary time ine only if evolution is correct.

So, the OP may be a pretty unreasonable requirement, but it's one evolutionists regularly claim to meet, so let's have an actual example.

Let's here the prediction that would prove creationism or intelligent design correct. A book was published giving examples of irreducable complexity in nature that could not have been a product of evolution. A third of them had been explained by evolution before the book found it's way into distribution. DNA is a big help in understanding the details of how structures evolved.

So, I'm not clear - is there supposed to be a falsifiable prediction that fits my criteria in there, or are you telling me my criteria are bogus?
This space for rent.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 11:50:13 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 11:40:21 AM, v3nesl wrote:
So, I'm not clear - is there supposed to be a falsifiable prediction that fits my criteria in there, or are you telling me my criteria are bogus?

(1) is a valid criteriaon for falsifiability, and it has always been met by evolution. (2) and (3) are bogus criteria, as explained.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 12:06:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 9:24:57 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:14:11 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Do you mean the so-called "modern synthesis," which would also encompass abiogenesis. Again, in this case, many excellent falsifications exist today.
The modern synthesis does not encompass abiogenesis hypotheses.

Not explicity, but this is exactly how the modern synthesis is presented in schools and how it is commonly used. I am simply trying to communicate the concept that is so commonly expressed: that biological evolution is the end result of prebiotic evolution. Call it whatever you wish, and I will be happy to use that term. You can choose the sematic, but I believe that the concept has been effectively communicated.

Here's an example high school biology textbook: Campbell's Biology, 7th Edition. Campbell's Biology is a good example because it's allegedly one of the most popular biology textbooks, and it's supported by the College Board for use in AP Bio.

In chapter 4 there is a brief mention of the Miller-Urey experiment and how such creation of organic compounds may have played a role in the early stages of the origin of life. That's it on abiogenesis. Nineteen chapters later, there's some brief coverage of the modern synthesis and how it combines Darwin's natural selection with Mendel's inheritance. The next chapter? Back to Darwin.

Maybe you have a different textbook in mind, although I'm inclined to believe that any textbook which presents abiogenesis as part of the modern synthesis or which treats abiogenesis as an established part of evolutionary theory is simply a bad textbook.

Further, claiming alleged falsifications of abiogenesis (or high-school level biology textbooks) are falsifications of the modern synthesis is disingenuous at best - particularly since you acknowledge that abiogenesis is actually not a component of the modern evolutionary synthesis.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:19:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 10:13:57 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/12/2014 6:23:53 AM, Otokage wrote:
At 11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Is evolution ever going to be anything more than speculation when it is just assumed to fit fossil records? It seems like nothing could ever change the view that it happened. Anyone care to give me any falasifiable prediction of evolution?

There's virtualy infinite predictions you could make to test evolution. Let me give you some:

-If evolution is true, and species are really related on a family sense, then you expect to find relation between species that is similar to relation between family members, this means, you expect to find: similarities on the DNA, similarities of fisiology like compatibilities of the inmune system, anatomical similarities, etc. Moreover, if species are really related on a family manner, then the closer the supposed "relatives", the closer should be the similarities.


Two things: The relationships are assigned based on observing the similarities, so this is circular reasoning. Secondly, correlation between macro and micro features is equally well explained by design.

-If evolution is true, then all mammals should share a common ancestor. Therefore, modern mammals will always be found on the fossil record in more modern stratum than their supposed common ancestor.


There's a hint of evidence for evo here, if the fossil record does indeed show a clear progression. But such an inference is grossly overstated, and more importantly, doesn't rule out design either. It might suggest continuous or multiple design rather than 1 week design, so you might find a problem with the Bible, but not with design in general.

-This one is rather obvious, but an evolutive prediction nevertheless: If species really evolve to fit their environment, then you should expect to find on such species a high frequency of characteristics that allow them to live on that environment better than the species that supposedly did not evolve under that environment. For example, if we find a chimpancee that has gills, fishtail and fins, that would be pretty difficult to explain through evolution theory, as we would be in front of a species that clearly doesn't fit its environment as evolution predicts.


Again, fits equally well with design. A species would be designed for it's environment, presumably.

What is your definition of intelligent design? Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves? The first option is absurd, and the second admits an evolutionary process. I fail to see why ID would be contradictory to evolution. Clarification please.

