What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

I see that others have informed you of your errors regarding speciation and macroevolution. Dogs evolved from wolves and the breeds are not separate species. Speciation is an example of macro-evolution. No one who understands the theory thinks that cats will give birth to dogs or hippos giving birth to lions or anything like that. As it has been said, such a bizarre and unprecedented occurrence would falsify the theory.

How is it that you come to think these things? Where are you getting your information? It isn't from a science source.

 

[F1fan]

Perhaps you misunderstood what I meant by signs. For example , the sign of the existence of the sun is its light and heat. So science is accepted and superstition rejected.

Light and heat are natural effects of the sun.

But although the outward senses such as sight can confirm the existence of the sun, other realities exist which are not confirmed by the senses. These are called intelligible realities.

If our senses can't detect these "realities" then how do we mortals known they are real versus imaginary?

For example, the power of the mind is not sensible, nor are any of the human attributes: These are intelligible realities. Love, likewise, is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. For the ear does not hear these realities, the eye does not see them, the smell does not sense them, the taste does not detect them, the touch does not perceive them. Likewise, nature itself is an intelligible and not a sensible reality; the human spirit is an intelligible and not a sensible reality. (Baha’i Writings)

Acknowledging that intelligible realities do exist, therefore we cannot say God does not exist because He cannot be seen with the outward senses as He is an intelligible Reality.

Oh, these are just abstractions we humans have words for that describe certain things. Love isn't an object, but love is a set of behaviors and attitudes that we humans have and express.

The Holy Books of the past all deal primarily with spiritual matters, the virtues and man’s relationship with God meant to transform our character/society and adorn it with things like love, compassion, justice and forgiveness. But people’s education was very limited then so superstitions arose, however today we have science to guide and assist us in that regard.

Yet many believers use these books to guide their poor understanding of the universe. It's almost as if a God doesn't exist to help set these people straight.

But just as religion needs science to rid it of superstitious beliefs, science too needs a moral compass to keep it on a path of the betterment of humanity not its destruction. Science is a tool which can be used for both good or evil so we need for it to promote only that which is in our best interests not weapons of mass destruction.

Well a God should have thought of all that when it inspired people to write the holy books, including Baha'u'llah and his bigotry. Who got all these things wrong, the God or the Messengers? And as far as science needing a moral compass, it can do better with humanists than Bahai, and that is because there is nothing moral about the prejudice that condemn gays.

Just to reiterate though. Although there are some superstitions which can be explained by science, intelligible realities do exist. It’s just a matter of which ones. I believe one of them is God and His Signs are the Suns of Truth Who appear in each age - Christ, Muhammad, Baha’u’llah etc. They each bring teachings relevant for each age and today the teaching is the unity of humanity and oneness of humankind as being viewed by God as essential for mankind to progress towards peace and prosperity.

None of this is true or reliable. Your "intelligible realities" seem to just be abstractions for behaviors and attitudes, and how you present it is misleading. The social science are much better at explaining these.

But I do not think it wise to discount God as an intelligible Reality as we have many other such realities which are real but intelligible not tangible.

No Gods are known to exist, so you can't refer to any Gods as a reality. You are trying to sell your religion, but it doesn't wash in this discussion.

 

[YoursTrue]

Let's get to the evidence for dinosaurs having feathers. First off hard body parts fossilize much more readily than softer ones. That is why the most common vertebrate fossils are tooth fossils. There are scientists that specialize in just teeth. Of course teeth are not evidence for feathers. But bones can be. It is late at night and I cannot remember the correct term, but the quills of major feathers will leave marks on bones in modern birds. The same markings can be found on some fossils. Second we do have dinosaurs with feathers on them. The first of course was Archaeopteryx:

But there are more recent ones from China that are clearly not birds but still have feathers. There is no longer any doubt that many, not necessarily all, dinosaurs had feathers. Some of them from China were so well preserved that some of the colors could even be determined. Today we know that birds are dinosaurs. Which is cool. If anyone asks you what a dinosaur tastes like it is very honest to say "Just like chicken".

Once again, whether or not a dinosaur tastes like chicken (joke) or is fossilized showing feathers, this is not to say that they evolved from dinosaur to flying birds. Again, you may have this as proof (the fossils with feather imprints) but because I do not 'see' that these organisms evolved to eventually perhaps(?) becoming birds, I am going to leave this matter as an unsolved mystery. And again -- because while fossils may show that there are feather imprints on fossilized remains of a dinosaur, I am going again to take the position that there is no actual proof of them evolving. Could be they had feathers. But this does not mean, does it? that they eventually evolved to birds.

