Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by MrXYZ


Rather than work at further polarising the issue, which pushes people into taking extreme sides, I'd suggest the intelligent side in this debate should leave god out of the discussion altogether.

Nobody knows another's experiences, and it's possible some people have had personal proof of god's existence.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


So to put in simple understandable terms - what your saying is like this:

-- taken from the minds of evolutionists. 100% accurate, can't be falsified! Can't be debunked as it is approved by:
Evolutionists. Discovered by evolutionists, reviewed by evolutionists, peer-reviewed by evolutionists, explained and critique by evolutionists and finally supported and accepted by highly, super intelligent evolutionists.

Those who doubt it are either uneducated or idiots.


[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b5ed5d660dd4.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/76391d97d021.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/47e411bf324b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/daf30957998e.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4b03eaae2bc8.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b3577f4c256c.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/8e61c186035a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ebb4512eac63.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/ea587e454dcc.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/4c439c22e9f8.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/81d2efb6ab4a.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/9dba8ffa802b.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/63c1d3816417.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c2f0d82c0824.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/5e5c8e8a4da8.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/51f1d336b5a8.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a4bdd72f6432.jpg[/atsimg]
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/75d643c6f71b.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/2f4ac8f4c136.jpg[/atsimg]

That sums it up in a way I think.

The only thing missing now is the real fossil evidence of the real thing: the missing link.

Which I was hoping you were going to show/prove.

Instead more gobbledygook - gave me a headache.

btw, I read the link as well as bunch of stuff from your favorite site and other sites provided by your fella evos: TalkOrigins n such.

Just got tired reading them. Too many latinized words to get the full meaning of all the gobbledygook explenations.

Sorry, I'm just one of these simple minded folks who require just an ounce of common sense. No masters degree nor a phd.

Just like this: Explenation of the origin of life.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1 - very simple yet elegant, even a child can understand it.


ty,
edmc2

p.s. - looks like some of you even disaggree with my avatar. I'm just using it to (tweak u) - no just to pay respect to one of the greatest minds of modern time: E=mc2

Here we go again

1) Missing link: Every single fossil we found perfectly fits the theory!! Not one contradicts it, and you clearly underestimate the amount of fossils we found. In short, the fossil record is incredibly complete, definitely enough so to serve as scientific evidence for evolution.

2) Everyone can peer review scientific theories, no one is stopping you. There's no "evolutionist" cabal that tries to trick you, lol. In over 150yrs since Darwin our understanding of evolution has grown hundredfold...and no one was able to debunk the theory until now. Everything just "fits" down to the DNA. And trust me, people have tried to debunk it numerous times unsuccessfully.

Just got tired reading them. Too many latinized words to get the full meaning of all the gobbledygook explenations.

And that's exactly the problem...you criticize something you don't even fully understand. What's even worse, that something has scientific backup. Just because you don't "get it", doesn't mean it's wrong.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1 - very simple yet elegant, even a child can understand it.

And that's the problem. Some people, including you need everything (science, politics) dumbed down. Being "simple and elegant" doesn't make it true, it's not proof...it's nothing but a random statement like "In the beginning a giant space turtle farted rainbows which then turned into the heavens and the earth." Simple, yes, true...most probably not.

Here's 2 videos you really have to watch because you keep on doing the same blunder over and over again.

1) Regarding evolution vs abiogenesis



2) Macroevolution



3) Fossil record



In short, the fact that science seems to make your head buzz with all the "gobbledygook" just means you don't know about the subject enough...which makes it very clear you're probably not fit to argue against the theory. Sorry, but we won't ever find a crockoduck

And some more information about the "missing link" making it very clear why it's all hogwash.

A popular term used to designate transitional forms is "missing links". The term tends to be used in the popular media, but is avoided in the scientific press as it relates to the links in the great chain of being, a pre-evolutionary concept now abandoned. In reality, the discovery of more and more transitional fossils continues to add to knowledge of evolutionary transitions, making many of the "missing links" missing no more.

The term "missing links" was used by Charles Lyell in a somewhat different way in his Elements of Geology of 1851, but was popularized in its present meaning by its appearance in Lyell's Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man of 1863, p. xi. By that time geologists had abandoned a literal Biblical account and it was generally thought that the end of the last glacial period marked the first appearance of humanity, a view Lyell's Elements presented. His Antiquity of Man drew on new findings to put the origin of human beings much further back in the deep geological past. Lyell's vivid writing fired the public imagination, inspiring Jules Verne's Journey to the Center of the Earth, and Louis Figuier's 1867 second edition of La Terre avant le déluge which included dramatic illustrations of savage men and women wearing animal skins and wielding stone axes, in place of the Garden of Eden shown in the 1863 edition.

