Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 0/19 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 276 of 968 (591868)
11-16-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by bluescat48
11-15-2010 3:48 PM


Re: Which side are you on?
Hi blues,
bluescat48 writes:
To cover that quarter would still have to cover 100% of the earth to over 29000 feet according to your mythological book of genesis.
That would depend on whether you are reading the text as recorded or as it is presented by many at EvC.
According to Genesis 1:2 there was no land mass above the water. In other words the entire world was covered with water.
Moses writes:
Genesis 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
According to Genesis 1:9 the water was gathered into one place and dry land appeared. Thus all the water was in one place and all the dry land was in one place.
Moses writes:
Genesis 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
There is no size given for this dry land nor was there any sea level given for this dry land.
The land could have been 1 foot above sea level as it had been covered with water moments before it became dry land. The highest point on that dry land could have been 10 feet above sea level. The text does not say.
There is no change put forth in the text between this appearance of dry land and the flood of Noah.
Genesis 7:19, 20 tells us how much water covered the high hills in verse 20 and the same Hebrew word is then mistranslated mountains in verse 20.
Moses writes:
Genesis 7:19 And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth; and all the high hills, that were under the whole heaven, were covered.
7:20 Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail; and the mountains were covered.
Suppose the ark was built on the highest dry land available.
The flood then rose 22 feet above the dry land the ark was sitting on.
The water would not even reach the 1st floor of the ark as it had lower second and third floors, and it never would have lifted off the ground.
If most of the water that was used to cover this land mass came from the sea what would be the problem of it going back into the sea?
The same water had covered the land mass in Genesis 1:2.
So don't confuse what the text says with what you assume it to say.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by bluescat48, posted 11-15-2010 3:48 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Theodoric, posted 11-16-2010 3:31 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 279 by Dr Adequate, posted 11-16-2010 7:21 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 280 by frako, posted 11-16-2010 7:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 281 by bluescat48, posted 11-17-2010 2:06 AM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 314 of 968 (593568)
11-27-2010 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 313 by dwise1
11-27-2010 4:52 PM