-Anotherone, which tests the coevolution concept, was made by Darwin himself: when analyzed Angraecum sesquipedale orchid flowers, he concluded that as the orchid had a spur of a length of 30 cm, which had nectar on its interior, then necessarily must exist on its environment some insect species that had a long, probably 30cm, apendix or proboscis to reach the nectar, and that it would be the main insect responsible for the pollination of the flower. Darwin himself was never able to see if this was the case, but 21 years after his death, a butterfly with a 30cm tongue that fed on this orchid. This insect was named "Xanthopan morganii preadicta" the "preadicta" part was of course because its existence was predicted by Darwin.

Again, fits with design, and I'd say far more elegantly. How did the butterfly survive with a 29cm tongue? Yes, I know answers can be constructed, but when you find a system, the less contorted explanation is that it was produced as a system in the first place.

So, going through all this to say that none of these meet the "if and only if" requirement of a falsifiable prediction of evolution.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 1:55:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/19/2014 11:38:10 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
IEnglishman:

There are several definitions of evolution. It would be very helpful for you to nail down exactly what you mean.

Do you mean what we call "macroevolution"? Here I can offer several good falsifications which already abound.

Sorry, but are there no falsifications for evolution, you would be the first to offer any, if you can. Feel free to try.

I'm happy to oblige. Thanks for asking!

Specifically concerning agiogenesis, the discovery that all life is based on digital semiotic information (semiotic, as in information that manifests code, syntax, and semantics) falsifies the proposition. Natural processes do not ever produce digital semiotic information. There is absolutely no reason to believe that can. There are plenty of reasons to be confident that they cannot and never will.

Specifically concerning so-called macro evolution, I offer two solid falsifications:

1. The fossil record. In advancing his theory, Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record as it existed in his day, stood as a formidable testimony against his theory. He held out hope that as more fossils were discovered, support for his theory would grow. Indeed, his theory unambiguously predicts a pattern of variation born of innumerable slight variations; a pattern that should be reflected in the fossil record.

Indeed, we have added an impressive number of fossils to the record that existed in Darwin's day. But theses new fossils have fallen into already established categories. They have not filled in the gaps. The fossil record completely contradicts Darwin's expectations in two critical ways:
a) Stasis.
As a matter of course, creatures tend to appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain largely unchanged over the course of millions of years or more.
b) The top down pattern of the fossil record.
Darwin's theory requires one or a few initial simple organisms from which all other organisms have branched off through variation. But the fossil record reveals the very opposite: The major body plans appear in the earliest fossil record first. Darwin's theory is a decidedly bottom-up theory. The fossil record reveals a decidedly top-down pattern.

The contradiction between what Darwin's theory predicted concerning the fossil record and what the fossil record reveals could not be more contradictory.

2. the evidence from the lab.

Numerous experiments have been conducted with the hope of producing macro-evolutionary change in the lab. But whether we are talking about fruit flies, bacteria or viruses, these studies all point (without a single exception) in the same direction: variation within kinds has very clear limits; it does not yield new kinds. This result is absolutely consistent across all lab efforts and unless we prefer to pretend that the result which is consistently achieved is meaningless, we should take the lesson the result is telling us: variation within a kind will never produce the novel body plans required to distinguish a different kind.

If we are going to be intellectually honest, the evidence from the information of life falsifies abiogenesis and the evidence from the fossil record and from the lab falsifies descent from one or a few common ancestors via mutation and selection
joepalcsak
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 2:01:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:06:52 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:24:57 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:14:11 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Do you mean the so-called "modern synthesis," which would also encompass abiogenesis. Again, in this case, many excellent falsifications exist today.
The modern synthesis does not encompass abiogenesis hypotheses.

Not explicity, but this is exactly how the modern synthesis is presented in schools and how it is commonly used. I am simply trying to communicate the concept that is so commonly expressed: that biological evolution is the end result of prebiotic evolution. Call it whatever you wish, and I will be happy to use that term. You can choose the sematic, but I believe that the concept has been effectively communicated.

Here's an example high school biology textbook: Campbell's Biology, 7th Edition. Campbell's Biology is a good example because it's allegedly one of the most popular biology textbooks, and it's supported by the College Board for use in AP Bio.

In chapter 4 there is a brief mention of the Miller-Urey experiment and how such creation of organic compounds may have played a role in the early stages of the origin of life. That's it on abiogenesis. Nineteen chapters later, there's some brief coverage of the modern synthesis and how it combines Darwin's natural selection with Mendel's inheritance. The next chapter? Back to Darwin.