The idea of a "missing link" between humans and so-called "lower" animals remains lodged in the public imagination. The concept was fuelled by the discovery of Australopithecus africanus (Taung Child), Java Man, Homo erectus, Sinanthropus pekinensis (Peking Man) and other Hominina fossils.

And why are creationists still using this ridiculous argument?

Proponents of creationism have frequently made claims about the existence or implications of transitional fossils that paleontologists consider to be false, and in some cases deliberately misleading. Some of these claims include:

'There are no transitional fossils.' This is a claim made by groups like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. Such claims may be based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature but are also explained as a tactic actively employed by creationists seeking to distort or discredit evolutionary theory and has been called the "favorite lie" of creationists. Some creationists dispute the lack of transitional forms.

'No fossils are found with partially functional features.'Vestigial organs are common in whales (legs), flightless birds (wings), snakes (pelvis and lung), and numerous structures in humans (the coccyx, plica semilunaris, and appendix).

Henry M. Morris and other creationists have claimed that evolution predicts a continuous gradation in the fossil record, and have misrepresented the expected partial record as having "systematic gaps".

Due to the specialized and rare circumstances required for a biological structure to fossilize, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be represented in discoveries and each represents only a snapshot of the process of evolution. The transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never demonstrate an exact half-way point between clearly divergent forms.

Source

As for human evolution, the list is VERY VERY VERY complete (LINK) and the only way it could possibly be not considered hard evidence for evolution is if some super deity messed with us on purpose by burying tons of fossils to trick scientists. The mere thought is beyond laughable of course

Sorry for making your head "buzz", but not everything can be dumbed down to 1 sentence...

I find it very difficult to comprehend why, in his apparently infinite wisdom, your god would have created parasites and viruses. Organisms that can harm, and potentially kill their hosts. There needs to be no sin or what have you in the host. Mackerel, for example, are sometimes full of parasitic worms. You could hardly say the reason for the mackerel's life is to host the parasite, and mackerel are hardly likely to live a live that would urge the wrath of a vengeful god.

Even down to something like hermit crabs. Why would you create something that has to use the skeleton of a dead creature to protect itself? Why would there be hermit crabs when 'normal' crabs abound with shells of their own.

I also mentioned before in another thread the chimpanzee having 48 chromosomes, and the human having 46. It's been proven that two of the primate chromosomes fused to make the 46 of humans. That would mean, if your god created man in his own image, he based his design on a chimpanzee. Does that make your god a chimp?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


well i feel that both sides of the argument are correct but not in the same sense that christianity and main stream science make them out to be. it is possible to have a divine creator and evolution at the same time. how do we know that God/gods did not plant life the way that a human plants a seed? i can walk into a forest, plant a seed and it will grow and evolve all on its own. the seed could evolve to strive in its environment and become something different. even tho future evolved plants shares the same lineage as the original seed.

i think that the main argument comes from the christian idea of the creation of life. just because the christian idea of life may be wrong, it does not mean that the possibility of a divine creator is not. some people believe that the sumerian gods created human life from splicing their DNA with apes. there are all sorts of possibilities of how life came to be and i think that we should all (those that believe in God/gods and the scientific community) keep an open mind since the possibility of life and reality in general, is basically impossible.

reply to post by fallow the light


Well, this thread is absolutely neutral about the origin of life, which is why I keep facepalming whenever someone mentions it.

Evolution is something that only describes the diversity of life, or biodiversity. As I stated before, it would work equally well if a giant, flying, sombrero-wearing, blue kangaroo came to Earth one day and magically farted the first organisms into being (ok, I embellished it further and it will get more crazy the more my sanity cracks from having to explain it). Evolution would still take hold after this initial event.

reply to post by edmc^2

Originally posted by edmc^2
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

So to put in simple understandable terms - what your saying is like this:

This statement always makes me cringe, because I know I'm going to have something shoved into my mouth that never came out of it...

Also, the great thing is that you completely ignored the list of transitional forms that I provided..

-- taken from the minds of evolutionists. 100% accurate, can't be falsified!

It can be falsified, there is a possibility and a means by which to falsify it. Any scientific theory, no matter how sound it is, has to be falsifiable.

Just like our theory of gravitation would be falsified if someone managed to demonstrate several objects in orbit around an object that has severely less mass.

Can't be debunked as it is approved by:
Evolutionists. Discovered by evolutionists, reviewed by evolutionists, peer-reviewed by evolutionists, explained and critique by evolutionists and finally supported and accepted by highly, super intelligent evolutionists.

