Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by Techy


100% correct. Evolution could not happen without something being there first. Evolution does not try to explain the beginning of life.

Species do not need a reason to be they way they are just an opportunity to survive in its environment and pass on its genes.

There are loads of ants but they all don’t do the same things

reply to post by Techy

Originally posted by Techy
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

But evolution couldn't happen unless something was actually there in the first place

True. And gravity wouldn't work unless there were objects for it to act upon in the first place either, but the theory of gravity doesn't need to explain the origins of matter, does it?

- creationism explains that, it explains how the matter was made and put there.

No, creationism simply states a belief in how matter got here. Saying "God did it" doesn't explain anything.

Evolution couldn't happen without there being matter in the first place.

True, but scientific theories aren't meant to describe everything. Geologic theories regarding volcanoes don't have to explain the origin of the solar system.

I apologize though, I suppose that is more straying into the topic of the creation of the universe.

Thank you.

But on the topic of evolution, why? Why create predators to kill other creatures?

Why? Evolution doesn't concern itself with why. Predators exist simply because they survived. There's no morality there. Predation exists because predators survived.

Why don't all species live off plants?

Because a species evolved that ate the species that lived off plants. And meat has a lot of energy in it.

And why are there millions of different types of species, even though a lot of them work the same (there are lots of different types of ants, but most of them do the same thing)?

Because they all evolve differently. When you geographically isolate two populations of the same species you end up with two different species.

I'm sorry if I seem ignorant, I don't really know much about evolution :/

It's alright. It's better than claiming to know everything. I applaud your honesty.

Why did matter find the need to organize itself into complex organisms? Why didn't it just stay in it's constituent parts. If we are simply matter, there is nothing to be accomplished.

Link
Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy. It asserts that a proposition is necessarily true because it has not been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is: there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to "prove" the proposition to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four; with (3) being unknown between true or false; and (4) being unknowable (among the first three). And finally, any action taken, based upon such a pseudo "proof" is fallaciously valid, that is, it is being asserted to be valid based upon a fallacy.[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

We see regular evolution all around us. The peppered moth is one example, another example being nylon eating bacteria. That is bacteria the evolved the capability to eat nylon, a purely synthetic material.

This is adaptation. If the evolution model is just based on adaptation then I would agree with it. It's not...so I don't.

We see various stages of all the systems contained in the human body in other animals, including improvements on those systems. A good example of a better system found in nature would be the eye of the octopus or the ear of the dog. Both are vastly superior to our versions of those organs.

All you are saying is human's and animals are alike and different. What does that prove for evolution? Nothing. It's actually replicated in design.

For example; Some cars have drum brakes. Some cars have disc brakes. Some cars have anti-lock brakes. Semi-trucks have air brakes. I Can't sit here and say, both anti-lock brakes and air brakes are vastly superior to my cars disc brakes, so that tells me my car and a semi-truck evolved from the same ancestor. It's ridiculous.

As for evolving from an ape, it's somewhat right. We are apes. We evolved from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee and we further back have an ancestor with gorillas. Even further back than that, we have an ancestor with orangutans.

What proof do you you have for this? It better not be the weak 98% DNA thing. Well, it can't be that, because you claim to know where all these apes and chimps fit on "our family tree".

Show me where evolution deals with the Scientific Method. You know where you start with a hypothesis, and test to see if that hypothesis is true or false.

reply to post by bargoose


...laws of physics. The laws of physics govern the interaction of matter in the universe and they simply allow for matter to self-organize into things like crystals.

...also, this has nothing to do with evolution.

reply to post by addygrace

Originally posted by addygrace

reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

We see regular evolution all around us. The peppered moth is one example, another example being nylon eating bacteria. That is bacteria the evolved the capability to eat nylon, a purely synthetic material.

This is adaptation. If the evolution model is just based on adaptation then I would agree with it. It's not...so I don't.

How is it simply adaptation? How is the gaining of new genetic information through random mutation and natural selection an adaptation?

