@F_alk:
Are you working in Science? All that science does is obtaining the best theory, in the hope that it is the correct one.
There is so much we don’t know, that we have to rely on what we can see. Knowing that we may not see all, we have to work with the “best”,
Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, does that make Newton not a scientist?
I do not have to work in science to know that science is not defined by creating the “best” theory. Science is about truth. There are many criteria to define science – and just obtaining the “best” theory is not one of them. There is no “hope” in science either. In order for something to be science – you must “know” something is correct. If it is not “known” it is somewhere outside of science. A hypothesis at best.
If Newtonian Mechanics is wrong, then it is not science. I never said that would not make Newton a scientist. We are debating what defines science, not what defines a scientist.
@F_alk:
And: most important: Can you prove any theory to be correct? If you can, it is not falsifiable, and therefore you can start to address some of your thoughts about evolution on it.
I think you have this backwards. Any theory can be shown to be correct with the “right” set of data. To show a theory is unfalsifiable you must try to falsify it. If a theory is untestable, it is not possible to falsify it. See the difference?
@F_alk:
I’ll give you a gedankenexperiment:
Put some bacteria in a hostile environment (like heat, antibiotics etc). wait till 95% have died, note that time. Then put them back into a “better” environment and wait till they have reached the same strength in numbers as you had at the start.
Repeat this process a 100 times.
If you do not note a dramatic increase in the time you need to put them down to 5% survivors, then evolution is wrong.
First of all this does not prove or disprove evolution – if your experiment happens this way or not. Before and after the experiment (if any bacteria survives) – you still have bacteria. In order to prove evolution you must show the creation of a new genetic materail. This experiment does no such thing.
The great thing about species like bacteria is that they reproduce so quickly. Still after all of these types of experiments, we still get bacteria. You would think that after millions and millions of experiments and many mutations, that these scientists would be able to finally show evolution occurs. However, even they cannot make a new species.
If we cannot create a new species in a controlled environment, how do we expect nature to do it randomly? This is also shown in breeding of dogs or horses where scientists can take things only so far.
@F_alk:
Then change my “bring up” to …“re-mention in different context”
How did I take Fin out of context? He said that vestigal organs are an indirect proof of evolution. I explained why they were not.
@F_alk:
Genetics is supporting Evolution, as it gives evolution the mechanism of how change can occur. Without it, evolution would stand weaker. If genetics opposed it, evolution would have failed (so, it is falsifiable, just was not).
Why is this so hard to understand? Natural selection as defined by Darwin is not the same thing as survival differential and gene frequencies. If all of a sudden our understanding of population genetics would change 180 degrees, evolution would adapt to it. The theory of evolution does not use population genetics as a major foundational stone.
I agree that the two can be logically discussed together. So can creationism and population genetics.
@F_alk:
Which is pretty much the same: If i can explain something, than it must have happened (otherwise there is no need to explain). If something has happened, and i can explain it, then i can say when and under which circumstances it will happen again, that is predicting it.
I said evolution TRIES to explain it. I never said it does so successfully. Evolution creates stories which changes as the data changes. There is nothing that the theory of evolution stands behind which once falsified would disprove evolution.
@F_alk:
so, the world is de-voluting? You are not serious, are you?
@F_alk:
This we can deduce from looking at our whales today and see that they have a bone-structure that can be accounted to having had legs that turned something else/useless.
The theory of evolution is not an upward climb. You yourself claim that whales have remnants of past legs. This is the type of de-evolution that I was referring to. I do not agree that whales once had legs. I do think it is possible for a species to lose features. Once again I will state, in order to show evolution, you must show the creation of NEW genetic material.
@FinsterniS:
Anyway i was’nt speaking about Ambulocetus, it’s a walking whales, but there is also whales with little ridicoulus, useless legs. The Basilosaurus and the Dorudon for exemple.