...no, it's such a great theory because it was discovered by a naturalist, reviewed by a general scientific community that had never heard of it, peer-reviewed by scientists that had never heard of it, explained and critiqued by scientists that never heard of it, and supported by highly, super-intelligent scientists that had never heard of it.

Evolution became accepted gradually and went through quite the struggle to achieve scientific approval, just like any damn theory.

Those who doubt it are either uneducated or idiots.

No, I'm quite sure they're mostly the former. Some of them might also be dogmatically opposed to it, and others might be outright 'liars for Jesus', though those a tiny fraction of the population of creationists containing demonstrated liars like Kent Hovind.
*snip* I don't need those unsourced pictures. The majority of those were screenshots from Carl Sagan's Cosmos.

That sums it up in a way I think.

Yes, in a very silly way that makes it seem as if there was a conspiracy among scientists who had never heard of the theory to prop it up.

The only thing missing now is the real fossil evidence of the real thing: the missing link.

Which missing link? If you specify exactly what you're looking for, I'll provide it.

I provided you with a full rundown of the transitional forms between reptiles and mammals.

Which I was hoping you were going to show/prove.

Instead more gobbledygook - gave me a headache.

Ok, so scientific explanations of the transition from cold-blooded, egg laying species to modern mammals is something that gives you a headache.

I gave you proof of something you asked for proof of, the transition from reptile to mammal in all of its steps.

You're in the realm of science, if that is what gives you a headache, if that is gobbledygook, I don't know how you're going to understand the genetics of it.

btw, I read the link as well as bunch of stuff from your favorite site and other sites provided by your fella evos: TalkOrigins n such.

...then why are you not convinced as to the validity of evolution? That website is a favorite of 'evos' for a reason, it's damn good science. It gives references to specific papers and explains incredibly complex science in the simplest form...even though you find that simplest form to be 'gobbledygook'.

Just got tired reading them. Too many latinized words to get the full meaning of all the gobbledygook explenations.

...you mean the names of species?

Sorry, I'm just one of these simple minded folks who require just an ounce of common sense. No masters degree nor a phd.

Sorry, common sense is useless in science. Hell, you seem to love the theory of relativity, which is one of the scientific theories that makes least sense from a 'common sense' point of view.

And I don't have any graduate degrees. Hell, I'm still working on my undergrad, and its an arts degree.

Just like this: Explenation of the origin of life.

...for the umpteenth time, this is not a thread about the origin of life. It is a thread on the Origin of Species. Evolution explains biodiversity, not life.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1 - very simple yet elegant, even a child can understand it.

Yes, the book that says that pi=3.0 is going to be our scientific reference guide.

It may be easy, but it's wrong.

p.s. - looks like some of you even disaggree with my avatar. I'm just using it to (tweak u) - no just to pay respect to one of the greatest minds of modern time: E=mc2

And that great scientific mind had absolutely no problem with the theory of evolution, because he understood how science works.

Originally posted by edmc^2
. . .
Just got tired reading them. Too many latinized words to get the full meaning of all the gobbledygook explenations.
Sorry, I'm just one of these simple minded folks who require just an ounce of common sense. No masters degree nor a phd.
Just like this: Explenation of the origin of life.

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" Gen 1:1 - very simple yet elegant, even a child can understand it.

So your big problem with evolution is that the theory of evolution is more complex than, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth"?

No worries, I can give you an even simpler explanation of evolution:

Living things change.

Or I can give you a slightly more complex explanation, if you're up to it:

Genetic information undergoes changes.
Some changes increase the lifeform's chance of passing in its genetic information.
Lifeforms which succeed in passing on their genetic information are all transitional, as all life keeps (very slowly in most cases,) changing.
Lifeforms which do not successfully pass on their genetic information become extinct.

You'd like to see more examples?
Tell us what sort of example you'd like to see and you just might get to see it, or get an explanation as to why you can't see it or why it doesn't exist.


(As I'm also a novice in this area I welcome any correction from Asty or Madness if my explanation is not correct.)

reply to post by edmc^2

You see, like what I said before, a building with a weak foundation can't stand for a long time... Evolution has either a weak foundation or no foundation at all. So evolutionist came up with one to prop it up... they came up with... abiogenesis... an illusion, a delusion, a fantasy, a falsity.

Clearly you are one of those to whom things need to be repeated a few times before they sink in.

It is immaterial to the theory of evolution whether the first reproducing organism came into being through abiogenesis, or was created. Evolution doesn't care where it came from or how it came into being. Evolution can only operate on already existing life.

