Can you prove evolution wrong

Ok Colin, I think your thread has gone out of control lol.
I was actually trying to lay down some ground work for us but I do not have the patieance for threads gone bad.

I will try to cut down on the ground work and I will get to the question at hand in the next couple of post.

So far I think we agree.

Keep in mind this is just a rough break down of how things MIGHT have happened.......
Life begins (you stated that Evolution has no account for this so we will move along). Next we have plant life, then more complex life that starts in some type of H2O, be it an ocean, pond or puddle (we are agreed so far, Yes?). Now after life in H2O comes land life, birds, Dinos, reptiles, mammals and even humans?
If there are no questions this will be the end of the ground work and we can start on the OP.
Thanks,
Quad

reply to post by Quadrivium


Gone out of control is a massive understatement

Yes I agree with you so far. No questions and no stumbling points. I would list birds after dinosaurs or at least at the later stages and point out that some species that moved onto the land later moved back into water be it ponds/seas/pceans. So not quite so linear.

reply to post by Quadrivium

Ah.......the theory of evolution is evolving!!
Or is it adapting to survive?

Updating to incorporate new information is the hallmark of any scientific theory, not just modern evolutionary synthesis. Keep in mind that Darwin's theory of evolution wasn't the beginning and the end of what we know as evolution today. For example, the concept of genetics was essentially unheard of, so Darwin had no idea what the mechanism for heritable traits being passed down from generation to generation was.

reply to post by colin42

GREAT!
So the only point of contention between us thus far would be when birds arrived on the scene.
I take it that you believe birds to be the descendents of Theropod dinosaurs?
We may just have to disagree on this point, unless you have an open mind and will allow me to try and persuade you to other lines of thinking?
Again I am not trying to prove evolution wrong but there is evidence to support that birds lived at the time of the earliest dinosaurs.
A small debate on the subject before we move along should not hinder us much, besides we may both learn something along the way.

The order of the fossils in the geological record actually flies in the face of the theory that birds evolved from theropods. The theropods are found in Cretaceous rocks, while birds are found in Jurassic sediments, which is the opposite of what would be predicted by the theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. These fossils only prove the evolution of birds from dinosaurs if one assumes that they are descended from an unknown common ancestor that predates both Archaeopteryx and the Chinese "feathered theropods". If this assumption is made then I agree that the fossils might show how it happened, but they do not prove that it did happen. I suggest that Caudipteryx was actually a running bird with a similar life-style and morphology to modern ostriches. Other so-called theropod dinosaurs with feathers may also prove to be running birds, albeit with dinosaurian features. I would also suggest that creatures with clear evidence of feathers, either flightless (like Caudipteryx and Protarchaeopteryx) or able to fly, (like Archaeopteryx) are all birds. Furthermore, as the oldest fossils are birds, a case could be made that species like Caudipteryx and the other Chinese fossils descended from birds rather than vice versa, because this is consistent with the sequence of the fossils in the rocks. The Chinese fossils are assumed to be relics of earlier species of bird ancestors because that is consistent with the assumption that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, not because the evidence demands it. There are two other difficulties for the accepted theory that birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. First the evidence of Triassic "bird-like" footprints conflicts with the accepted dogma. Yet the authors preferred to put their faith in the existence of an unknown theropod dinosaur with bird-like feet rather than suggest that these footprints are evidence that birds existed in the Triassic. They reasoned that these could not be bird footprints because they are older than the oldest known bird fossils. This brings us to the second problem for the current theory of bird evolution; Protoavis. The fossils of Protoavis, while controversial, are consistent with the existence of Triassic birds. However, the majority refuse to accept that they could be the remains of a bird. Indeed if Protoavis was a bird that would challenge the evolutionists’ theory that birds evolved from theropods whose fossils are 100 million years younger by their reckoning.

www.truthinscience.org.uk...
This really is a good read, rather short as well.