I already explained the Basilosaurus. I looked up the Dorudon and it does NOT have any appendages where there would be legs. The only connectedness that I could find to this discussion is that Dorudons are whales. Maybe you could shed some light on how Dorudons prove whales had legs?
@FinsterniS:
Wild2000; in your argumentation you are making serious errors. First, you take all thing i said (fossils, genetic) separately, it’s unthinkable.
Okay, so if I add up all of your individual indirect proofs which I showed were either neutral proofs or not proofs at all, you have no proof at on the side of evolution. I do not see how looking at them collectively or individually helps the case for evolution. You are trying to impose a synergistic effect on indirect proofs that even individually provide no proof. What am I missing here to create my serious error?
@FinsterniS:
If you look at a species like the horse, you will have the Hyracotherium at a time X, at a time X + 2, no more of the ancient species, but you got the Miohippus, with some difference. How can you refute that evidence ?
To start with, whether or not Hyracotherium (or dawn horse) was really a horse is up for debate. There is much speculation on if it is really a Hyrax. And even if it is determined that that it was a horse, there are many problems with the claimed horse phylogeny, including not having a site in the world where the complete horse succession can be seen in the record. There are also issues with the number of ribs and lumbar vertebrae. The most amusing piece of evidence is that a three toed horse and a one toed horse fossils were found at the exact same location in Nebraska. So much for millions of years separating the beginning and the end. Most importantly, after all of this, you still have a horse. Differences between horses only shows speciation. No new genetic material.
@FinsterniS:
Also you forget the main mecanism of evolution (i know) can be proven. Natural Selection & Mutations. That’s proven in a scientific way, like fossils are observed with scientific way. For me this is science. It’s not because you are unable to make a serious rebuttal that this is not science. Because it’s possible to refute Natural Selection, Mutations…,
Fin, you keep referring to generalities. How about providing some examples which has shown evolution to correct.
Natural selection is set up either as a tautology, a special definition or even a lame definition. None of these are science. Why don’t you give some examples of natural selection and we can go from there.
Mutations occur. The great majority are harmful. A select few are neutral or maybe beneficial. But again, where have mutations ever created new genetic material in a species? Evolution just wraps its story to include them because they are shown to happen.
@FinsterniS:
They admit there is mainly two kind of evolution, it’s linked to the systemic (catastrophic evolution, homeostatic evolution)
@F_alk:
Is Neo-Darwinism up to date? Is that the theory used in biology?
Just asking, if it does not allow for jumps after massive changes in the environment, then it sounds like a very incomplete theory. I doubt that it is any more than of historical value.
I am well aware that there are many variations in the theory of evolution. On one hand we have the Neo-Darwinists and on the other we have the punctionalists. There are some evolutionists somewhere in between. I did not mean to ignore the other side of the spectrum. It is just that the thread started around Darwin’s book and no one has really mentioned anything about punctionalists. Evolution hobbles on either foot.
Whatever your preference, I think you need to stick to a side. You cannot be both a Neo-Darwinist and a punctionalist.
Falk, what types of jumps are you suggesting? There are many evolutionists who disagree with this. Are you saying that the fossil record is complete or incomplete (complete being defined as representative of the species living through out the majority of time)? Because punctionalists that believe in these jumps also believe that the fossil record is complete.
@Wild2000:
It is also important to note that in you above example regarding mammals in Australia, the fossil record shows that marsupials also lived on many other continents. Just because they thrive in Australia, does not prove evolution.
@F_alk:
No, but why do they thrive in this isolated area, plus one(!) other area in the world (amazon rain forest), but nowhere else? Why did they die out everywhere else (remember that i already said that they once where the “ruling” mammals). What did not happen in Australia that happened in the rest of the world?
From what I have read, marsupials are in major trouble in Australia due to the introduction of dogs and some other animals. Since you agree that marsupials living in Australia does not explain evolution – it seems like discussion on this group of species is a moot point.
…so many voters, so few debaters.