That is why so many Christians accept the truth of evolution. It is also why acceptance of it is official doctrine in the Roman Catholic church. Are people who accept evolution not to be considered Christians by your estimate?

Abiogenesis is part of the evolution, can't be separated.

Fiddlesticks.

ur fella evolutionist like to use"great apes".

The term biologists use is hominids.

The Hominidae (anglicized hominids, also known as great apes, or humans and great apes), as the term is used here, form a taxonomic family, including four extant genera: chimpanzees, gorillas, humans, and orangutans. In the past, the term was used in the more restricted sense of humans and relatives of humans closer than chimpanzees.

'In the past,' Sorry the news hasn't filtered down to your neck of the woods yet.

ahh, but your fella evolutionist still proudly hail (punctuated equilibrium) as part of evolution. Unless you think they are all wrong and your correct.

Biology is not a church. Common Misconceptions about Punctuated Equilibrium

how can you falsify something that is false?

You appear to have access to a dictionary. Consult it.

Well trolled, by the way. You made everyone respond.

reply to post by Kailassa


"Living things change"?

100% agreed - they adapt.

But how do they become living?

Now that is the question.

And no, Speciation, is not the answer. To quote WIKI: "A key process in evolution is speciation, in which a single ancestral species splits and diversifies into multiple new species."

So by definition, it does not explain how the single specie came in to being.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

But how do they become living?

Good question.

Nothing to do with evolution, though.

Have you any evidence that would falsify evolution, or are you just going to keep trying to change the subject?

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


Even though it's off-topic, I'll indulge your curiosity.

Here's a video that explains what we know so far about the origins of life, which is the field of abiogenesis, something separate from evolution.

I'm providing this not to open up discuss, but simply to allow for you to learn about that which you question.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

But how do they become living?

Good question.

Nothing to do with evolution, though.

Have you any evidence that would falsify evolution, or are you just going to keep trying to change the subject?

edit on 21/11/10 by Astyanax because: bhjkjie

Just responding to the specific post - for the first time in this thread...

Just to make sure you don't miss my point - let me restate it:

Since it's my first post on this thread, I guess that means I'm not going to keep trying to change the subject of this thread - hunh?

To quote WIKI: "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution," - so guess what? - how life began is pertinent to this thread.

So is the origin of life a necessary precursor for biological evolution or not?

Many members here seemed to be confused about this.

Some say it does not. Some say, and WIKI, states that it does.

So rather than continue with this discussion on a field with changing rules, please clarify it once and for all.

Is the origin of life a necessary precursor for evolution or not?

If it does not, then I'm sorry for being off topic.

But if it does, how about you prove how life began scientifically, otherwise evolution is based on a 100% completely false precursor which may in fact invalidate the entire theory.

Which means my post was on topic.

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by mrvdreamknight

 

But how do they become living?

Good question.

Nothing to do with evolution, though.

Have you any evidence that would falsify evolution, or are you just going to keep trying to change the subject?

edit on 21/11/10 by Astyanax because: bhjkjie

Just responding to the specific post - for the first time in this thread...

Just to make sure you don't miss my point - let me restate it:

Since it's my first post on this thread, I guess that means I'm not going to keep trying to change the subject of this thread - hunh?

To quote WIKI: "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution," - so guess what? - how life began is pertinent to this thread.

So is the origin of life a necessary precursor for biological evolution or not?

Many members here seemed to be confused about this.

Some say it does not. Some say, and WIKI, states that it does.

So rather than continue with this discussion on a field with changing rules, please clarify it once and for all.

Is the origin of life a necessary precursor for evolution or not?

If it does not, then I'm sorry for being off topic.

But if it does, how about you prove how life began scientifically, otherwise evolution is based on a 100% completely false precursor which may in fact invalidate the entire theory.

Which means my post was on topic.

If you quote stuff, at least quote the whole sentence and not just some out-of-context part you believe agrees with your worldview. The quote you were trying to make is part of a whole sentence...

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

So there you have it. Evolution is NOT dependant of our understanding of how life began. We can know about evolutionary theory and all its evidence even if we don't know what started life yet.

I know, that's not what you intended on stating when you quoted from Wikipedia...but that's what happens if you try to butcher quotes to make them "fit".

Great. So you agree then. My first post on this thread was revelant.

I quoted that part of wiki, hoping you would do what you just did.

Of course wiki states that evolution is not dependant but to quote myself, "Many members here seemed to be confused about this."

