What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[syo]

OK, so again -- how are gods deists? Are you making these things up? Now it's my turn to ask for evidence or do you just say things like that?

Gods don't mess with natural laws.

 

[YoursTrue]

If gods were self-evident everyone would agree to that. Do you not know what the terms that you use mean?

I agree that it does not seem reasonable that deists are gods/mortal type beings, but then I also realize you believe in evolution as both theory and probably truth. Einstein developed his concept of laws, I suppose. But even then if I understand correctly from my reading, he attempted to revert some laws he initially promoted. I think he did this for intellectual amusement. But anyway -- it's late and as the saying goes sometimes around here, "have a good one..."
Oh. A little itty bitty atom has a lot of innate energy. Not sure what happens to the "energy" when it is pulled apart by nuclear explosion type thing.

 

[YoursTrue]

Gods don't mess with natural laws.

Since your concept of god or gods is quite different from mine, I'll leave you to your ideas right now.

 

[syo]

Since your concept of god or gods is quite different from mine, I'll leave you to your ideas right now.

ok

 

[Subduction Zone]

Gods don't mess with natural laws.

We don't know if gods even exist.

The question is why would they apparently lie to us?

 

[YoursTrue]

Gods don't mess with natural laws.

Except to say how do you know this or think this? What's a natural law anyway? Something like natural selection? (Yes, have a good one..I'm smiling here at the conversation so again -- have a good one.)

 

[Subduction Zone]

I agree that it does not seem reasonable that deists are gods/mortal type beings, but then I also realize you believe in evolution as both theory and probably truth. Einstein developed his concept of laws, I suppose. But even then if I understand correctly from my reading, he attempted to revert some laws he initially promoted. I think he did this for intellectual amusement. But anyway -- it's late and as the saying goes sometimes around here, "have a good one..."
Oh. A little itty bitty atom has a lot of innate energy. Not sure what happens to the "energy" when it is pulled apart by nuclear explosion type thing.

When a uranium atom undergoes fission a small bit of its mass is turned into energy. That appears mainly as kinetic energy, the particle generated go in random directions from each other (well not totally random, they still have to conserve momentum) and light energy in the form of gamma rays. Now you know.

 

[YoursTrue]

ok

I hope things get better for you. I had a friend that was on a long mind trip, although he died young, I liked him very much but so glad I moved from that realm of thought, he especially delving into spiritistic things, getting into drugs and spiritism. He eventually died of a drug overdose getting as he would say, the "ultimate high" he called death.

 

[YoursTrue]

When a uranium atom undergoes fission a small bit of its mass is turned into energy. That appears mainly as kinetic energy, the particle generated go in random directions from each other (well not totally random, they still have to conserve momentum) and light energy in the form of gamma rays. Now you know.

OK, I won't argue with that. But -- yes -- it seems miraculous. Even while it can be described by scientists. And it warrants the idea that it is generated by -- a superior intelligence. Because -- it is beyond human comprehension in the reality of duplication no matter what "experiments" claim to make it real. Yes, yes, the indisputable primary element. I can take a vegetable and eat it and it is transformed into energy within my body. This does not mean there was not a Creator who instituted or made the laws that makes thing grow. Even if scientists attempt to analyze the processes it does not mean there is not a Lawmaker.

 

[YoursTrue]

@Subduction Zone and even those little particles -- again -- too astounding to imagine they just "came about," sorry -- by magic. or the process or whatever that didn't require/need a Maker. I'll try to make this my last goodbye tonight.

 

[Subduction Zone]

OK, I won't argue with that. But -- yes -- it seems miraculous. Even while it can be described by scientists. And it warrants the idea that it is generated by -- a superior intelligence. Because -- it is beyond human comprehension in the reality of duplication no matter what "experiments" claim to make it real. Yes, yes, the indisputable primary element. I can take a vegetable and eat it and it is transformed into energy within my body. This does not mean there was not a Creator who instituted or made the laws that makes thing grow. Even if scientists attempt to analyze the processes it does not mean there is not a Lawmaker.

Why? It appears that you are trying to use:

I don't understand this

As evidence for a God. The problem with that is that many other people will understand that. And it would mean that it is not evidence for a God. What you are using is called a God of the gaps fallacy where you put God into the things that you do not understand. It results in a God that is smaller and smaller as we know more and more. It is not the best way to think of God. There are better ways to believe.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone and even those little particles -- again -- too astounding to imagine they just "came about," sorry -- by magic. or the process or whatever that didn't require/need a Maker. I'll try to make this my last goodbye tonight.