Maybe you have a different textbook in mind, although I'm inclined to believe that any textbook which presents abiogenesis as part of the modern synthesis or which treats abiogenesis as an established part of evolutionary theory is simply a bad textbook.

Further, claiming alleged falsifications of abiogenesis (or high-school level biology textbooks) are falsifications of the modern synthesis is disingenuous at best - particularly since you acknowledge that abiogenesis is actually not a component of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Were you so very anxious to type out your next post that you did not even read what I had written? As I said, call it what you will. I will be happy to call it the same thing. But we both know what we're talking about here.

Honestly!

Please see post #19 where I clearly lay out a falsification against abiogenesis and two against macro-evolution. Respond to those if you wish
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:31:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 2:01:28 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
Were you so very anxious to type out your next post that you did not even read what I had written? As I said, call it what you will. I will be happy to call it the same thing. But we both know what we're talking about here.
You say the modern synthesis is presented in schools as encompassing abiogenesis or the origins of life. Campbell's Biology, a popular high school biology textbook, neither presents abiogenesis as a component of evolutionary theory (much less the modern synthesis), nor as a well substantiated explanation of the origin of life. As I said originally, the modern synthesis does not encompass abiogenesis and the origins of life isn't presented as a component of the modern synthesis in any (non-creationist) sources I am familiar with. Maybe you have a different textbook in mind, or have read some popular science account which did mention abiogenesis. Please, bring these sources up instead of accusing me of hastily responding and not reading your comments.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 3:35:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Not going to speak to falsifiability...

But I just learned that in our embryonic state we have Empty Yolk sacs that float around us... We also have corrupted genes that, if they weren't damaged, would produce yolk in those sacs...

God's one tricksy mofo if we didn't evolve from Fish and Lizards ;)
Burzmali
Posts: 1,310
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 6:10:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:55:05 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
2. the evidence from the lab.

Numerous experiments have been conducted with the hope of producing macro-evolutionary change in the lab. But whether we are talking about fruit flies, bacteria or viruses, these studies all point (without a single exception) in the same direction: variation within kinds has very clear limits; it does not yield new kinds. This result is absolutely consistent across all lab efforts and unless we prefer to pretend that the result which is consistently achieved is meaningless, we should take the lesson the result is telling us: variation within a kind will never produce the novel body plans required to distinguish a different kind.



If we are going to be intellectually honest, the evidence from the information of life falsifies abiogenesis and the evidence from the fossil record and from the lab falsifies descent from one or a few common ancestors via mutation and selection

What is a "kind?"
SamStevens
Posts: 3,819
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/20/2014 6:30:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:55:05 PM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 11/19/2014 11:38:10 AM, DanneJeRusse wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
IEnglishman:

There are several definitions of evolution. It would be very helpful for you to nail down exactly what you mean.

Do you mean what we call "macroevolution"? Here I can offer several good falsifications which already abound.

Sorry, but are there no falsifications for evolution, you would be the first to offer any, if you can. Feel free to try.

I'm happy to oblige. Thanks for asking!

Specifically concerning agiogenesis, the discovery that all life is based on digital semiotic information (semiotic, as in information that manifests code, syntax, and semantics) falsifies the proposition. Natural processes do not ever produce digital semiotic information. There is absolutely no reason to believe that can. There are plenty of reasons to be confident that they cannot and never will.

Specifically concerning so-called macro evolution, I offer two solid falsifications:

Define macro evolution:

" Macroevolution is defined as evolutionary change at the species level or higher, that is, the formation of new species, new genera, and so forth. Speciation has also been observed. "[1]

[1] http://www.talkorigins.org...

Macro evolution is real. There are plenty of examples of speciation.

http://phylointelligence.com...

http://www.talkorigins.org...

1. The fossil record. In advancing his theory, Darwin acknowledged that the fossil record as it existed in his day, stood as a formidable testimony against his theory. He held out hope that as more fossils were discovered, support for his theory would grow. Indeed, his theory unambiguously predicts a pattern of variation born of innumerable slight variations; a pattern that should be reflected in the fossil record.

Indeed, we have added an impressive number of fossils to the record that existed in Darwin's day. But theses new fossils have fallen into already established categories. They have not filled in the gaps. The fossil record completely contradicts Darwin's expectations in two critical ways:
a) Stasis.
As a matter of course, creatures tend to appear in the fossil record fully formed and remain largely unchanged over the course of millions of years or more.
b) The top down pattern of the fossil record.
Darwin's theory requires one or a few initial simple organisms from which all other organisms have branched off through variation. But the fossil record reveals the very opposite: The major body plans appear in the earliest fossil record first. Darwin's theory is a decidedly bottom-up theory. The fossil record reveals a decidedly top-down pattern.

