What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Balthazzar]

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.

Origins = God

It's not that nothing existed - It's just that we're unable to pinpoint anything beyond our ability. God existed - Light came to be - We see processes of change and changes of life forms and variety. Awareness of existence/God.

 

[Yerda]

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.

This is a really odd way to look at these topics. That evolution "started" after things that could evolve existed is possibly the strangest objection ever levelled at any theory ever.

Evolution is science and creationism isn't. This is why one seems to be a complete theory and the other doesn't. The idea that science is unable and unwilling to expand evolution to the origins betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter.

 

[Balthazzar]

This is a really odd way to look at these topics. That evolution "started" after things that could evolve existed is possibly the strangest objection ever levelled at any theory ever.

Evolution is science and creationism isn't. This is why one seems to be a complete theory and the other doesn't. The idea that science is unable and unwilling to expand evolution to the origins betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the subject matter.

I'm not sure, but it could be that he was alluding to Genesis being a stumbling block for evolutionists as written and often understood. Starting at an exodus from ??? big bang ??? Primordial soup ??? Existence of humans on earth and the history of ??? What existed prior to the "Big Bang" - Something? Nothing? That may be the point. Ability to observe observable evidence and lack of - What we don't know in contrast to what we can know about our origins. The missing links of creation (the universe) and human evolutionary processes based on ability as opposed to digging deeper as thought processes and the potential of God and gods existing as the observable universe much like we exist as ourselves.

 

[Heyo]

If we started the Bible at Exodus, there is much less provocative theory remaining.

Actually you'd have to start at Genesis 1.13 as the first life was created in 11 and 12 - and the first 9.3 billion years of cosmogony and formation of galaxies and the solar system was dealt with in the first 10 sentences.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Your claims were addressed. You never supported your claim that the heel was irreducibly complex, so in reality no one had no obligation to refute your claim, but they did so anyway. Australopithecus have an arched foot. It is not as arched as modern man but clearly more arched than other apes.

Do you know what we call a trait that is part way in between to others? We call that a transitional trait. The fossils that are used to support this claim are transitional fossils.

In many ways the Australopithecus are transitional between man and other extent apes. The hips are very similar to modern man's but share some traits with other apes. The arched foot is less arched than modern man, but less arched than other apes. Not all traits evolve at the same time. It's braincase was not much larger than that of other modern apes. but its hips, knees and feet, angle that the spine enters the braincase, all point to bipedalism. Not as well develop ed as ours but much more than other apes. That is why it is almost the perfect "missing link" that creationists kept demanding and it is why that their only argument against it are ones of denial.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Why would that bother you? That is how science is done. The easy obvious questions are answered first and we build and continually test from that beginning. That is why some wrong ideas have been refuted and dropped. For example the phlogiston theory of fire.

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.

There is no "creation theory". And you can prove it. What reasonable test based upon the predictions of creation theory could possibly refute it? Please don't say "dogs always stay dogs" because the theory of evolution says that same thing. You would need something that is not already agreed upon.

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.

Abiogenesis is a very very hard problem. when it came to gravity why didn't Newton immediately come up with Einstein's theory? Because we did not have the necessary knowledge at the time Once again in the sciences we solve what we can solve now. And then we build upon that kowledge.

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.

And yet Moses has been shown to be mythical, or legendary at best. There is no good reason to believe the miracle stories of Exodus.

 

[metis]

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?

Basically, the chance mutations that create more diversity in the gene pool, and then natural selection and genetic drift work on those. We know these exist and work.

Unseen missing links seem to elude our knowing.

There are always going to be quantum leaps as it is virtually impossible to have every fossil at every time period throughout billions of years.

 

[metis]

Evolution, starts much much later in time; after abiogenesis.

Not at all. The universe was evolving long before our solar system existed, so what happens with life forms as they eventually appeared just continues on with that process. "Abiogenesis" is considered to be a scientific hypothesis, not a scientific axiom.

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.

The creation accounts I believe were to refute the earlier and much more widespread polytheistic Babylonian creation account, thus are allegorical whether the authors intended them to be as such or not.

If we started the Bible at Exodus, there is much less provocative theory remaining

There's simply no reason to do as such.

 

[metis]

Origins = God

It's not that nothing existed - It's just that we're unable to pinpoint anything beyond our ability. God existed - Light came to be - We see processes of change and changes of life forms and variety. Awareness of existence/God.

It's interesting that Einstein hypothesized that the energy of creation may well be God.

 

[Heyo]

Not at all. The universe was evolving long before our solar system existed, so what happens with life forms as they eventually appeared just continues on with that process.

When we talk about evolution in the evolution vs. creation context, we mean the Theory of Evolution - which deals only with life, not chemistry, not solar systems, not galaxies or the universe.

 

[rational experiences]

The theory of evolution would falsify the theory of evolution.

As humans aren't abstract forms as a God type.

What real human intelligence realised...legal was implemented to stop your lies.

 

[Astrophile]

The arched foot is less arched than modern man, but less arched than other apes.

I suppose that this should be 'more arched than other apes.'

 

[Subduction Zone]

I suppose that this should be 'more arched than other apes.'

Yep, I screwed up.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I saw some of the work on intermediates.

You did? Ok. And?

I'd like you to address my question as to the evolution of an arch that is irreducibly complex.

I wanted you to answer my questions too. I'm still waiting. We do have something in common. Well, maybe not, I did answer what you posted.

That's what an arch structure is.

And?

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.

Show us your math and I'm sure everyone will get back to you.

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

I'm using random processes? To do what?

I'm not familiar with straw man evolution, so you will have to elaborate on it for me to comment.

 

[BilliardsBall]

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.

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.

 

[BilliardsBall]

You did? Ok. And?
I wanted you to answer my questions too. I'm still waiting. We do have something in common. Well, maybe not, I did answer what you posted.

And?

Show us your math and I'm sure everyone will get back to you.

I'm using random processes? To do what?

I'm not familiar with straw man evolution, so you will have to elaborate on it for me to comment.

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.

 

[metis]

When we talk about evolution in the evolution vs. creation context, we mean the Theory of Evolution - which deals only with life, not chemistry, not solar systems, not galaxies or the universe.

The latter is an extension of the former.

BTW, just for the record, I am an anthropologist, now retired.

 

[SkepticThinker]

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.

My point stands. Maybe you could address it instead of brushing it off and doubling down.

Irreducible complexity is a concept that's been dead in the water for a few decades now. On the other hand, evolution is supported by all available evidence gathered over the last 150+ from multiple independent groups of scientists across multiple independent fields of science. Meanwhile, you cling to an idea for which zero evidence has been presented and which has not gained any traction in the scientific community. Why?

 

[Heyo]

The latter is an extension of the former.

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?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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.

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?