Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by Kailassa


It's not that simple. Genes are activated themselves to enhance survival. If all the strong warriors of a tribe are sent to war and die. The strongest of the weakest work harder to get stronger, and over generations will attain the prior strength too. It is a very complex matter involving genes yes, diet, environment, and an exterior stimulus. Just like people can be mentally conditioned to be brutal and strong, genes too can be conditioned over time to be brutal and strong out of necessity.

reply to post by edmc^2

So you mean that abiogenesis never occured?

Why do you keep harping on abiogenesis in a thread about evolution? Is it because you know you can't falsify evolution?

That according to evolution theory - man did not evolved from the "great apes"?

That is correct. Man did not 'evolved' from the great apes. They and we evolved from a common ancestor. Didn't you just use that word in a post? Don't you understand the concept it denotes?

There's no punctauted equilibrium?

Not necessarily. Punctuated equilibrium was the invention of a certain famous and quite unnecessarily embarrassed palaeontologist. It is not a axial tenet of evolutionary theory; more of an insignificant detail.

So what gives?

What gives is that you know you can't falsify evolution, so you're trolling.

Originally posted by edmc^2
All of these in one form of explenation or another are blindly accepted as facts from which you want us to falsify. So how do you falsify something that is false?

Um...by demonstrating that it's false.

For example, the fossil record does not support evolution - even now there's no solid evidence from the fossil records where an amphebian turning into a mammal gradually or through 'punctuated equilibrium'.

Actually, reptiles became mammals, and we have plenty of transitional fossils to show this.