But you are the one using "magic" as a belief. A belief in a God is literally a belief in magic. Scientists are always asking "why" and "how". They make no assumptions about a God existing or not when they do so. They do not propose magic. They will say:

We understand this much of it. And we still have more to learn.

None of that uses magic. I understand that you do not understand it. Heck, I don't understand most of it. And what happens in the sciences is that different scientists will understand different parts of our world really well. So they will be ignorant in other parts of the sciences as well. But their work tells them how to evaluate the work of others and they will tend to accept well supported claims. That breaking up of knowledge enables us to communicate here. We do not need magic to do so.

 

[YoursTrue]

Why? It appears that you are trying to use:

I don't understand this

As evidence for a God. The problem with that is that many other people will understand that. And it would mean that it is not evidence for a God. What you are using is called a God of the gaps fallacy where you put God into the things that you do not understand. It results in a God that is smaller and smaller as we know more and more. It is not the best way to think of God. There are better ways to believe.

I have read as much as a lay person can read about the concept and scientific theories about evolution. Even when I read about a rather complicated summation of what happens to an atom when it is dissipated (separated in parts), it simply does not speak to me as if it just came about by sheer (ok, natural) circumstances. Even IF I were a scientist analyzing these things, it does not explain the natural selection process as purported by scientists regarding the evolution of plants and animals. Maybe to you. But not to me. And the selection theory is conjecture. Not saying some species haven't been eradicated by natural forces (like meteors) or disasters or simply being wiped out by humans. I could read that birds evolved from dinosaurs that grew feathers...I don't see the proof beyond conjecture. If you could show it to me, ok...
WE (as humans) do not hibernate like bears do. We need to sleep and possibly get up in the morning. Bye for now -- again...

 

[Subduction Zone]

I have read as much as a lay person can read about the concept and scientific theories about evolution. Even when I read about a rather complicated summation of what happens to an atom when it is dissipated (separated in parts), it simply does not speak to me as if it just came about by sheer (ok, natural) circumstances. Even IF I were a scientist analyzing these things, it does not explain the natural selection process as purported by scientists regarding the evolution of plants and animals. Maybe to you. But not to me. And the selection theory is conjecture. Not saying some species haven't been eradicated by natural forces (like meteors) or disasters or simply being wiped out by humans. I could read that birds evolved from dinosaurs that grew feathers...I don't see the proof beyond conjecture. If you could show it to me, ok...
WE (as humans) do not hibernate like bears do. We need to sleep and possibly get up in the morning. Bye for now -- again...

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".

 

[Heyo]

from wikipedia

''Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations.''
''Entropy is a scientific concept, as well as a measurable physical property, that is most commonly associated with a state of disorder, randomness, or uncertainty.''

Yep. You don't understand entropy. (Evidenced by the quote you chose)

Entropy is a complicated subject. Even physics professors who make YouTube videos get it wrong on the first try.
My guess what confuses you is the "commonly associated with a state of disorder" part of the Wiki quote and the imprecise quote of the Second Law of Thermodynamics "entropy never decreases".

To help you understand look at the full quote "in a closed system ...". The Earth is not a closed system, it gets energy from the sun. That's the first point why entropy isn't applicable to evolution. That's why you are wrong.
Do you understand so far?

 

[wellwisher]

Intelligent Design isn't science. It isn't even a hypothesis.

Without evidence that the Designer exist, Intelligent Design is nothing more than another creationism, with no basis in reality, regardless of entropy or no entropy.

The question is how does any intelligent design, in general, differ from a designed that, in general, is not so intelligent? An intelligent design would be well thought out and planned. This very process of thinking, reasoning and planning would be a sign of intelligence in any sphere.

A not so intelligent design does not fully think, reason or plan. It would use black boxes and blind tests because their design would assume to come about by chance. The irony is the science evolution uses a design that requires less intelligence, since it is based on a blind math procedure, you can train a machine to do, with machines not yet intelligent. If machine can do it, it is not intelligent.

An intelligent design for a theory of evolution would include proof reader enzymes. These enzymes are designed to reverse any random defects and thereby minimize the need for a black box machine approach, so reasoning becomes most prominent, when addressing evolution. If errors in the DNA, during copying, are eliminated, then only cause and affect should become the basis for the theory of evolution. Evolution has been heading toward an intelligent design for eons. Blind testing makes you blind.