There is also new(er) evidence (from a scientist at Berkeley, I believe) that shows the theropod connection is false because of the fixed femur bone birds have. No dinosaurs have a fixed femur, it is exclusive to birds. Without it they would puncture the air sack in their chest cavity.
Quad

reply to post by iterationzero
iteration,
We all adapt to survive, even evolutionist. It is the way of life. The need to survive.
Theories come and go, some are even bent and warped to make them fit where and when they shouldn't.
Great are the times when we can actually prove a theory beyond the shadow of doubt, it is also very rare (much like life, eh? )

reply to post by Quadrivium

No scientific theory is ever proven. Nothing in science is every actually proven. Here's a link that does a better job explaining it than I can at the moment. I realize that the meanings of the words used to talk about science are different from their colloquial meanings, but it's important to recognize and understand where those differences exist.

Originally posted by iterationzero
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

No scientific theory is ever proven. Nothing in science is every actually proven. Here's a link that does a better job explaining it than I can at the moment. I realize that the meanings of the words used to talk about science are different from their colloquial meanings, but it's important to recognize and understand where those differences exist.

I know this.
I may have been wrong in my saying "theories come and go", maybe I could have put it another way.
What if new laws are discovered and added to a theory? It is the same theory but differnt, yes?
Absolutes are rare, because we do not have all of the information.............as of yet. You said it yourself, "the theory of evolution has changed as more information has been added" (excuse me if I miss quoted, working from memory. I am on my cell and do not have all of the features of my lap top lol).
Still to me evolution in theory is just a hypothesis. Yes it contains truth, but not all truth.

What if it were discovered that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing the fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly?
Would this ruin the theory of evolution? No. it would adapt in order to survive. Why? Because the simple truth is that we do not know everything. We learn, we grow and we adapt.

Lol I tried to clarify but I am afraid I preformed the oppisite.
Quad

reply to post by Quadrivium
Thanks for the info. I am not stuck on how and when birds came on the list and your link shows that there may well be a case.

As a young kid (who wasnt interested in dinosaurs) I never accepted that the dinosaur was a drab grey colour as depicted at the time. One look at the colourful reptiles convinced me colour was a given.

Seeing the fossils being found showing feathers further convinces me of that so again what you linked to could well have merrit and I will bear that in mind.

I dont have all the answers and never will hopefully. Like womens clothing. There should always be enough not shown to feed the imagination and maintain interest.

reply to post by Quadrivium
I think there is a two speed component involved in evolution.

One that takes time to set new traits within a group/herd and is driven by slow environmental change. Fine tuning if you like.

The other is in the aftermath of a cataclysmic change at extinction levels. It is not that the survivors need to change fast to survive although that would be a driver but all the new opportunities that arise from the now vacant and newly formed niches.

It would be likely that the herd/group numbers would be greatly reduced and so new traits established at a much faster rate. Relatively of course not wake up as a new species as some will try to read into this thought.

Originally posted by Quadrivium
reply to post by colin42

 

GREAT!
So the only point of contention between us thus far would be when birds arrived on the scene.
I take it that you believe birds to be the descendents of Theropod dinosaurs?
We may just have to disagree on this point, unless you have an open mind and will allow me to try and persuade you to other lines of thinking?
Again I am not trying to prove evolution wrong but there is evidence to support that birds lived at the time of the earliest dinosaurs.
A small debate on the subject before we move along should not hinder us much, besides we may both learn something along the way.

www.truthinscience.org.uk...
This really is a good read, rather short as well.

There is also new(er) evidence (from a scientist at Berkeley, I believe) that shows the theropod connection is false because of the fixed femur bone birds have. No dinosaurs have a fixed femur, it is exclusive to birds. Without it they would puncture the air sack in their chest cavity.
Quad

I read about this awhile back. Very interesting. It seems to imply that the feathers were for thermoregulation--warm bloodedness came later--and only later were wings used for flight.

reply to post by colin42


I see and it just so happens to match documentation from the bible. What a coincedence.

reply to post by colin42

Originally posted by colin42
reply to post by Quadrivium

 

I think there is a two speed component involved in evolution.