 

[YoursTrue]

I didn't say "observation supports creationism over naturalistic evolution". I said they are both faith-based claims, neither observed in nature nor duplicable in a lab.

That's a tough one. Those who claim evolution did the job of making plants and animals from a few molecules by "natural selection" will more than likely not agree with the idea that there is no real proof of that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Once again, whether or not a dinosaur tastes like chicken (joke) or is fossilized showing feathers, this is not to say that they evolved from dinosaur to flying birds. Again, you may have this as proof (the fossils with feather imprints) but because I do not 'see' that these organisms evolved to eventually perhaps(?) becoming birds, I am going to leave this matter as an unsolved mystery. And again -- because while fossils may show that there are feather imprints on fossilized remains of a dinosaur, I am going again to take the position that there is no actual proof of them evolving. Could be they had feathers. But this does not mean, does it? that they eventually evolved to birds.

No, it was getting late and I was tired. There are a lot more feathered dinosaurs than you know of.

But we may have to go over the concept of evidence again. That should lead you to ask why is there only evidence for evolution and none for creationism?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wiki can be a very good source at times. In this article they have complied the outcomes of quite a few peer reviewed articles on feathered dinosaurs:

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia

You can track the evolution of feathers in that article too. From very simple plumes and filaments to modern feathers.

 

[YoursTrue]

No, it was getting late and I was tired. There are a lot more feathered dinosaurs than you know of.

But we may have to go over the concept of evidence again. That should lead you to ask why is there only evidence for evolution and none for creationism?

Wow, that was fast response. OK, again -- and please do not take this personally -- I do not find there is evidence for evolution. But I can understand why scientists believe there is. Because of the development of the theory from the basis of Darwin, of natural selection.
What I do find is that scientists will surmise from fossils and other imprints, that different species evolved by magic -- no, I mean natural selection.

 

[YoursTrue]

Wiki can be a very good source at times. In this article they have complied the outcomes of quite a few peer reviewed articles on feathered dinosaurs:

Feathered dinosaur - Wikipedia

You can track the evolution of feathers in that article too. From very simple plumes and filaments to modern feathers.

OK, I'm very tired now. I will attempt to look at it later, but trust me on this -- when claims are made by scientists, I'm not going to take their surmisals as fact but sometimes as conjecture pushed into the theory according to the disposition and mindset of the scientist. So I'll look at the article, and let's see how far we can get insofar as going beyond conjecture.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, that was fast response. OK, again -- and please do not take this personally -- I do not find there is evidence for evolution. But I can understand why scientists believe there is. Because of the development of the theory from the basis of Darwin, of natural selection.
What I do find is that scientists will surmise from fossils and other imprints, that different species evolved by magic -- no, I mean natural selection.

Then you do not understand the concept of evidence. One has to be willing to be honest wit oneself and many creationists lack that ability since the definition of evidence is very very clear.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, that was fast response. OK, again -- and please do not take this personally -- I do not find there is evidence for evolution. But I can understand why scientists believe there is. Because of the development of the theory from the basis of Darwin, of natural selection.
What I do find is that scientists will surmise from fossils and other imprints, that different species evolved by magic -- no, I mean natural selection.

And one more point. When someone supplies you with evidence you cannot just say "That is not evidence to me". In a debate that is not good enough. If you want to say that something is not evidence then the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is not evidence. You do not just get to deny it.


When a creationists post claims and says that it is evidence for creationism it is usually very easy to refute that claim since most creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. But when it comes to scientists you are going to be hard pressed to show that their evidence does not qualify as evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And one more point. When someone supplies you with evidence you cannot just say "That is not evidence to me". In a debate that is not good enough. If you want to say that something is not evidence then the burden of proof is upon you to show that it is not evidence. You do not just get to deny it.


When a creationists post claims and says that it is evidence for creationism it is usually very easy to refute that claim since most creationists do not understand the concept of evidence. But when it comes to scientists you are going to be hard pressed to show that their evidence does not qualify as evidence.

Okay, let us go metacognition on that.
Depending on how you consider differences as either different or right/wrong as per evidence and what you consider evidence, you get different results.

So here it is. Evolution is with evidence per methodological naturalism but it is also with evidence that people think/feel differently.
So is it with evidence, that creationists think/feel differently? Well, that depends on how you understand evidence.

There are 2 different versions at play.
1. They are in effect wrong.
2. They are in effect neither right or wrong, they just do it differently.