An intelligent design assumes rational determinism; all can be planned. An intelligent design does not assume random subjectivity and blind taste tests. So the question is, why did proof reader enzymes appear, since they conceptually moved evolution toward an intelligent design; causal, and away from the more popular blind and black mystery cult called evolutionary science. Didn't anyone see the irony? Then again how can you see in the dark?

An intelligent design for a scientific theory for evolution, needs to find a way to make evolution rational to where there is no need for blind and black box testing. Machines can do that and they are not yet intelligent. Why is the model being dumbed down? The change could make predictions using only the human brain and reasoning, based on new principles of pure science. This is where water comes in. Water is the top of the food chain with DNA next in command.

All things in cells need water to work; period. All organic things in cells, directly or indirectly come from the DNA. Water controls the DNA ands all things and is responsible for the intelligent design. Its hydrogen bonding matrix is the most stable secondary bonding continuum. All else in the cell needs to accommodate, thereby creating a vector for evolution and change. As the Bible states, made of water and by water. If you can learn to see in the light, I can show you how. But eyes adjusted to the darkness of black boxes and blind tests seen to hurt in bright light; explains the defensiveness to an intelligent science design.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This assumption is only made on the basis one disbelieves in God.

No. It's made on the basis that there's no meaning, use or value in just "defining" things without justifiable evidence to support it.

Would the judgement of an atheist be accepted with regards to spiritual matters when he has no knowledge whatsoever of such matters even denying God exists?

I will happily accept whatever people can support with adequate evidence. Regardless of labeling.

That billions of people follow a spiritual path is sufficient proof to the unbiased person that man is inherently a spiritual being.

Argumentum ad populum.

That you deny it you are saying your knowledge and judgement is superior to billions of people?

No. Just pointing out that beliefs without evidence are infinite in number and essentially useless. Regardless of how many billions believe it.

A billion people could believe the earth is flat and a billion people would be incorrect.

To deny man’s spirituality or that it is an essential part of his being is to deny the experiences of humanity itself.

I don't deny any experiences.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well from a philosophical point of view If I am correct One would wonder “where do these mechanisms come from “how do genomes know how to evolve” ?

The bolded part exposes a vast ignorance of what evolution is about.

and I guess theists could recover some of the points that where lost because of Darwin.

But it shouldn’t be relevant, all I what to know if we are in agreement with the meaning of words, so that we can both make our arguments,

Forget about it. You have no valid arguments against evolution theory.
If you DID, you wouldn't have to resort to "religious forums" to make them known to the world.

Instead, we all would already know about it because it would be reported in literally every relevant scientific journal, and just about every newspaper worthy of the name.

It would be news on the scale of when man first set foot on the moon.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Agreed, and a good point. But even if a deity actually existed and was meddling, because both that god and its meddling would be undetectable, adding such a god to the theory would add no predictive or explanatory power to it. There'd be no reason to do that until we had an observation unguided evolution didn't account for. In accordance with Occam's principle of parsimony, there would be no value in including such a concept in the theory.



Yes, we do know how the eye evolved. It happened several times, and resulted in different kinds of eyes. You're making the common creationist's error that if YOU don't know how it happened, nobody knows.



Yes, we do. It isn't.



No observation supports creationism over naturalistic evolution. What you are calling rapid speciation is well within nature's capacity without intelligent oversight. The observed variation in the rate of speciation can be explained naturalistically, just as with the mass extinctions, also needing no gods to effect.



No part of the theory of biological evolution has been falsified by scientific standards. The history of evolution does not need to be observed to know that it happened. Creationists have difficulty with place that observation and reproducibility have in science. We do not need to observe the past, just its relics in the present, nor reproduce it.

And just as importantly, by your reckoning, the existence of gods has been falsified. None have never seen in nature anywhere ever outside of imaginations. I have never seen a deity. You have never seen a deity. Nobody has. All we have are unevidenced claims about phenomena explainable naturalistically from people willing to call their spiritual intuitions experiencing a god. We all have such experiences, but some understand that their own minds are the source of those intuitions, and don't mistake them for gods, a common error.

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.

 

[BilliardsBall]

What is "rapid speciation"? Do you mean magic?

Speciation is macroevolution. The fossil record, which is part of nature is evidence for macroevolution.

It has not been falsified.

No, speciation is observed in nature and in the fossil record, what I'm calling "rapid speciation", for example, could be the many dogs that are seen in the modern era derived from only several breeds or dogs in nature.

"Macroevolution" does not refer to speciation but to creations giving birth to anything but their kind.