Paleothyris (early Pennsylvanian) -- An early captorhinomorph reptile, with no temporal fenestrae at all.
Protoclepsydrops haplous (early Pennsylvanian) -- The earliest known synapsid reptile. Little temporal fenestra, with all surrounding bones intact. Fragmentary. Had amphibian-type vertebrae with tiny neural processes. (reptiles had only just separated from the amphibians)
Clepsydrops (early Pennsylvanian) -- The second earliest known synapsid. These early, very primitive synapsids are a primitive group of pelycosaurs collectively called "ophiacodonts".
Archaeothyris (early-mid Pennsylvanian) -- A slightly later ophiacodont. Small temporal fenestra, now with some reduced bones (supratemporal). Braincase still just loosely attached to skull. Slight hint of different tooth types. Still has some extremely primitive, amphibian/captorhinid features in the jaw, foot, and skull. Limbs, posture, etc. typically reptilian, though the ilium (major hip bone) was slightly enlarged.
Varanops (early Permian) -- Temporal fenestra further enlarged. Braincase floor shows first mammalian tendencies & first signs of stronger attachment to rest of skull (occiput more strongly attached). Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature (slight coronoid eminence). Body narrower, deeper: vertebral column more strongly constructed. Ilium further enlarged, lower-limb musculature starts to change (prominent fourth trochanter on femur). This animal was more mobile and active. Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus (late Pennsylvanian) -- One of the first known sphenacodonts, showing the initiation of sphenacodont features while retaining many primitive features of the ophiacodonts. Occiput still more strongly attached to the braincase. Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall. Stronger jaw muscles. Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian. Neural spines on vertebrae longer. Hip strengthened by fusing to three sacral vertebrae instead of just two. Limbs very well developed.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, 270 Ma) -- More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor, but as it is known from very complete fossils, it's a good model for sphenacodont anatomy. Medium-sized fenestra. Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum, but there was no eardrum yet, so these reptiles could only hear ground-borne vibrations (they did have a reptilian middle ear). Vertebrae had still longer neural spines (spectacularly so in Dimetrodon, which had a sail), and longer transverse spines for stronger locomotion muscles.
Biarmosuchia (late Permian) -- A therocephalian -- one of the earliest, most primitive therapsids. Several primitive, sphenacodontid features retained: jaw muscles inside the skull, platelike occiput, palatal teeth. New features: Temporal fenestra further enlarged, occupying virtually all of the cheek, with the supratemporal bone completely gone. Occipital plate slanted slightly backwards rather than forwards as in pelycosaurs, and attached still more strongly to the braincase. Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Still no secondary palate, but the vomer bones of the palate developed a backward extension below the palatine bones. This is the first step toward a secondary palate, and with exactly the same pattern seen in cynodonts. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle). The amphibian-like hinged upper jaw finally became immovable. Vertebrae still sphenacodontid-like. Radical alteration in the method of locomotion, with a much more mobile forelimb, more upright hindlimb, & more mammalian femur & pelvis. Primitive sphenacodontid humerus. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian. The neck & tail vertebrae became distinctly different from trunk vertebrae. Probably had an eardrum in the lower jaw, by the jaw hinge.
Procynosuchus (latest Permian) -- The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Probably arose from the therocephalians, judging from the distinctive secondary palate and numerous other skull characters. Enormous temporal fossae for very strong jaw muscles, formed by just one of the reptilian jaw muscles, which has now become the mammalian masseter. The large fossae is now bounded only by the thin zygomatic arch (cheekbone to you & me). Secondary palate now composed mainly of palatine bones (mammalian), rather than vomers and maxilla as in older forms; it's still only a partial bony palate (completed in life with soft tissue). Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Dentary now is 3/4 of lower jaw; the other bones are now a small complex near the jaw hinge. Jaw hinge still reptilian. Vertebral column starts to look mammalian: first two vertebrae modified for head movements, and lumbar vertebrae start to lose ribs, the first sign of functional division into thoracic and lumbar regions. Scapula beginning to change shape. Further enlargement of the ilium and reduction of the pubis in the hip. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia [also "Permocynodon"] (latest Permian) -- Another early cynodont. First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The temporal fenestra increased still further. Various changes in the floor of the braincase; enlarged brain. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge. Single occipital condyle splitting into two surfaces. The postcranial skeleton of Dvinia is virtually unknown and it is not therefore certain whether the typical features found at the next level had already evolved by this one. Metabolic rate was probably increased, at least approaching homeothermy.
Thrinaxodon (early Triassic) -- A more advanced "galesaurid" cynodont. Further development of several of the cynodont features seen already. Temporal fenestra still larger, larger jaw muscle attachments. Bony secondary palate almost complete. Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. Dentary still larger, with the little quadrate and articular bones were loosely attached. The stapes now touched the inner side of the quadrate. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge, a ligamentous connection between the lower jaw and the squamosal bone of the skull. The occipital condyle is now two slightly separated surfaces, though not separated as far as the mammalian double condyles. Vertebral connections more mammalian, and lumbar ribs reduced. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. Ilium increased again, and all four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Tail short, as is necessary for agile quadrupedal locomotion. The whole locomotion was more agile. Number of toe bones is 2.3.4.4.3, intermediate between reptile number (2.3.4.5.4) and mammalian (2.3.3.3.3), and the "extra" toe bones were tiny. Nearly complete skeletons of these animals have been found curled up - a possible reaction to conserve heat, indicating possible endothermy? Adults and juveniles have been found together, possibly a sign of parental care. The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. NOTE on hearing: The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. These animals could now hear airborne sound, transmitted through the eardrum to two small lower jaw bones, the articular and the quadrate, which contacted the stapes in the skull, which contacted the cochlea. Rather a roundabout system and sensitive to low-frequency sound only, but better than no eardrum at all! Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it. All early mammals from the Lower Jurassic have this low-frequency ear and a double jaw joint. By the middle Jurassic, mammals lost the reptilian joint (though it still occurs briefly in embryos) and the two bones moved into the nearby middle ear, became smaller, and became much more sensitive to high-frequency sounds.
Cynognathus (early Triassic, 240 Ma; suspected to have existed even earlier) -- We're now at advanced cynodont level. Temporal fenestra larger. Teeth differentiating further; cheek teeth with cusps met in true occlusion for slicing up food, rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). Dentary still larger, forming 90% of the muscle-bearing part of the lower jaw. TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian: A new bony jaw joint existed between the squamosal (skull) and the surangular bone (lower jaw), while the other jaw joint bones were reduced to a compound rod lying in a trough in the dentary, close to the middle ear. Ribs more mammalian. Scapula halfway to the mammalian condition. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon (early Triassic, 240 Ma; same strata as Cynognathus) -- Temporal fenestra larger still, for still stronger jaw muscles. True bony secondary palate formed exactly as in mammals, but didn't extend quite as far back. Turbinate bones possibly present in the nose (warm-blooded?). Dental changes continue: rate of tooth replacement had decreased, cheek teeth have better cusps & consistent wear facets (better occlusion). Lower jaw almost entirely dentary, with tiny articular at the hinge. Still a double jaw joint. Ribs shorten suddenly in lumbar region, probably improving diaphragm function & locomotion. Mammalian toe bones (2.3.3.3.3), with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon (mid-Triassic; South America) -- Fenestra very large, still separate from eyesocket (with postorbital bar). Secondary palate longer, but still not complete. Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Nares separated. Second jaw joint stronger. Lumbar ribs totally lost; thoracic ribs more mammalian, vertebral connections very mammalian. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, 239-235 Ma, Argentina) -- Larger brain with various skull changes: pineal foramen ("third eye") closes, fusion of some skull plates. Cheekbone slender, low down on the side of the eye socket. Postorbital bar still there. Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Still had cervical ribs & lumbar ribs, but they were very short. Reptilian "costal plates" on thoracic ribs mostly lost. Mammalian #toe bones.
Exaeretodon (mid-late Triassic, 239Ma, South America) -- (Formerly lumped with the herbivorous gomphodont cynodonts.) Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). Costal plates completely lost. More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. Possibly the first steps toward coupling of locomotion & breathing. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.