Re: First things first
Hi dwise1
dwise1 writes:
I do not doubt that most creationists we encounter are ignorant of what evolution and science are
Does it take intelligence to understand what is preached about the ToE here at EvC?
If this old country boy is ignorant please explain to me how we can start a theory of evolution when we have no life form to begin with?
As I understand it the Toe is an attempted explanation of how that first life form has produced all the life forms on planet earth.
The problem is there is no verifiable direct evidence that such an occurance has ever taken place.
There is much evidence that many things have many similarities.
There is much evidence that many species form sub-species that cannot interbreed for one reason or another.
There is no evidence of transmutation evertaking place.
There is no direct evidence of 'Macro-Evolution' having ever taken place from all the little mutations that occur in species.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2010 4:52 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Panda, posted 11-27-2010 8:01 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 316 by Percy, posted 11-27-2010 8:10 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 317 by dwise1, posted 11-27-2010 8:40 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 318 by Tanypteryx, posted 11-27-2010 9:33 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 327 by Meldinoor, posted 11-29-2010 9:36 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 328 by subbie, posted 11-29-2010 10:41 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 347 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2011 7:04 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 348 of 968 (598828)
01-03-2011 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 347 by Tanypteryx
01-02-2011 7:04 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Hi Tanypteryx,
Tanypteryx writes:
Back in Message 318 I tried to clear up your mis-understandings about Macro-Evolution.
Had you read what I had written in that thread you would not be supprised that I did not answer your nonsense.
But to save you time I will put most of it here.
In Message 21 I presented the following in a post to JRTjr.
In Message 167 RAZD said to ABO:
RAZD writes:
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact. We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs, and HAS occurred in the past.
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
In the same message RAZD said:
RAZD writes:
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
This was presented to show that the faith he was talking about is different from the faith ABO had.
Berkeley Evolution 101 writes:
What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
Source
Now is you have verifiable evidence that macroevolution has occurred present it now.
Tanypteryx writes:
You did not respond and disappeared from the scene. This is the second time I tried to help you understand only to have you run away.
All the above information was available in the thread "Can I Disprove Macro-Evolution"?
So explain why I should repeat it again for you.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 347 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-02-2011 7:04 PM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 349 by Coyote, posted 01-03-2011 1:05 AM ICANT has replied
 Message 354 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-04-2011 10:36 AM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 350 of 968 (598851)
01-03-2011 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 349 by Coyote
01-03-2011 1:05 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Hi Coyote,
Coyote writes:
This has been posted many times. The fact that you don't like or accept this does not mean it is not evidence. Your attempts to hand-wave it away mean nothing.
You present a picture of 14 skulls and claim that is evidence of 'Macro-Evolution".
The only thing you have presented is 14 skulls that prove that a creature existed at one time that had that particular skull.
Anything else you want to conclude from that picture is your conclusion.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 349 by Coyote, posted 01-03-2011 1:05 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 351 by Coyote, posted 01-03-2011 11:07 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 352 by New Cat's Eye, posted 01-03-2011 11:15 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 353 by Taq, posted 01-03-2011 5:02 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 355 by Meddle, posted 01-04-2011 9:21 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 359 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-05-2011 12:09 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 361 of 968 (599589)
01-09-2011 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 354 by Tanypteryx
01-04-2011 10:36 AM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Hi Tanypteryx,
Tanypteryx writes:
You posted some information from Berkely Evolution 101 "What is macroevolution?"
What do YOU think their description means?
I will highlight what they said for you.
Berkeley Evolution 101 writes:
What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
Source
1. Macroevolution is evolution above the the species level.
2. There are no first hand accounts to be read. (There is no direct evidence we can produce).
3. Once we figure out what evolutionary events we think happned. We try to figure out how we think it happened.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 354 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-04-2011 10:36 AM Tanypteryx has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 362 by Tanypteryx, posted 01-10-2011 11:18 AM ICANT has not replied
 Message 363 by Taq, posted 01-10-2011 4:38 PM ICANT has seen this message but not replied
 Message 364 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2011 5:13 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 365 of 968 (599869)
01-11-2011 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 364 by arachnophilia
01-10-2011 5:13 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
Hi arach,
Since you can't read a post before you coment I will repeat the post you are answering to in post 364.
Berkeley Evolution 101 writes:
What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.
Macroevolution refers to evolution of groups larger than an individual species.
Macroevolution encompasses the grandest trends and transformations in evolution, such as the origin of mammals and the radiation of flowering plants. Macroevolutionary patterns are generally what we see when we look at the large-scale history of life.
It is not necessarily easy to "see" macroevolutionary history; there are no firsthand accounts to be read. Instead, we reconstruct the history of life using all available evidence: geology, fossils, and living organisms.
Once we've figured out what evolutionary events have taken place, we try to figure out how they happened. Just as in microevolution, basic evolutionary mechanisms like mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection are at work and can help explain many large-scale patterns in the history of life.
Source
If you don't like the words that are enlarged and bolded why don't you take it up with Berkely?
If it is a strawman as you claim it was created by scientist not creationist.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 364 by arachnophilia, posted 01-10-2011 5:13 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 366 by Taq, posted 01-11-2011 6:16 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 367 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2011 7:02 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 372 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2011 9:32 PM ICANT has replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 394 of 968 (600094)
01-12-2011 12:17 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by RAZD
01-11-2011 9:32 PM