The contradiction between what Darwin's theory predicted concerning the fossil record and what the fossil record reveals could not be more contradictory.

2. the evidence from the lab.

Numerous experiments have been conducted with the hope of producing macro-evolutionary change in the lab. But whether we are talking about fruit flies, bacteria or viruses, these studies all point (without a single exception) in the same direction: variation within kinds has very clear limits; it does not yield new kinds. This result is absolutely consistent across all lab efforts and unless we prefer to pretend that the result which is consistently achieved is meaningless, we should take the lesson the result is telling us: variation within a kind will never produce the novel body plans required to distinguish a different kind.

What do you define a kind as?




If we are going to be intellectually honest, the evidence from the information of life falsifies abiogenesis and the evidence from the fossil record and from the lab falsifies descent from one or a few common ancestors via mutation and selection

This lays out 29+ evidences for macro evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org...
"This is the true horror of religion. It allows perfectly decent and sane people to believe by the billions, what only lunatics could believe on their own." Sam Harris
Life asked Death "Why do people love me but hate you?"
Death responded: "Because you are a beautiful lie, and I am the painful truth."
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 7:16:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 12:06:52 PM, Enji wrote:
At 11/20/2014 9:24:57 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
At 11/17/2014 10:14:11 AM, Enji wrote:
At 11/15/2014 9:20:30 AM, joepalcsak wrote:
Do you mean the so-called "modern synthesis," which would also encompass abiogenesis. Again, in this case, many excellent falsifications exist today.
The modern synthesis does not encompass abiogenesis hypotheses.

Not explicity, but this is exactly how the modern synthesis is presented in schools and how it is commonly used. I am simply trying to communicate the concept that is so commonly expressed: that biological evolution is the end result of prebiotic evolution. Call it whatever you wish, and I will be happy to use that term. You can choose the sematic, but I believe that the concept has been effectively communicated.

Here's an example high school biology textbook: Campbell's Biology, 7th Edition. Campbell's Biology is a good example because it's allegedly one of the most popular biology textbooks, and it's supported by the College Board for use in AP Bio.

In chapter 4 there is a brief mention of the Miller-Urey experiment and how such creation of organic compounds may have played a role in the early stages of the origin of life. That's it on abiogenesis. Nineteen chapters later, there's some brief coverage of the modern synthesis and how it combines Darwin's natural selection with Mendel's inheritance. The next chapter? Back to Darwin.

Maybe you have a different textbook in mind, although I'm inclined to believe that any textbook which presents abiogenesis as part of the modern synthesis or which treats abiogenesis as an established part of evolutionary theory is simply a bad textbook.

Further, claiming alleged falsifications of abiogenesis (or high-school level biology textbooks) are falsifications of the modern synthesis is disingenuous at best - particularly since you acknowledge that abiogenesis is actually not a component of the modern evolutionary synthesis.

Trying to separate abiogenesis and evolution is sophistry, in my opinion. So here's a rhetorical question for you: Can you name any prominent evolutionist who thinks the original ancestor was intelligently designed? It's a package deal as a practical matter. Dawkins is a classic in this regard - yeah, life might have been seeded by a meteor, but that seed would have had to evolve. Because evolution is God in Dawkins mind, there can be no other first cause but evolution.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 7:21:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 1:19:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
...

What is your definition of intelligent design?

Intelligent design is the deliberate work product of an intelligent agent.

As I said in another thread, you guys desperately want to make it difficult because you want to find a way around the obvious, but understanding what intelligent design is requires right about a kindergarten education.
This space for rent.
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 7:31:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/20/2014 3:35:48 PM, mortsdor wrote:
Not going to speak to falsifiability...

But I just learned that in our embryonic state we have Empty Yolk sacs that float around us... We also have corrupted genes that, if they weren't damaged, would produce yolk in those sacs...

God's one tricksy mofo if we didn't evolve from Fish and Lizards ;)

Yeah, these kind of stories have been proposed and debunked for years. I hadn't heard this one, but I guarantee it will turn out to be an argument from ignorance once it is better understood.