See?

Can I say 'lucy'?

You mean the first Australopithecus Apharensis fossil that was later corroborated by many more fossils of the exact same species?

Can I say Piltdown man?

The hoax that was debunked by evolutionary science?

Originally posted by mrvdreamknight
"repeatedly warned?" - right. How about I share with you their private messages so you can see what they were really saying? But of course I'm sure that would get me in to some kind of trouble. So I guess I won't.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you implying that the mods are secretly supporting you but not posting in the threads themselves?

But for the record, the one warning I received was for posting 'nope' and 'nope' - for which I apologized to the mod and promised not to do it again. I was unaware of the rules here but I have since read and refer to the rules often.

You apparently still are: "No 1-Liners: Please do not create minimal "me too," "I agree," or similar very-short replies." But you continue to do it anyway.

Boy, you're good. You attacked me again and I responded.

Not at all. I'm attacking the fact that you post almost no meaningful content in your posts and then claim victory on behalf of others. It's fine if you want to show support for another poster, but one-liners that add nothing to the conversation aren't the way to do it. That's why ATS has the stars & flags system.

The truth of the matter was that the thread you are referring to was called, Creationism: prove it, or something like that. When I reminded the op that we were there to prove creationism, he about blew a gasket. And the thread stalled for a bit but then it picked up steem again because he suckered in some more people to argue about evolution, even though that is not what the thread is suppose to be about. The op has since opened a new thread with a corrected title, proving I was right. (I guess I must have made at least one logical argument there - hunh?)

That's the truth? Interesting. Here's what I remember, and can back up by referring to the original thread: the thread is called "Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!", you were repeatedly posting off-topic by trying to disprove evolution as if that would be tantamount to positive evidence for creationism, the OP asked that you stay on topic and provide positive evidence for creationism, the mods then warned you three times about your one-line no-content posts, you started threatening to report people to the mods if they didn't stay within your view of what on-topic was for the thread. Since you've left that thread, it's continued to grow and is up over 300 posts at this point. The OP opened this thread because he wanted to provide a forum for people like edmc^2 to post evidence to falsify evolution. There, I brought the truth to you.

Since comparing evolution to creationism is like comparing apples to oranges I see no point of debating them anymore.

That's fine. This isn't a thread about comparing evolution and creationism. This is a thread for people to post evidence which they believe falsifies evolution. Then people will post their reasons for why that presented evidence does not falsify evolution. And back and forth. That's the debate for this thread.

Evolution does a fair job of explaining how things have gone since it all began but offers no thought on our origin - and it may or may not end up being true.

You're right, it doesn't offer any thoughts on our origin... because it's not supposed to. That's what things like abiogenesis are for. It may turn out someday that evolution is found to not be the truth, but simply saying that isn't a falsification of evolution. Theories can and should be constantly tested in light of new evidence.

Creationism offers one possible explanation of how it all began and it may end up being proven true or not.

