What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

She had an arched foot, though not as expressed as modern humans.

Wait, let me get this straight (sorry, no pun intended) her foot is part way between the arch of modern humans and the lack of an arch of other apes. I wish that there was a scientific term for that.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are always new members but overall the creation vs. evolution debates have seriously gone down in numbers.

Oh definitely. And that's a good thing IMO!! Those of us who've been on the science side for decades longed for the day when this wasn't even a debate anymore. Well, from where I sit it largely looks like that day is here. I see it all across the internet where forums, message boards, blogs, reddits, etc. that are specifically dedicated to EvC have either gone dark or are starved for content.

Plus, creationist organizations have pretty much given up as well. AFAICT, none of them are engaging in any sort of campaigns to ban evolution from schools or teach creationism alongside it. The Discovery Institute (ID creationists) closed up shop on their "research arm" years ago.

So overall, it looks to me like the battle is over and our side won. Now I just gotta find something else to do.

 

[Heyo]

Oh definitely. And that's a good thing IMO!! Those of us who've been on the science side for decades longed for the day when this wasn't even a debate anymore. Well, from where I sit it largely looks like that day is here. I see it all across the internet where forums, message boards, blogs, reddits, etc. that are specifically dedicated to EvC have either gone dark or are starved for content.

Plus, creationist organizations have pretty much given up as well. AFAICT, none of them are engaging in any sort of campaigns to ban evolution from schools or teach creationism alongside it. The Discovery Institute (ID creationists) closed up shop on their "research arm" years ago.

So overall, it looks to me like the battle is over and our side won. Now I just gotta find something else to do.

I wouldn't let my guard down too soon. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are still alive and kicking (or, in the case of Hovind, pushing). And with the current SCotUS they may plan something sinister.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

*How is it that you have determined the irreducible complexity of the arch in human feet?*

An arch falls without all of its components in place, and another key indicator--there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes.

It is thought that the simple eye--based on phylogenetic tree lines--evolved up to 30 separate times in different creatures. You find this statistically likely?

It isn't logically possible to determine irreducible complexity and who says there are no intermediates. I did a quick search and came up with almost two dozen papers on the evolution of human feet. It seems that after a tender age, you just stopped reading.

The evidence supports the independent evolution in a numerous eyed creatures. Do you think that dragonfly eyes and human eyes evolved from the ancestral stock following the same structures? Even you could figure that out.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It took me less than 5 minutes to find that and a few other really good resources that summarize the data regarding hominid fossil feet, including descriptions of specimens that exhibit intermediate traits.

Yet @BilliardsBall just repeats his question as if you'd not posted a thing. It's truly bizarre to watch, isn't it?

It took me about that much time to do the same. It isn't my area of expertise, but there are a number of very good papers on the evolution of human feet.

It is all I see anymore. All the creationists just repeat, deny, repeat, deny, repeat, repeat, repeat.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'll stop replying to @BilliardsBall. I even contemplated to set him on ignore.

There is a growing list of posters that I am trying to stop paying attention to. If I don't I just get frustrated and it shows in my posts. I don't wanna be that guy. Especially over dead arguments.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It took me about that much time to do the same. It isn't my area of expertise, but there are a number of very good papers on the evolution of human feet.

It is all I see anymore. All the creationists just repeat, deny, repeat, deny, repeat, repeat, repeat.

You forgot "rinse".

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You forgot "rinse".

How could I forget rinse? There's even a cycle for it.

 

[Jose Fly]

I wouldn't let my guard down too soon. Ken Ham and Kent Hovind are still alive and kicking (or, in the case of Hovind, pushing). And with the current SCotUS they may plan something sinister.

Oh for sure. Just because the war is over doesn't mean you let your guard down.

 

[Jose Fly]

It took me about that much time to do the same. It isn't my area of expertise, but there are a number of very good papers on the evolution of human feet.

Even if @BilliardsBall doesn't agree that the papers are "very good", he can't deny that the data they address exists, right? Right?

