What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Dan From Smithville]

There have been several notable court and other battles over IC.

Eliminating IC in several arenas doesn't affect the issues of IC in countless other arenas.

How do you know that you have looked at all the possible intermediates to eliminate that intermediates exist?

I can't wait to see what you come up with.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are demonstrating biology knowledge (and frustration) but not math.

I'm asking you to understand that 30 different lines of eye evolution = odds of eye development ^ 30, that's even before I find the eye irreducibly complex, as it must attach to nerve and brain systems.

No, that is not how one calculates probabilities.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There have been several notable court and other battles over IC.

Eliminating IC in several arenas doesn't affect the issues of IC in countless other arenas.

I know. Just think of all of the other ways that IC will be shown to be wrong!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

No, that is not how one calculates probabilities.

Does it matter? It isn't as if we are going to see actual data or math in these arguments.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I know. Just think of all of the other ways that IC will be shown to be wrong!

I do I refute it. Let me count the ways.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I understand well. It is thought that evoution can account for overcoming all sorts of odds, for example, the necessity for a simple eye to evolve in 400,000 years or so--while also juggling multiple systems that attach the eye to perception and the mind, reverse images to correct them, adjust for 3D space, etc. Irreducible complexity--not your favorite term, but one you and many neglect to deal with--on a math basis.

Since evolution keeps what works and discards what doesn't (or doesn't well enough), it really isn't that hard to accomplish such things.

And "irreducible complex" structures are, and have been, easily explained through such a process.

Next to that, IC as an argument for creationism, is (much like all the others) just a plain old boring argument from ignorance.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I hold SIZABLE evidence for God, it is clear you've not studied prophecy or gematria--or know the love of Christ.

What you hold, are faith based beliefs.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Sample questions:

Since I have an arched foot with 26 bones in it--and an arch structure is irreducibly complex (the arch falls without each component within) and there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes--what is the statistical likelihood that the arched foot evolved via random processes, most of these processes reducing, rather than adding, information?

Or since the eye is thought to have evolved up to 30 times across different species, what " "?

Evolution isn't a random process.
Natural selection isn't random.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

There are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes, because . . . ?

What do you mean exactly?

And just for fun, here's a cross-section of an elephant:

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If we compare the theory of Evolution to that of Creation,

There is no "theory of creation" to compare to.

Creation attempts to start its explanation to before time=zero; universe was formless and void. Evolution, starts much much later in time; after abiogenesis. Evolution skips the harder questions in terms of the origins leading to their replicators. This late starting point always bothered me.

No.

Instead, evolution is an actual scientific theory which, like every scientific theory, addresses a set of facts within a well defined scope to deal with a very specific phenomenon / aspect of the universe.

Meanwhile, creationism is just some religious myth.
To compare them isn't even like comparing apples and oranges. Instead, it's comparing organic apples with plastic oranges.

The debate between Evolution and Creation is more political than it appears, since this not a level playing field by any rational standard,

You can certainly say that again.

with science unable and unwilling to expand evolution to origins, like the Creationists attempt to do.

Science is unwilling to accept unscientific ideas and "methodologies", yes.
Science works through the scientific methodology and requires evidence.

Science however very much studies origins of life, of gravity, of the universe itself...
Specific fields of science are dedicated to those specific questions.

Unlike religions, science doesn't pretend to have the answers before it even knows what the questions are.

 

[metis]

I'm a little over careful as that is one of the talking points of Kent Hovind, here presented by his son:

Just stay within the bounds of the topic which is the Theory of Evolution. OK?

My statement has nothing to do with what he says.

BTW, Buddhist dharma also deals with this in the context of continual change, and that was taught long before we in science began to deal with it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just give us the math and explanation that demonstrates that the existing 30 different evolutionary pathways that lead to the eye aren't probable or possible. Good grief. You claim a set of values don't you?

I did already, if the odds of a simple eye developing across a species over 400,000 years (a recent paper elucidated the time and steps) as happening once among 10 million species, the odds of this occuring in 30 different descent lines is 10,000,000^30 which is an immense number.

 

[Heyo]

I did already, if the odds of a simple eye developing across a species over 400,000 years (a recent paper elucidated the time and steps) as happening once among 10 million species, the odds of this occuring in 30 different descent lines is 10,000,000^30 which is an immense number.

Yes, and now explain how you got to the "once among 10 million species" number.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I did already, if the odds of a simple eye developing across a species over 400,000 years (a recent paper elucidated the time and steps) as happening once among 10 million species, the odds of this occuring in 30 different descent lines is 10,000,000^30 which is an immense number.

Where's this paper?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I did already, if the odds of a simple eye developing across a species over 400,000 years (a recent paper elucidated the time and steps) as happening once among 10 million species, the odds of this occuring in 30 different descent lines is 10,000,000^30 which is an immense number.