Fine. So take your positive evidence or creationism over to the "Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!" thread.

The point? Neither of them have been proven. Henceforth why there has been countless threads about these subjects.

Evolution has a preponderance of the evidence, and by preponderance I mean "all of it", while there has been zero evidence provided for creationism. But, again, that's discussion meant for the "Creationism/Intelligent Design: PROVE IT!" thread.

Whenever either subject is debated the other subject always comes in to play.

Hardly. When asked to prove evolution, people don't try and disprove creationism. The only people I see regularly bringing the two together are creationists who try to invoke falsification of evolution to prove creationism. But it doesn't work that way, does it?

Why? I do not know. But it makes zero sense to me. Because even if evolution or creationism is disproved does it really prove the other theory correct? No, it does not. So what is the point of debating them then?

Because we're not debating evolution vs creationism. The three threads that are active on the topic now boil down to the following: one thread for providing positive proof for creationism, one for providing positive proof of evolution, one for providing falsification of evolution. We're discussing each of these on their own merits.

Will you or I change our beliefs? Not hardly.

So then why debate it? Really, why?

Sure we can share our ideas, views, and beliefs, but hasn't this all been done before by far greater intellects than ours?

I have read thousands of posts on ATS about this subject since my first posts here and have learned what a futile debate this really is.

Not at all. Honestly, if you've been participating in these threads and haven't had an idea sparked by something or learned some new fact or something substantive, then you really aren't reading them with an open mind.

So, please, go ahead and keep attacking me or call me names or whatever you do to try and discredit people with different views than yours. I will have no part of it.

I haven't attacked you or called you names, and I haven't tried to discredit anyone. I'm more than happy to post counter evidence when it exists, but you haven't posted anything that would amount to a falsification of evolution, so there's not much I can do until then. Remember, you replied to my post to edmc^2, not the other way around.

I only offered my support to this op because I believe in what he is saying.

It is my opinion.

I am entitled to it.

No matter how much it may offend you.

And that's why we have the stars & flags system. Your opinion doesn't offend me at all and I would never begrudge someone their beliefs.

Now, how my positive affirmation of a fellow human being justifies you attacking me I'll never understand. My posts were not directed towards you. I meant you no offense. I apologize if I did offend you. But I will continue to offer my support to the people who hold similar beliefs to mine.

Again, you weren't being attacked. I'm not sure why you continue to assert you were. If you want to show support, either stick to stars & flags or make a substantive post of your own that bolsters that person's evidence.

All that being said, I'm still waiting to hear edmc^2's follow up to "Can I say Lucy? Can I say Piltdown Man?" comment. I'd love to see why he thinks those two things provide falsification of evolution.

reply to post by purplemonkeydishwasher


I'll let Ken Miller answer the 46 chromosome question for me.

It's only a 4-5 minute video.



To summarize, Ken Miller basically explains that the discovery that chimps have only 48 chromosomes was a seemingly dark spot until it was found that the chromosomes had actually fused, and we can find that fusion on chromosome 2.

reply to post by Arrowmancer


The easy answer to the majority of your advocacy on behalf of the devil is that evolution doesn't make us better, it makes us more survivable. It's also not perfect.

And some of the changes you would attribute to evolution (like wings instead of arms) wouldn't be beneficial.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by Arrowmancer

 

The easy answer to the majority of your advocacy on behalf of the devil is that evolution doesn't make us better, it makes us more survivable. It's also not perfect.

And some of the changes you would attribute to evolution (like wings instead of arms) wouldn't be beneficial.

You are completely ignoring how cool it would be to sit infront of your computer with giant wings and claws...I always wanted that. I'd be perfectly adapted to my life as a real estate analyst and ATS poster. I could fly to work (obv sucks when it rains) and use my claws to scare/scratch people who piss me off instead of having to argue with them any longer.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fe146dfab361.jpg[/atsimg]

I'm not really sold on the horns though...don't see why I would want them.

Either way, I totally get why some people argue against evolution because we don't look like the people in some Japanese manga...makes total sense!

PS: Yes, I'd amputate my tail. Also, notice how the dude in the pic is able to conjure up fire in his left hand...that would be really practical and I don't get why nature hasn't given us that ability.