It is all I see anymore. All the creationists just repeat, deny, repeat, deny, repeat, repeat, repeat.

It's all they have. The creationist organizations they rely on haven't given them any new material in years. So the internet creationist is left high and dry, repeating stale old talking points that have been done to death.....all to no end.

 

[rational experiences]

Basic teaching. Humans behaviour gets human life destroyed. Only by human choice.

As with God a man on planet O earth he owns no choice. Heavens type no choice. It existed first both types two variables of a mass.

Life is a human choice lifestyle that evolved by rich man science designer a cult. Behaviours.

Forced group compliance upon natural meek spiritual human family origin behaviours.

Humans who Weren't angry weren't greedy werent abusive and destructive weren't murderers. Family.

The returned earth star hit that killed off dinosaurs twice. Came back and changed man life into his first sacrificed human. The man self idolator self sacrificed.

Nothing like any monkey man. You contrived as no monkey man could. As Sacrificed innocent man. Self Idolating. First cult behaviour. Designer self idolator. Gained all control to own earths body elements.

Gold silver jewels. Food control. Murdered threatened meek family community unlike your mind.

As king's and lords. Self sacrificed man a true evil liar. Historic self idolator.

Behaviour of how I owned all that was God on earth as an ordered man's cult. As self sacrificed brother brothers.

Knowing myself not a murderer or ever wanting harm I know myself. Now. I see my brother and by design his...as his civilisation historic used control.

Self sacrificed man self idolator. Was first became a human king his brother lords who then using science technology became monkey man. By destroying life on earth by design.

Monkey man was no longer intelligent.

Had to re evolve body mind to remember old technology. And he did.

Reason of the teaching man the destroyer of life on earth. Man's behaviours. Real.

As humans do exist. A theory about when a human doesn't exist as a topic owns the following conscious advice of a human.....
A dead human.
A dead human a man human destroyed.
A dead human destroyed by his science theoried techniques.

As no human theist invented by talking calculating the presence of anything. It's his used con. Behaviour only.

Reason...human present and in nature a present human is used in all topics of the conversation. By humans.

Man roleplaying his self sacrificed self idolating self given human living position.. historic and man's owned historic warning as his own destroyer. I own all that is God in human science only on earth. Said men who agreed.

The first cult to the last cult Scientology.

 

[Astrophile]

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

The word you are looking for is 'transitional'. The word 'transitory' means 'not permanent, lasting only a short time'.

 

[rational experiences]

An egotist just a human thinker.

A human once microbe separateness themselves as a human sperm human ovary.

Whose human science mind in data use says our first ever two humans bodies are just skeletal bone dusts.

Notice two humans neither his bio life are both now dusts.

As a conscious human I pay homage to my living two baby adult parents.

Unlike any unnatural theist.

You theist human.

You look at the living monkey life.

You own a human baby to adult life only.

You human pretending you're a God by human egotism only. Behaviour.

You say I see a monkeys bone foot.

I choose and I want to compare it to my own. Human.

What if I owned a human controlled society by being rich that said I won't allow you human egotist to do any comparing as I rule the community's legal system?

Is the basic advice that says human scientists are liars.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It isn't logically possible to determine irreducible complexity and who says there are no intermediates. I did a quick search and came up with almost two dozen papers on the evolution of human feet. It seems that after a tender age, you just stopped reading.

The evidence supports the independent evolution in a numerous eyed creatures. Do you think that dragonfly eyes and human eyes evolved from the ancestral stock following the same structures? Even you could figure that out.

I saw some of the work on intermediates. I'd like you to address my question as to the evolution of an arch that is irreducibly complex. That's what an arch structure is.

I'm not asking about the evidence supporting independent evolution in eyes, I'm asking about the statistical likelihood of eyes independently evolving 30 separate times.

Both of my questions are actually math questions, since you are using random processes that provide some advantages per established evolution rules/rubrics.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I saw some of the work on intermediates. I'd like you to address my question as to the evolution of an arch that is irreducibly complex. That's what an arch structure is.