One that takes time to set new traits within a group/herd and is driven by slow environmental change. Fine tuning if you like.

The other is in the aftermath of a cataclysmic change at extinction levels. It is not that the survivors need to change fast to survive although that would be a driver but all the new opportunities that arise from the now vacant and newly formed niches.

It would be likely that the herd/group numbers would be greatly reduced and so new traits established at a much faster rate. Relatively of course not wake up as a new species as some will try to read into this thought.

I think you just hit the nail on the head, Colin. And with smaller numbers, there's much more likelihood of a certain amount of inbreeding, which would drive the rate even more.

reply to post by colin42

Do you have to make a fairy story about every subject you trip over?

The soffit boards on houses had holes for ventilation or lack of maintainance and the sparrow's need for a nesting site was suited by this. Changeing the old soffit boards for UPVC denied them those nesting sites. No nests, no house sparrows.

It was not caused by global warming or humans 'trying to help out'.

We did not try to help out the feral pigeon either that has made its home in cities because they resemble the cliff faces it roosts and nests on. You don’t have to fantasise how something happens. Use your eyes. Find the evidence and then come to a conclusion.

The plants and animals that benifit and thrive on and in the enviroments humans provide do not need an invite. Do not need to be encouraged. They identify an advantage to them and move in. In other words the find a niche just as the house sparrow did.

This does not only happen wildlife/humans. Many other species thrive because of the actions of other species. Dung beetles, cleaner fish to name a couple but ALL species interact with ALL other species in some way.

Now do you get the picture. Your 'we are not from here is a childish fantasy that has no foundation, no evidence and is nothing more than ignorance trying to find comfort food.

Maybe its my fault for not clairifying that you have to exclude ones sucked in by our intervention.

reply to post by colin42


Thank you for being open minded Colin.
Now, ON WITH THE SHOW.

How would I explain diversity without using evolution?
Faith, Colin
Faith and the science I see in a book written millennia ago.
We are just discovering things that were written there.
Take the origins of life for instance, we both agreed on the order of which life may have presented itself.
It is also laid out, in the order of which I listed, in the very first chapter.
Plants, life in the oceans, birds and all other living creatures including humans. It is not written in scientific form but it is there.
Many will just toss it out as rubbish because they can not get through the language and allegory or they can not comprehend Something greater than the human intellect.
It is my belief that the species on earth today were here in the beginning. As they roamed and multiplied they encountered different ecosystems and adapted to them so that they could survive.
There might be 500 different types of fruit flys but they are all still fruit flys. There might be many different types of lemurs but they are all still lemurs.

Diversity in in each type of animal not diversity from one type of animal/organism.

Flame me if you need, but it was an answer you wanted.

I have given mine.
Thanks,
Quad.

reply to post by colin42

That is your answer to what effect lions have and what would the effect of no loins be. Elephants. What big white ones?

ALL life is dependant/affected by ALL other life not just the relationships between man/animal. This really shows your world view as you appear to have no clue on the world around you. Only the creationist sites you cling to puts mankind as the centre of the universe.

Your correct here, its called a balanced eco system.

So you have been given solid examples and guess what???? ........ You dismissed them without a thought as per usual.

A suggestion. Take your story to the writing forum although they will probably also find it so foudationless it could not even make a good fairytale.

Well that fairytale was allready written 10,000 years ago so shame on you.

What a childish response. Yes Xcallibur 'slayed' you and your response shows it. You got the answer to your questions but they were not the ones you wanted, they were the correct ones backed with evidence.

So then your admitting that our entire existance is to help these poor birds, and thats it? Wow.

reply to post by colin42

You have received valid answers all the way through the pages you have found a niche in. You choose to adopt the 'See No Evidence Monkey' on every occassion.