Re: Transmutation
Hi RAZD,
I hope you are doing well these days.
RAZD writes:
I'll try once again ...
Why?
RAZD writes:
You really need to read the whole paragraph.
I did read the whole paragraph.
But the problem is this.
As I look at the so called tree of life many of the limbs and branches are missing. There is no root that exist as we don't know what produced the first life form.
Thus there is no root defined.
There is no trunk defined.
People take the final life forms we see today and try to go backwards in time and connect them to one life form to prove evolution took place.
In a thread in the past you proposed to do that and then did not carry through. Maybe you would like to do that and see how far you can go.
RAZD writes:
When you zoom out on a tree from a single branch to see the whole tree, do you see any process that does not occur in the single branch being used in the formation of the tree? No,
As I said there are too many of the limbs and branches missing.
It kinda looks like this:
25 mya apes                                                        195,000 tya homo sapiens
     /                                                                      /
    /                                                                      /
   /                                                                      /
Common ancestor
                           \                           \
                             \                           \
                               \                           \
                           15 mya monkey          545,000 tya chimpanzees
RAZD writes:
Personally I disagree with this opinion.
Then why not start with today and trace humans back to the original common ancestor above. Just remember there can be no gaps as when you get as far as you can go you are at a dead end.
Would you personally disagree with this statement? Paying particular attention to the part that is underlined.
Which is found in In Message 167 you said to ABO:
RAZD writes:
We do have evidence, evidence from several lines of investigation that do actually prove that common descent occurs: you are a product of common descent from your parents, your grandparents, your great-grandparents, etcetera; this is a fact. We also have evidence of non-arbitrary speciation events where the result is two populations that cannot or don't interbreed (the definition of species) that have both evolved from their common ancestor population: this too is a fact. We also have evidence from genetic studies that show again and again that common ancestry occurs, and HAS occurred in the past.
When you get down to the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population, then yes, there is a degree of "faith" to believe it, because it is a prediction of the theory and has not been validated (nor invalidated) to date. However, this degree of "faith" is very different from your implication that it is like religion where things are believed without ANY evidence and without question. The later point is critical: science does not believe any theory without question.
When was the theory of common descent extending back to a primal common ancestor population validated.
I have asked you this question in the past and you did not respond.
In Message 72 you stated:
RAZD writes:
Can you point to any biology textbook or on-line biology source (such as Berkeley or U.Mich) that defines macroevolution this way?
Why would anyone today refer to macroevolution as transmutation?
Everyone here including you is trying to discard the word 'Macro-Evolution' and relegate it to being microevolution. Because changes to critters is a fact. 'Macro-Evolutiion' change above species is not a fact and neither is transmutation which is the word that was used in the 1800's to describe evolution above species.
But to answer your question I was refering to a article that ApostateAbe had presented as evidence. It is found here.
and makes this statement:
The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists--for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms, all of which are descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.
RAZD writes:
If you cannot find a single biologist that supports your definition of macroevolution then you are guilty of creationist misdefinition.
Do you disagree that Berkeley states:
quote:
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level.
My definition is that 'Macro-Evolution' is evolution above the species level.
RAZD writes:
Sorry, ICANT, but your "support" comes from old opinions that have been invalidated.
When was it invalidated that transmutation could not take place?
When was it validated that transmutation did take place?
You guys love the word mutation but when trans is placed in front of it then transmutation is a dirty word. Trans is across, on the other side, or beyond. So transmutation of a critter would be when that critter became a totally different critter.
It would not be like the 66 million year history where 330 different species of formafiera were produced that the final product was still a formafiera. Had a snail been produced as one of those species then that would be transmutation.
RAZD writes:
Why do creationists need to dredge up such old material if their opinions were correct?
A creationist did not dredge up such material it was presented by ApostateAbe to support his view.
God Bless,

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2011 9:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 396 by Taq, posted 01-12-2011 12:27 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 398 by Coragyps, posted 01-12-2011 12:49 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 401 by RAZD, posted 01-12-2011 3:54 PM ICANT has not replied
 Message 402 by ringo, posted 01-12-2011 4:31 PM ICANT has not replied

ICANT
Member (Idle past 145 days)
Posts: 6769
From: SSC
Joined: 03-12-2007


Message 399 of 968 (600113)
01-12-2011 3:09 PM
Reply to: Message 372 by RAZD
01-11-2011 9:32 PM


Re: Transmutation
Deleted
Posted in wrong place
God Bless,
Edited by ICANT, : No reason given.

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 372 by RAZD, posted 01-11-2011 9:32 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 400 by Percy, posted 01-12-2011 3:16 PM ICANT has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024