We see various stages of all the systems contained in the human body in other animals, including improvements on those systems. A good example of a better system found in nature would be the eye of the octopus or the ear of the dog. Both are vastly superior to our versions of those organs.

All you are saying is human's and animals are alike and different. What does that prove for evolution? Nothing. It's actually replicated in design.

Except that it isn't replicated in design...the mechanisms might be similar, but an octopus has a far more complex eye than the human being's. Insects have vastly different eyes that have both less and more function than the human eye.

For example; Some cars have drum brakes. Some cars have disc brakes. Some cars have anti-lock brakes. Semi-trucks have air brakes. I Can't sit here and say, both anti-lock brakes and air brakes are vastly superior to my cars disc brakes, so that tells me my car and a semi-truck evolved from the same ancestor. It's ridiculous.

You're right, because cars don't reproduce. Cars don't have genetic information. It's ridiculous because the analogy is ridiculous in the most basic sense of the word: deserving of ridicule.

As for evolving from an ape, it's somewhat right. We are apes. We evolved from a common ancestor with the chimpanzee and we further back have an ancestor with gorillas. Even further back than that, we have an ancestor with orangutans.

What proof do you you have for this?

Human genome project.

It better not be the weak 98% DNA thing.

How is that not evidence of common ancestry? How is the fact that we have an explicit chromosomal merger of two ape chromosomes not evidence of common ancestry? How is the fact that, aside from the aforementioned merger, we have the same chromosomal layout as all the other apes not evidence?

Well, it can't be that, because you claim to know where all these apes and chimps fit on "our family tree".

More or less. They're our cousins.

Show me where evolution deals with the Scientific Method. You know where you start with a hypothesis, and test to see if that hypothesis is true or false.

Read: On The Origin of Species.
See: Tiktaalik, the transitional form predicted by models of evolution decades before its disco
very.
See: Whale evolution, which was actually outlined by Darwin.
See: The field of genetics, which verified that there is a means of evolutionary change.

The hypothesis was that organisms through variation and survival factors change on a population level over time. It's been tested in the lab, speciation has been observed repeatedly, we've discovered evidence of it occurring in the past, we've found means for it to occur in genetics, and we've seen the genetic evidence that it has occurred.

reply to post by addygrace


This is not a shifting of the burden of proof. The evolutionary position has been laid out clearly. There are mountains of evidence for it. I'm merely asking for the theory that is supported by this evidence to be contradicted.

What are we falsifying? Is it your idea of evolution? Is it the Wiki version? Is it random mutation or natural selection? Where do we start and where do we end?

Come to think of it, evolution isn't falsifiable. No matter what is said, there's always an answer. Evolution is unrepeatable, against all odds occurences that can explain anything.

Originally posted by addygrace
Come to think of it, evolution isn't falsifiable. No matter what is said, there's always an answer. Evolution is unrepeatable, against all odds occurences that can explain anything.

...apart from the fact that it has been observed in the lab and nature tons of times...including speciation

Originally posted by addygrace
Come to think of it, evolution isn't falsifiable.

Yes it is. It's as simple as showing a 500 million year old rabbit fossil (or any other that doesn't fit the time line at all) to the public.

reply to post by addygrace
The degree with which we have seen organisms with short life cycles change into new species is perfectly in line with how long we would expect organisms with longer life cycles to change. It seems you are waiting for a novel mammal with a minimum 20 year life span to change into a new organism. You will be waiting for about 5 million years. If we did see a bigger eutharian actually change into a new species before our eyes it would disprove the theory of evolution

Mice, arthropods, numerous plants, and obviously bacteria, all of which are organisms that can be observed spanning multiple generations in a relatively short amount of time, have undergone speciation. For you to assert bigger organisms do not change you have to identify a restriction mechanism that essentially allows for organisms to not undergo evolutionary change or genetic drift. "Hold on there you marsupial, you've undergone enough change, I'm gonna pull the plug on this evolution stuff and you just go about your business like nothing happened."