I'm not asking about the evidence supporting independent evolution in eyes, I'm asking about the statistical likelihood of eyes independently evolving 30 separate times.

Both of my questions are actually math questions, since you are using random processes that provide some advantages per established evolution rules/rubrics.

So .... are you just straight up completely ignoring links you've been given that thoroughly address your questions now ... or ... ?

Irreducible complexity just hasn't held up, as a scientific concept. It has gained zero evidence or traction in the science community since it was first proposed. But it seems you think there is something to it. Why is that? I mean, why cling to an unevidenced concept instead of considering a scientific theory that is one of the most well-evidenced we have; where it has been confirmed over and over again from evidence gleaned from numerous different scientific fields of research carried out by multiple independent groups of scientists across the world over the last 150+ years? Where all the evidence from all these fields of research all converge on the conclusion that evolution is a fact of reality. It's baffling to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It took me less than 5 minutes to find that and a few other really good resources that summarize the data regarding hominid fossil feet, including descriptions of specimens that exhibit intermediate traits.

Yet @BilliardsBall just repeats his question as if you'd not posted a thing. It's truly bizarre to watch, isn't it?

Yes, but you were actually interested in finding the answers to the questions being asked. There's your difference.

 

[Balthazzar]

Time - I think is most relevant here in terms of lifespan, evolution, and infinity. A mother's womb, a seed planted in the ground, how we see and identify evolutionary processes as evolution relates to timelines and lifespan seem to be in question. 1 day equals 1000 years concept, although religiously proclaimed is valid. The lifespan of a fly different than the lifespan of an elephant. Is time an illusionary concept or a valid reality or both as it relates to unique organisms?

I don't think evolution can be refuted.

 

[metis]

I don't think evolution can be refuted.

It really can't be as even our common observations show us, namely that all material objects appear to change over time and genes are material objects.

Nor does the ToE go against the Creation narratives unless the latter are taken as actual history versus being allegorical.

 

[Balthazzar]

It really can't be as even our common observations show us, namely that all material objects appear to change over time and genes are material objects.

Nor does the ToE go against the Creation narratives unless the latter are taken as actual history versus being allegorical.

Common observations are a guide. How about the possibility of less tangible entities? Typically, if something can't be observed by human faculty, it is dismissed as being valid - Experience subjective and often ridiculed as being imaginary and delusional - I'm of the mind that nothing is truly super natural - only unknown or unrealized by us as students of the greater reality.

Question: Evolution apart from procreation - beyond lab fertilization and implant - I think just as valid as common procreation practices, although unknown and unstudied to my understanding. Common observations of evolutionary processes on timelines relevant to our age, as opposed to those pertaining to global ages and radical changes in species type - what is it that motivates and initiates the changes themselves? Unseen missing links seem to elude our knowing.

 

[wellwisher]

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

Say the theory of Creation decided to play apples to apples, instead of being the only one who tries to do it the hard way. For example, say we got rid of the first chapter of the Bible; Genesis, and started the Bible at the book of Exodus? This change in the starting timeline, sort of takes away most of the arguments against the Creation theory, offered by science and Evolution. It is because Creation takes the harder road; discuss origins, that most of the counter arguments appear.

Instead of being able to take the easy road, what would happen if Evolution takes, was required t to deal with origins as part of its story? What would happen is many scientists would start to speculate, all types of scenarios, making the Evolutionary theory appear much less clear cut. The lower road that evolution takes; shorter timeline, helps create an illusion of being more complete; dice included. This illusion would disappear if they had to take the higher road of origins.

If we started the Bible at Exodus, there is much less provocative theory remaining. The miracles of Moses are easier to explain by natural explanations compared to forming the universe from nothing. The debate between Evolution and Creation is more political than it appears, since this not a level playing field by any rational standard, with science unable and unwilling to expand evolution to origins, like the Creationists attempt to do.