How about this - real world: I recently learned that the fetus adds some 100 million brain neurons, per day. Per day! Each neuron is estimated to equal some 50K bits of digital processing. And this is just one tiny little factoid about the human body. And all the combined galaxies of wonder of one human body, arises spontaneously from two microscopic cells.

So what kind of amateur hour is it to have any awareness of the sophistication of the reproductive process and guess that this works because of corrupted genes? This is why evolution is not just a harmless wrong model like Ptolemy's circles, but junk science that slows the progress of medicine and other fields. How much further ahead might mankind be if we studied life for what it actually is?
This space for rent.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 8:10:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 7:21:26 AM, v3nesl wrote:
At 11/20/2014 1:19:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
...

What is your definition of intelligent design?

Intelligent design is the deliberate work product of an intelligent agent.

As I said in another thread, you guys desperately want to make it difficult because you want to find a way around the obvious, but understanding what intelligent design is requires right about a kindergarten education.

Yes, Yes, ad hominem, very impressive, now answer the question and stop dodging. Enquiring kindergarten minds want to know:

Is it an on going process where life is designed as necessary and in the present, or is it a process where it was designed once and life evolves?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Ramshutu
Posts: 4,063
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 8:51:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 4:39:38 PM, IEnglishman wrote:
Is evolution ever going to be anything more than speculation when it is just assumed to fit fossil records? It seems like nothing could ever change the view that it happened. Anyone care to give me any falasifiable prediction of evolution?

You are confusing "not falsifiable", with "passed every falsifiability test".

Modern evolution is basically the idea the DNA is passed from generation to generation with random changes, with the environment, and statistics alterning the relative occurance of such random changes over time.

This has innumerable points of falsification.

1.) No "genetic information". If no hereditable information existed within organisms; then evolution is falsified as there is no information on which evolution is required to act. However, it exists.

2.) DNA copies itself perfectly, and cannot mutate. If DNA copies itself perfectly then there is no mechanism to introduce genetic changes. It doesn't.

3.) Violation of Phylogeny. As everything is a copy of a copy in a grand tree of organisms; there is no way for features and properties that are distinct on one branch to appear, as is both genetically and morphologically, on another disparate tree without it appearing on a form common to both somewhere. No such examples exist.

4.) Genetics matching morphology. The inferred genetic relatedness of organisms should match their morphological relatedness as the two should be reflections of the same process. Many genetic changes, mutations and features do not affect form or function; so give another mechanism of inferring relatedness other than just what the species looks like. If these two are wildly disparate, then evolution is falsified. However, it is not.

5.) No tree of life. As everything is a copy of a copy of a copy over time; life should be orderable into a tree relfecting the descent with modification paradigm when based on traits , embryological development and genetics; combined with what we have discovered in the fossile record. If this tree is significantly violated by geography (finding species where they can't exist), chronology (bunnies in the pre-cambrian), morphology (wildly disparate forms with no common traits across all organisms, or two wildly different trees appear when trying to classify creatures objectively). However, the tree is not violated in this way.

All these are great examples of ways that evolution could have been falsified (and indeed have no reason to have been discovered if evolution were not true); and have passed with flying colors. Many are still possible to detect now, and despite hundreds of years of gathering fossiles, and geological study, none so far have been discovered.
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/21/2014 9:29:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/21/2014 7:16:42 AM, v3nesl wrote:

Trying to separate abiogenesis and evolution is sophistry, in my opinion. So here's a rhetorical question for you: Can you name any prominent evolutionist who thinks the original ancestor was intelligently designed? It's a package deal as a practical matter. Dawkins is a classic in this regard - yeah, life might have been seeded by a meteor, but that seed would have had to evolve. Because evolution is God in Dawkins mind, there can be no other first cause but evolution.

The distinction is accurate and relevant. Can you name a prominent evolutionary scientist who does not believe the Big Bang Theory? If not, then is the Big Bang theory a component of evolutionary theory?

It's not. The mechanisms of each theory are incredibly different, as are the observed phenomena they explain. Similarly, abiogenesis explains different observed phenomena than evolution (abiogenesis allegedly explains the existence of life, whereas evolution explains life's diversity), and the proposed mechanisms of abiogenesis (primarily chemical) are very different from the mechanisms of evolution. The theory of evolution is unaffected by which explanation for the existence of life is true -- including the intelligent design of the cell commonly believed by theistic evolutionists.

Creationists are the only ones who want to link abiogenesis and evolution together, because it's a lot easier to take advantage of legitimate controversy on the frontier of science research than it is to argue against well-established science.