Originally posted by addygrace
Come to think of it, evolution isn't falsifiable. No matter what is said, there's always an answer. Evolution is unrepeatable, against all odds occurences that can explain anything.

a monkey giving birth to a rabbit, a perfectly engineered eye, a whale in the precambrian, an english word found etched into an Cretaceous fossil...

reply to post by addygrace


Evolution as described as diversification of life via changes in allele frequency over successive generations.

reply to post by addygrace


It is quite falsifiable. Cambrian bunnies, living things with no clear genetic links to any other species, clear genetic evidence that genetic change cannot lead to speciation, a mechanism which would separate so-called "micro" evolutionary changes from becoming "macro" evolutionary changes...the list goes on and on and on.

We need not repeat the last few billion years of history to falsify evolution.

Alrighty then, people still think evolution is BS....so let's have it. Where is the evidence that evolution is nothing more than a big ol' stinking pile of fertilizer? Where is the falsification of its claims?

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I believe that the rate of change argues against random mutation and natural selection as the impetus in speciation.

It consistently happens too quickly.

Many of the specific things you cite as examples of evolution happened within very few generations of the organism.

As a driver of successful adaptations, it has to be this way or the fittest wouldn't survive but as a logical process it is flawed.

This does not neccesarily invalidate evolution, just the process by which we believe it would occur.

It could almost be said that speciation appears to be directed somehow (from an observational stand point).

Some scientist looks at a pile of bones and says we evolved from monkeys. That in and of itself falsifies evolution.

The real issue here is not evolution but the "debate" between evolution and its dumber counter-part creationism. It's like Dumb and Dumber, one side arguing we came from God, another arguing we came from primate. Neither side arguing that all things are a result of natural principles, most of which we have already discovered. Evolution does not prove the origin of species, making Charles Darwin's book "The origin of species" to be irrelevant to its title. Darwin says in his own work that the theory of evolution is taken form GIVEN the species have already originated.

It is also not plausible for things to originate out of God, because then where did God originate from. It only makes sense for Nature to originate out of itself, a principle of Self, and to falsify the theory that atoms always existed, all you have to do is look at atoms and see that they are material in nature and thus could not have popped out of existence out of nothing, and since atoms obey natural principles they are not greater than nature itself.

reply to post by chr0naut


Except...that it doesn't. The rate of change fits in with current genetic and evolutionary models perfectly in all species. Unless you can cite something specific that throws up an objection instead of saying that something looks like its directed...

reply to post by filosophia

Originally posted by filosophia
Some scientist looks at a pile of bones and says we evolved from monkeys. That in and of itself falsifies evolution.

Yay, it's someone else that doesn't understand evolution! No, that's not what scientists say. The fossil evidence (which isn't 'a pile of bones') isn't the only evidence we have for evolution. The genetic evidence alone is more than enough.

The real issue here is not evolution but the "debate" between evolution and its dumber counter-part creationism. It's like Dumb and Dumber, one side arguing we came from God, another arguing we came from primate.

*ahem*

Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Order: Primates
Family: Hominidae
Genus: Homo
Species: H. sapiens
Subspecies: H. s. sapiens

Or in a more amusing manner:

Neither side arguing that all things are a result of natural principles, most of which we have already discovered.

Except that evolution works solely on natural principles.

Evolution does not prove the origin of species, making Charles Darwin's book "The origin of species" to be irrelevant to its title. Darwin says in his own work that the theory of evolution is taken form GIVEN the species have already originated.

I'm sorry, but can you actually provide a quote? And furthermore...so what? Darwin isn't the be all and end all to evolutionary theory. There's over 150 more years of study since him that have elaborated on his brilliant, though not 100% accurate ideas.

Evolution does provide an origin for species. We have observed evolutionary speciation events. There is a thread in this very subforum which provides instances of speciation events.