Some creationists and evolutionists here are/were confused about this point. I was not trying to make the quote fit. I was trying to get clarification, which you so graciously, and non-judgementaly, did.

So now we know clearly that evolution does not try to explain the origin of life.

Or does evolution need to prove the origin of life to even exist?

Here is a complete quote from WIKI:

"Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the 'inherited' traits of a population of organisms through successive generations."

"An inherited trait"...hmmm..what does that mean?

Definition of INHERIT - : to receive from a parent or ancestor by genetic transmission - Merriam-Webster.

To avoid tediousness, let's skip me going back generation, after generation, and just ask what was the first generation?

Is there one? If so, how did it come in to being?

So does evolution in fact need to show the first generation of whatever organism was created to fit it's own definition of "the change in the inherited traits"?

Simply put, how can something be inherited if there was nothing to be inherited from?

Just asking.

p.s. don't bring up abiogenesis - we are not talking about that here - we are talking evolution

reply to post by mrvdreamknight

Since it's my first post on this thread, I guess that means I'm not going to keep trying to change the subject of this thread - hunh?

Depends. If you run true to your form in other threads, you will.

To quote WIKI: "The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution," - so guess what? - how life began is pertinent to this thread.

Then all you have to do is falsify the theory that life ever originated--never mind how--and you will have falsified evolution. Should be easy--care to try?

So is the origin of life a necessary precursor for biological evolution or not?

Do you realize what a stupid question this is? Of course life had to originate before biological evolution could occur. But how it occurred is immaterial. This has been stated on the thread at least three times already.

Rather than continue with this discussion on a field with changing rules, please clarify it once and for all.

The parameters of the discussion were set once and for all by the OP, and you know it. Have you no shame?

Originally posted by MrXYZ
If you quote stuff, at least quote the whole sentence and not just some out-of-context part you believe agrees with your worldview. The quote you were trying to make is part of a whole sentence...

The origin of life is a necessary precursor for biological evolution, but understanding that evolution occurred once organisms appeared and investigating how this happens does not depend on understanding exactly how life began.

So: MrXYZ caught you out deliberately misrepresenting a quoted source, knowing full well it doesn't support your argument. Have you no integrity either? Is this what your wonderful religious faith teaches you--to tell opportunistic lies? Is that the kind of morality your God encourages?

What a fine advertisement you and your fellow-creationists make for religion.

Please refrain from attacking me personally and try to stick with the subject on hand.

Please read my post directly before yours.

It answer all of your points without attacking the messanger.

I would love to have your opinion of that post.

Why did you skip it and decide to attack me personally?

Thanks for your input.

reply to post by mrvdreamknight


The fact of the matter is, we know single cell lifeforms started around 3.8bil years ago. Everything after that perfectly fits the theory of evolution. What caused the first of these single cell lifeforms to pop up? We just don't know. Abiogenesis is trying to discover it, but they're nowhere near in coming up with a strong theory like evolution.

That obviously doesn't falsify evolution as every single life form after single cell lifeforms perfectly fits the theory, and evolution doesn't concern itself with "what the first life form came to be".

Given that we don't know how the first life form came to be, we can only speculate. Saying an all powerful (or even personal) god created it is total speculation and hogwash until you come up with evidence...evidence just like the evidence we have for evolution.

Anyway, the thread title is "evolution: falsify it". You are welcome to give it a shot, but trying to shoot holes into the theory by talking about a subject that doesn't concern the theory (aka abiogenesis or how life started) is kinda silly. It's like trying to disprove magnetism by looking at thermodynamics...

PS: Inherit means it features traits of previous generations. Doesn't mean a creator had to start it all...just like a tree can grow without my intervention.

Thank you for your response. I truly appreciate your answers even though we don't seem to see eye to eye.

This is the definition of evolution:

"Evolution (also known as biological, genetic or organic evolution) is the change in the 'inherited' traits of a population of organisms through successive generations." -wiki

Until I read your p.s. "PS: Inherit means it features traits of previous generations. Doesn't mean a creator had to start it all...just like a tree can grow without my intervention." I didn't think you even read my post.

And I'm still not sure you understood it.

I was proving evolution false.

Evolution seems to be based on a faulty premise at best. An out right lie at worse.

"Inherited" means it was passed down from something and in turn that something had to have a beginning.

So unless that definition changes. Evolution is based on the origin of something. If the theory doesn't attempt to answer that question how can it go forward? What is based on? It has to be defined properly. So please offer me another definition.

Thanks to you and a few other members here, I am more than familiar with abiogenesis. And while that theory has a mighty lofty goal, it is entirely different than evolution. So it does not belong in this discussion.