What paper?

The evidence says that it did, so your odds are wrong. Sorry.

Do you think that eyes don't exist in these extant species and then suddenly do? If a trait is highly selected, does it have to independently evolve in all the descendants of the first species to evolve the trait? Or do you think it happened in different species over time and their descendants now reproduce with eyes.

We don't have the information to calculate the probabilities in the evolution of eyes.

Can we move on, since you aren't going to answer questions and you don't have anything to support your claims?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, and now explain how you got to the "once among 10 million species" number.

I think it is just a big number. Ooooo, scary.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What paper?

The evidence says that it did, so your odds are wrong. Sorry.

Do you think that eyes don't exist in these extant species and then suddenly do? If a trait is highly selected, does it have to independently evolve in all the descendants of the first species to evolve the trait? Or do you think it happened in different species over time and their descendants now reproduce with eyes.

We don't have the information to calculate the probabilities in the evolution of eyes.

Can we move on, since you aren't going to answer questions and you don't have anything to support your claims?

I'm curious about your statement, "We don't have the information to calculate the probabilities in the evolution of eyes."

I'm just sharing with you my thought process here:

Although a single mutation may have a large effect, we know from many studies the odds of genetic mutations and we have immense knowledge about development, speciation and genetic drift, recessive and dominant traits, etc.

But we may put that aside and do more simple math:

Your claim (and I like to go from the hypothesis method, we assume you are correct and then we can go down the path together) is "The evidence says that it did" (meaning a priori evolution works without ID and eyes developed 30 times independently).

Number of species: Estimates of the total progeny of evolution range from 5 to 50 billion species. Yet, only an estimated 5 to 50 million species are alive today. These 5 to 50 millions were obviously best adapted/evolved.

Let's take the least conservative estimate (to give the math a chance, pun not intended). Among 50 billion species, eyes independently evoled 30 times, that is, every 1.5 billion species will have 1 that evolves an eye. Sounds like great odds to me (I'm being serious). Sounds eminently reasonable.

This page advocates against ID and IComplexity: Evolution - A-Z - Evolution of the eye and says "The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octupus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy."

Ah, but the eyes that evolved independently 30 times had to also evolve connection nerves to a/the brain, focusing mechanisms, placement on the animal, and about 100 other mechanisms you and I can try to name if we're so inclined. Don't doubt it, my own eyes focus to different distances, have contracting pupils to admit different amounts of light, correct spherical and chromatic aberration, and my brain processes sight so I can catch a thrown ball that comes to me on parabola, etc., etc., etc.

For another example I find fascinating, parts of my eyes must make tiny vibration to see something the width of a single human hair, etc.

All these things and more (if your speciality was molecular biology or the inner workings of a cell you'd say HUNDREDS of mechanisms and THOUSANDS of genetic mechanisms in DNA, even millions) evolved per phylogeny perhaps 30 separate times. But you "don't know the odds", right? You don't see that the odds are astronomical? You don't see that no fossils are extant where the eyes of a species are located in the wrong place on the animal (like on their behind so they randomly evolved to see what lies behind them instead of oncoming objects)?

The last is, of course, because, random evolution has tremendous power to evolve working mechanisms, of course. It all makes sense in a blind faith sort of way (pun intended).

Your main response to IC and ID is "The evidence says that it did, so your odds are wrong. Sorry."

Which can be redacted to:

"Only fully formed species, with properly working eyes, are extant in the fossil record and exist in modern species, which can be interpreted as either GodDidIt or EvolutionGodDidIt."

Let's not talk about this any more until you think through the odds--that would be appropriate for taking the SAME data as I and assuming random processes. Occam's looking at the amazing creation that is an eye(s) says a designer did it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm curious about your statement, "We don't have the information to calculate the probabilities in the evolution of eyes."

I'm just sharing with you my thought process here:

Although a single mutation may have a large effect, we know from many studies the odds of genetic mutations and we have immense knowledge about development, speciation and genetic drift, recessive and dominant traits, etc.

But we may put that aside and do more simple math:

Your claim (and I like to go from the hypothesis method, we assume you are correct and then we can go down the path together) is "The evidence says that it did" (meaning a priori evolution works without ID and eyes developed 30 times independently).

Number of species: Estimates of the total progeny of evolution range from 5 to 50 billion species. Yet, only an estimated 5 to 50 million species are alive today. These 5 to 50 millions were obviously best adapted/evolved.

Let's take the least conservative estimate (to give the math a chance, pun not intended). Among 50 billion species, eyes independently evoled 30 times, that is, every 1.5 billion species will have 1 that evolves an eye. Sounds like great odds to me (I'm being serious). Sounds eminently reasonable.

This page advocates against ID and IComplexity: Evolution - A-Z - Evolution of the eye and says "The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octupus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy."