This may be considered "off topic" but there is an author by the name of David Brin who writes excellent "hard core" science fiction that touches upon many of the topics discussed here in this thread such as; "uplifting" pre-sentient life forms (Sundiver), designer genetics (Glory Season), etc...

Here's a link to his Official Website: David Brin

~peace

reply to post by MrXYZ


Such a creature would actually falsify evolution, as the phylogentic tree would have no place for humans.

One common thread in the science of phylogeny is the observation that it's easier to evolve new uses for limbs than evolve new limbs.

We don't have tails, like the other great apes, so it would be insanely difficult for them to re-evolve.

Here's a great video that explains phylogentics and morphology




...There's also the fact that vertebrates can only support four limbs with our bodily structure.

reply to post by edmc^2


My only problem with your definitions is that I've never seen the "without an intelligent creator" in any science book or article in my life. It seems to me that the idea of any sort of intelligent creator is the province of religious thought and that perhaps a mention thereof, either for or against, really belongs somewhere else besides a scientific definition.

It's odd, I'd assume there'd be...10-15 creationists on here enthusiastically responding to my challenge. I'm someone who supports evolution as the prevailing theory of the diversity of life, yet there hasn't been a proper challenge to it.

Or maybe that's because creationists on here prefer to simply flag threads that call Darwin mentally ill or 'evolutionists' illogical instead of participating in the debate.

Do creationists not want to discuss evolution on the 'evolutionists' turf?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul




1) Evolution is wrong and doesn't exist.
2) Satan invented (lol) evolution (you know, the thing that doesn't exist)
3) Satan = bad
4) Evolution = bad
5) God = good

reply to post by MrXYZ


Ah, poor Sha--I mean VenomFangX.

I'm surprised I'm not even getting that much out of this thread. Nobody is actually even trying in this thread. There are so many people who like to flag the flags on this topic, but they won't even talk the talk, let alone walk the walk

Oh, and just to clear something up for everyone on this thread, I no have a definition of evolution in my signature.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


Sorry I disagree with the perception that this definition brings, as it is adaptation and mutation which can be defined as only a very small part of the totality of the evolution process, the part I don't have problem with because it is scientifically proven.

Again this picture chart is evolution in it's totality, do you disagree?

EVOLUTION

Because until we establish that, going back and forth over what we are actually trying to falsify is a pure waste of keystrokes.

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Which part of the evolutionary theory do you disagree with? And please don't say "macro-evolution" (aka speciation)...because that's been proven and observed dozens of times

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

Sorry I disagree with the perception that this definition brings, as it is adaptation and mutation which can be defined as only a very small part of the totality of the evolution process, the part I don't have problem with because it is scientifically proven.

What's the rest of the "evolution process", as you understand it, that you don't agree with?

Again this picture chart is evolution in it's totality, do you disagree?

In it's totality? On it's face, I'd say no. I think it does a good job giving an idea of the breadth of the morphological results of the process of evolution, but it sacrifices the finer detail and a discussion of how for that broad scope. Do you feel that it's an accurate representation of the totality of evolution?

reply to post by iterationzero

Do you feel that it's an accurate representation of the totality of evolution?

Yes.

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
reply to post by iterationzero

 

Do you feel that it's an accurate representation of the totality of evolution?

Yes.

So now that you established that you disagree with evolutionary theory, and the title of this thread is "Evolution: Falsify it!"...would you grant us with your reasoning as to why you believe the theory is wrong?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


OK, then let's go back to the other question I asked: what's the rest of the "evolution process", as you understand it, that you don't agree with? You stated that you disagreed with the implication of the quote in mad's signature:

"In fact evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."

and that you felt what it describes is just adaptation and mutation. I would counter that all of the observed signs of evolution are just manifestations of that genetic shifting. So, in your mind, what are the rest of the processes involved in evolution that you have a problem with?

reply to post by Blue_Jay33


Well, I disagree with the inclusion of the Earth, as formation of planets and the development of the current climate aren't part of evolutionary theory.

It also includes abiogenesis, which isn't evolution. It has a separate name for a reason.

As for my definition, it's the same thing as one species turning into a new species. It's the exact same mechanism, only over many more generations.