The rest of your tantrum because you got the answer the did not want and cannot concoct another fantasy around is call burrying your head in the sand.

Giving me examples of animals that were sucked into human intervention is hardly a correct answer.

reply to post by colin42

So explain the beggining? Oh you say you cannot.

So explain diversity as per OP? Oh you say you dont have the answers, maybe aliens did it.

Now read this very carefully. I dont care how life began. I know it did and that is good enough for me. Evolution that you deny in ignorance does not care or answer how life began either. It describes how it has progressed since.

The only reason you keep banging on about creation is because you have no clue, ie your ignorant of what Evolution explains.

I am content with what evolution says. You are not and have built a fantasy to explain life and have been asked to explain diversity using it. YOU CANT.

Just because you think you have the answer does not make you right, thats like saying you can't be wrong.

reply to post by iterationzero

You keep changing your story about what you were talking about.

Possibly, it was many replies ago.

So your claim is, by your own admission now, unprovable.

Because of to many factors yes.

It's in the paper I linked for you. Learn to read.

DNA doesn't tell you what planet we were on at what time.

But that's not what you claimed. You said that our species was brought here 10kya. Not that certain members of our species were brought here and that others might have been brought here earlier and some later and some taken back to our home world. Your claim was demonstrably wrong.

No its even more complicated than that, we could have bread with those species as well.

But according to your earlier claim, there was no "earlier batch". I asked you how long our species has been on this planet and you said that our species arrived here 10kya. Not that some arrived here 10kya and that some were earlier or later. Your claim was demonstrably wrong and now you're trying to change up your story.

Well thien I eaiter failed to understand the question or failed to remember that important fact. According to the bibel there was people here prior to Adam and Eve.

I'm glad to see you finally admit that yet another one of your claims has zero evidence supporting it.

If you want to look at it like that, sure, and that the fact we seem to not have a clue where we came from has nothing to do with it, sure.

reply to post by Quadrivium

I may have been wrong in my saying "theories come and go", maybe I could have put it another way.

What you actually said was:

Great are the times when we can actually prove a theory beyond the shadow of doubt

No theory is ever proven. Even something that we now take for granted as common sense. One example of this is heliocentric theory. The heliocentricity of our solar system is a fact; heliocentric theory explains features of out heliocentric solar system. But there's still people out there who refuse to accept either the fact or the theory.

What if new laws are discovered and added to a theory?

Theories aren't simply agglomerations of laws. A theory would explain the law or laws that are part of that particular system, like the relationship between the law of gravity and the theory of gravity. Sorry if this seems like I'm nitpicking, but the repeated misuse (intentional and unintentional) of scientific terms on ATS in general and in this part of the forum in particular is tiresome.

It is the same theory but differnt, yes?

I think it depends on how much has been added to it. Uninformed people repeatedly talk about modern evolutionary synthesis by calling it "Darwinism" or "Darwin's theory of evolution", but they're not the same thing. Modern evolutionary synthesis includes concept from Darwin's theory. Along with genetics, cell biology, morphology, paleontology, etc.

Absolutes are rare, because we do not have all of the information.............as of yet.

Absolutes are nonexistent. Even laws only apply under given sets of conditions, like the second law of thermodynamics only applying to closed systems.

You said it yourself, "the theory of evolution has changed as more information has been added" (excuse me if I miss quoted, working from memory. I am on my cell and do not have all of the features of my lap top lol).
Still to me evolution in theory is just a hypothesis. Yes it contains truth, but not all truth.

It will never contain "all truth". No scientific theory contains "all truth". That doesn't make it any less of a scientific theory.

What if it were discovered that stratified sedimentary rocks, containing the fossils alleged to prove evolution, formed very quickly?
Would this ruin the theory of evolution? No. it would adapt in order to survive. Why? Because the simple truth is that we do not know everything. We learn, we grow and we adapt.

There are actually several ways that modern evolutionary synthesis could be falsified. Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbits is probably the most (in)famous example that comes to mind.