What it ends with for a strong general/universal skeptic like me, is that you versus the creationists use 2 different cognitive standards for evidence and there is no way to tell, which one is really objectively correct as right, because right is not objective. It is a first person cognitive standard.

BTW I don't do it as the creationists or you. I use a 3rd cognitive standard as per cognitive relativism.

So evolution in effect allows for people to think/feel differently in a limited sense, as long as what goes on are different cases of 1st cognition.
So I refute you as not wrong, but simply as being different. The same is the case with the creationists.
So we believe differently for what evidence is and the evidence is right here in this post. I.e. we think/feel and act differently.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, let us go metacognition on that.
Depending on how you consider differences as either different or right/wrong as per evidence and what you consider evidence, you get different results.

So here it is. Evolution is with evidence per methodological naturalism but it is also with evidence that people think/feel differently.
So is it with evidence, that creationists think/feel differently? Well, that depends on how you understand evidence.

There are 2 different versions at play.
1. They are in effect wrong.
2. They are in effect neither right or wrong, they just do it differently.

What it ends with for a strong general/universal skeptic like me, is that you versus the creationists use 2 different cognitive standards for evidence and there is no way to tell, which one is really objectively correct as right, because right is not objective. It is a first person cognitive standard.

BTW I don't do it as the creationists or you. I use a 3rd cognitive standard as per cognitive relativism.

So evolution in effect allows for people to think/feel differently in a limited sense, as long as what goes on are different cases of 1st cognition.
So I refute you as not wrong, but simply as being different. The same is the case with the creationists.
So we believe differently for what evidence is and the evidence is right here in this post. I.e. we think/feel and act differently.

I am sorry, but get your personal terminology straight. You are entering your nihilist stage again. "Universal skeptic" is a bogus term.

As to evidence the sort used is dependent upon venue. In a scientific debate one uses scientific evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I am sorry, but get your personal terminology straight. You are entering your nihilist stage again. "Universal skeptic" is a bogus term.

As to evidence the sort used is dependent upon venue. In a scientific debate one uses scientific evidence.

And that has limits for the everyday world.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Skepticism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy.

True and false are 1st person ideas just like God. The same applies to evidence. I do have faith in the everyday world, but no truth/proof/evidence for it.
So I am not a nihilist, I just don't have the same cognition like you. I don't believe everything is nothing in effect.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And that has limits for the everyday world.
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science
Cognitive Relativism | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Philosophy of science - Wikipedia
Truth (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Skepticism - By Branch / Doctrine - The Basics of Philosophy.

True and false are 1st person ideas just like God. The same applies to evidence. I do have faith in the everyday world, but no truth/proof/evidence for it.
So I am not a nihilist, I just don't have the same cognition like you. I don't believe everything is nothing in effect.

We have been over this before. Of course science has limitations. Evolution does not exceed those.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We have been over this before. Of course science has limitations. Evolution does not exceed those.

Well, it is possible to use other assumptions than yours. That is the limitation. You assume that naturalism is correct, but that is without evidence.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well, it is possible to use other assumptions than yours. That is the limitation. You assume that naturalism is correct, but that is without evidence.

If one wants to claim other standards are needed they take on a burden of proof. I have no problem if one owns up to an irrational belief. The problem is that religious believers quite often want to inflict their views on others. And they are the ones that try to enter the scientific arena to do so. If one wants to claim to have a rational scientific belief then the concept of scientific evidence applies.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

If one wants to claim other standards are needed they take on a burden of proof. I have no problem if one owns up to an irrational belief. The problem is that religious believers quite often want to inflict their views on others. And they are the ones that try to enter the scientific arena to do so. If one wants to claim to have a rational scientific belief then the concept of scientific evidence applies.

What if there is no proof, just as there is no God, unless you believe in proof.
You are taking for granted proof, just as some people take God for granted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What if there is no proof, just as there is no God, unless you believe in proof.
You are taking for granted proof, just as some people take God for granted.

What? No one is using evolution to claim that there is no God. The existence of God does not enter into the evolution debate. Why even bring the subject up?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What? No one is using evolution to claim that there is no God. The existence of God does not enter into the evolution debate. Why even bring the subject up?

There is no proof other than the 1st person belief in it. That is the same with God.
Your demand for burden of proof assumes there is always positive proof. If false is to mean anything it includes accepting the limit of knowledge.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no proof other than the 1st person belief in it. That is the same with God.
Your demand for burden of proof assumes there is always positive proof. If false is to mean anything it includes accepting the limit of knowledge.

Nope. There is no assumption of positive proof. You are off subject.