Ah, but the eyes that evolved independently 30 times had to also evolve connection nerves to a/the brain, focusing mechanisms, placement on the animal, and about 100 other mechanisms you and I can try to name if we're so inclined. Don't doubt it, my own eyes focus to different distances, have contracting pupils to admit different amounts of light, correct spherical and chromatic aberration, and my brain processes sight so I can catch a thrown ball that comes to me on parabola, etc., etc., etc.

For another example I find fascinating, parts of my eyes must make tiny vibration to see something the width of a single human hair, etc.

All these things and more (if your speciality was molecular biology or the inner workings of a cell you'd say HUNDREDS of mechanisms and THOUSANDS of genetic mechanisms in DNA, even millions) evolved per phylogeny perhaps 30 separate times. But you "don't know the odds", right? You don't see that the odds are astronomical? You don't see that no fossils are extant where the eyes of a species are located in the wrong place on the animal (like on their behind so they randomly evolved to see what lies behind them instead of oncoming objects)?

The last is, of course, because, random evolution has tremendous power to evolve working mechanisms, of course. It all makes sense in a blind faith sort of way (pun intended).

Your main response to IC and ID is "The evidence says that it did, so your odds are wrong. Sorry."

Which can be redacted to:

"Only fully formed species, with properly working eyes, are extant in the fossil record and exist in modern species, which can be interpreted as either GodDidIt or EvolutionGodDidIt."

Let's not talk about this any more until you think through the odds--that would be appropriate for taking the SAME data as I and assuming random processes. Occam's looking at the amazing creation that is an eye(s) says a designer did it.

Your simple math is not how one calculates the odds.

 

[metis]

I'm curious about your statement, "We don't have the information to calculate the probabilities in the evolution of eyes."

I'm just sharing with you my thought process here:

Although a single mutation may have a large effect, we know from many studies the odds of genetic mutations and we have immense knowledge about development, speciation and genetic drift, recessive and dominant traits, etc.

But we may put that aside and do more simple math:

Your claim (and I like to go from the hypothesis method, we assume you are correct and then we can go down the path together) is "The evidence says that it did" (meaning a priori evolution works without ID and eyes developed 30 times independently).

Number of species: Estimates of the total progeny of evolution range from 5 to 50 billion species. Yet, only an estimated 5 to 50 million species are alive today. These 5 to 50 millions were obviously best adapted/evolved.

Let's take the least conservative estimate (to give the math a chance, pun not intended). Among 50 billion species, eyes independently evoled 30 times, that is, every 1.5 billion species will have 1 that evolves an eye. Sounds like great odds to me (I'm being serious). Sounds eminently reasonable.

This page advocates against ID and IComplexity: Evolution - A-Z - Evolution of the eye and says "The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octupus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy."

Ah, but the eyes that evolved independently 30 times had to also evolve connection nerves to a/the brain, focusing mechanisms, placement on the animal, and about 100 other mechanisms you and I can try to name if we're so inclined. Don't doubt it, my own eyes focus to different distances, have contracting pupils to admit different amounts of light, correct spherical and chromatic aberration, and my brain processes sight so I can catch a thrown ball that comes to me on parabola, etc., etc., etc.

For another example I find fascinating, parts of my eyes must make tiny vibration to see something the width of a single human hair, etc.

All these things and more (if your speciality was molecular biology or the inner workings of a cell you'd say HUNDREDS of mechanisms and THOUSANDS of genetic mechanisms in DNA, even millions) evolved per phylogeny perhaps 30 separate times. But you "don't know the odds", right? You don't see that the odds are astronomical? You don't see that no fossils are extant where the eyes of a species are located in the wrong place on the animal (like on their behind so they randomly evolved to see what lies behind them instead of oncoming objects)?

The last is, of course, because, random evolution has tremendous power to evolve working mechanisms, of course. It all makes sense in a blind faith sort of way (pun intended).

Your main response to IC and ID is "The evidence says that it did, so your odds are wrong. Sorry."

Which can be redacted to:

"Only fully formed species, with properly working eyes, are extant in the fossil record and exist in modern species, which can be interpreted as either GodDidIt or EvolutionGodDidIt."

Let's not talk about this any more until you think through the odds--that would be appropriate for taking the SAME data as I and assuming random processes. Occam's looking at the amazing creation that is an eye(s) says a designer did it.

Where did you cut & paste most of this from as they clearly are not the words you use on a daily basis here?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Where did you cut & paste most of this from as they clearly are not the words you use on a daily basis here?

I am in bed using my tablet. It uses Bing. Bing sucks. I tried a technique that works on Google, I copied and searched a long phrase. It did not work. But I found this article that estimates the number of generations for a complex eye to be only 400,000 in number:

Evolution - A-Z - Evolution of the eye