|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 60 (9208 total) |
| |
Skylink | |
Total: 919,421 Year: 6,678/9,624 Month: 18/238 Week: 18/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
RAZD writes:
How do you falsify ToE?
unlike the ToE which is falsifiable
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
You’re a professional biologist and you claim to “know how macroevolution occurs”, yet you are clueless as to how you would breed a mammal from a reptile? Why do you think macroevolution is related to breeding? You don't seem to know anything about macroevolution.What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tanypteryx Member Posts: 4597 From: Oregon, USA Joined: Member Rating: 10.0
|
I appreciate that, as an atheist, you have no choice but to believe the Darwinist narrative I have no idea what you are talking about here. What is the Darwinist narrative? And what's it got to do with atheists?
even if creatures appear out of nowhere in the fossil record. In a thousand years' time, atheists will still be using this excuse - "the fossil record is incomplete!" Well, those atheists are persistent. What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1955 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Haven’t I already answered this question? For your sake, I will reiterate: I believe my “aliens” theory is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the fossil record, according to the parameters set by modern science - ie, methodological naturalism.
No that doesn't answer my question. I asked why you defend a theory as the best scientific explanation when you don't believe it. That does not lend a whole lot of credence. In fact, it makes your argument a strawman. I would just as soon argue that the theory of evolution is the best scientific theory because I DO believe that the evidence supports it. Arguably, that makes my theory more valid than yours. And I haven't even got into the lack of evidence for such alien intervention which makes it NOT scientific.
However, since I believe there is more to reality than methodological naturalism, I don’t believe my “aliens” theory is the best explanation for the fossil record (notice how I didn’t say “the best SCIENTIFIC explanation”).
So this renders neither of your two theories as scientific and shows that you are just trolling this board. Is that the real reason for defending something you don't believe in? That's fine with me, but I'll go with the evidence for now.
So I have two explanations for the fossil record, depending on which “game” I’m playing. Are you familiar with the term, “Horses for courses”?
That is an apt description of the situation. You are playing games. Edited by edge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes:
How do you falsify ToE? unlike the ToE which is falsifiable Several ways. This is an amusingly worn old PRATT. See Talk Origins Pratt ListClaim Claim CA211: quote: Finding a fossil that is out of place for the spacial/temporal matrix -- ie one that has no nearby parent populations in time and space to evolve from: a rabbit in the cambrian is a common example. Finding a genetic genome that doesn't fit the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution. Note that the perception that "Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution" is due to all the known information/facts currently fitting the theory of evolution -- strong evidence that the theory is either correct or very near to correct. This gives us high confidence in the accuracy of the theory. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : noteby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1654 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
RAZD writes:
Okay, so how do you falsify the theory that it doesn't appear to be falsifiable "Macroevolution = Microevolutions + Time" ? See Message 1160 Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel☮American☆Zen☯Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10295 Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
Dredge writes: So, you can demonstrate this it's impossible for genetic engineering to produuce a phylogenetic signal? I can show that genetic engineering can produce any pattern of similarities and differences. Evolution can only produce one pattern of similarities and differences, and that is the pattern we see. That makes evolution the better explanation.
Btw, is a phylogeneitic signal detectable in the fossil record? Absolutely. The same pattern of similarities and differences seen in living species is also seen in the fossil record. Edited by Taq, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10295 Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
Dredge writes: I talking about what fossils tell us - they tell us WHAT happened, not HOW it happened. Science cannot determine HOW the history of life unfolded; it can only guess. That's completely false. The matching phylogenies at the morphological and genetic level tell us the how: evolutionary mechanisms. Phylogenies are the fingerprint of random mutations, selection, drift, speciation, and vertical inheritance, and that fingerprint is all over the distribution of characteristics in living and fossil species as well as the genomes of living species.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10295 Joined: Member Rating: 7.5
|
Dredge writes: I believe my “aliens” theory is the best SCIENTIFIC explanation for the fossil record, You would need to show how your theory predicts the observed distribution of characteristics. You have yet to do that. The theory of evolution does predict what features should and should not be found together and why, but your theory does not.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meddle Member (Idle past 1520 days) Posts: 179 From: Scotland Joined:
|
Those poor little trilobites: They gaze up from the fossil beds asking, "Where did I come from?" Well it could have been something like Keretsa brutoni which dates to 555 Ma (just scroll down to page 131, don't worry it starts on page 127).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
edge Member (Idle past 1955 days) Posts: 4696 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
Well it could have been something like Keretsa brutoni which dates to 555 Ma (just scroll down to page 131, don't worry it starts on page 127).
Almost exactly as one might have predicted as a precursor to Cambrian arthropods. Good find.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
I’m not surprised others have noticed the same thing - it seems to be a fundamental and obvious contradiction. Btw, you haven’t answered my question: If the THEORY of evolution is “true”, why don’t you call it the FACT of evolution? This YEC trope has been around forever. It was an intellectually vacuous argument decades ago and is downright stupid now. Furthermore, it’s my understanding that a scientific theory is never “true”, but is “validated” according the evidence in its favour. So first you get a population of amniotes which evolve into the synapsids, and the sauropsids. The synapsids begat the Eupelycosaurs who begat the sphenacodontians who then begat the Sphenacodontids who then begat the Therapsids who finally begat the mammals. And at each begat we're talking millions of years of microevolution with lots of intermediate begats in between each of those. Sorry, but you haven’t told me anything useful in terms of a breeding program. If you have an amniote, for example, how do you breed it to evolve into a synapsid? Well, you see, Dredge, dog breeders are not looking to breed a non-dog. They want to breed only a specific type of dog with a highly restrictive set of features. So they inbreed closely related animals which restricts the resultant gene pool for that breed leading to deformities. Artificial selection does that.
You live in a dream world. Try and bred a dog into a non-dog and see what happens - you will end in the same genetic “dead-end” that thousands of years of dog breeding has - ie, a drastically less-diverse population riddled with harmful mutations. All you will end up “evolving” is sick, weak, unfit dogs! But hey, I understand that an atheist has no choice but to believe that evolution is responsible for the fossil record, despite the reality-denying absurdity of that position. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
AZPaul3 writes:
1. No, as I've pointed out many times, I'm not a YEC. You are a YEC. And a rather dumb one at that. 2. For someone with a fragile, eggshell mind and an IQ of 9, I think I'm doing alright (Did you know it only took me ten years to complete seven years of primary school?)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
edge writes:
No, Dredge accepts the same fossil record as you do. Dredge harangues us that the fossils don't tell us how life changed over time. Here’s the problem for Darwinists: Fossils tells us nothing about the mechanism of macroevolution, and it cannot be demonstrated that microevolution leads to macroevolution (on the contrary, thousands of years of animal and plant breeding demonstrates that there are genetic limits to how far organisms can “evolve”) . So all you have left to “explain” the fossil record is blind faith (born of atheism) in Darwinian evolution. Unfortunately blind faith is not science. Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dredge Member Posts: 2855 From: Australia Joined: |
DrJones writes:
Very sorry - I got the strong impression that you were gay - my bad.
ah that's sweet but you shouldn't waste your time flirting with me, i like women
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024