For scientists who accept evolution

[Bronze Dog]

Here's another: if it could be demonstrated that there hasn't been enough time (i.e. the earth is too young) for evolution to have produced the diversity of species we see today, that would also deal a blow against the theory.

Four! Four methods of falsification. And there's the possible (but improbable) discovery of some mechanism that prevents a species from leaving a pre-defined collection of traits. Five! Five methods of falsification which include

1) The discovery of anachronistic fossils
2) A failure of a-life programs to behave as evolution predicts.
3) Discovery of "poof! new species!" type of mutation mechanism
4) A shortage of time required for the level of diversity.
5) A real "species" barrier. (Which goes back to the idea of eidolons.)

It's a good thing science doesn't work like the Spanish Inquisition. If it did, we wouldn't have so many IDers in office trying to propagandize their unsupported nonsense into our schools... wait, is that a good thing?

 

[Dr Adequate]

I'm not sure I agree with this one. If a single malformed specimen were to be fossilized, we would see evidence of a disadvantageous development.

OK, you might, if you were very unlucky, find a one-off fossil of a freakish disadvantageous macromutation.

But you wouldn't be able to see any progressive development in the fossil record of something getting worse and worse in the short term in order to get better in the long-term.

To be more precise: intermediate forms can't be less well-adapted than the forms which precede them.

 

[hammegk]

. You don't mean C. lupus refers to wolves, dogs, and coyotes?

coyote = Canis latrans
wolves = Canis lupus
dogs = Canis familiaris

Whoops, my error. Dog=FAMILY CANIDAE.

Name them, please.

Google 'redated fossils'.

if we discovered an observable mechanism

We have a theoretical basis, what we don't have is the "observation" part. That's what we're discussing.

The family tree of life as revealed by the genetic record should agree with that revealed by the morphological/fossil record.

Except for those bits of parallel development, so far so good. Morphology & age dated fossil classes don't require The Theory, imo.

The Sarawak Law should hold.

Yes, but back to the new species problem.

There should be intermediate forms in the fossil record.

Which is one minor problem that continues to bedevil The Theory.

The fossil record should tell a coherent story, i.e. no grazing animals before grass (pick your own favorite example out of hundreds).

Yeah, those darn age dated fossils line up Aok.

We should never find, in the fossil record, any development which is disadvantageous in the short term.

You lost me here.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Whoops, my error. Dog=FAMILY CANIDAE.

So, we're talking about a lake, rather than a river changing shape without asking the surveyor for permission.

Which is one minor problem that continues to bedevil The Theory.

Just like the hole in my 999 piece puzzle that fits together so well.

 

[hammegk]

Or, don't count your pieces before they hatch????

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/tech/main931079.shtml

ROTFLMGDFAO.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Google 'redated fossils'.

Which ones are anachronistic?

What I am beginning to find most interesting is that no one seems to have any better criteria for falsification than one of those darn "anachronistic fossils".

It's a solid criterion. Here's another that might work: if we discovered an observable mechanism other than mutation that created new species out of whole cloth, it would certainly cast doubt on TOE.

We have a theoretical basis, what we don't have is the "observation" part. That's what we're discussing.

We have a theoretical basis for a mechanism other than mutation that creates new species out of whole cloth? News to me. What is it?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Or, don't count your pieces before they hatch????

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/tech/main931079.shtml

ROTFLMGDFAO.

As I said before, I'm a lay person, but even if this article is true, I don't see how that would provoke more than a revision. So what if we're down to 998 pieces? Still looks like a mostly-complete puzzle to me.

 

[hammegk]

Which ones are anachronistic?

All of 'em, until they got re-dated.

We have a theoretical basis for a mechanism other than mutation that creates new species out of whole cloth? News to me. What is it?

Huh? Intra-species mutation is a fact. It's the move to a new species that has yet to be incontrovertibly observed.

 

[delphi_ote]

Whoops, my error. Dog=FAMILY CANIDAE.

So are they one species or several?

 

[Bronze Dog]

Huh? Intra-species mutation is a fact. It's the move to a new species that has yet to be incontrovertibly observed.

1) Nothing's incontrovertable.
2) Can you controvert species changes that have been observed?
3) "Species" is a human term that evolution doesn't care about, like I've been trying to hint at with my river and map analogy.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Oh look, hammy's changed the subject again.

Intermediate forms didn't work out for him, falsifiability didn't work out for him, now we're back to observable speciation events --- hold on, isn't this where I came in?

 

[delphi_ote]

Or, don't count your pieces before they hatch????

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/10/tech/main931079.shtml

ROTFLMGDFAO.

Instead, said Feduccia, birds and dinosaurs may be related, but only by a common ancestor stretching back hundreds of millions of years.

Do you actually read the things you post? A non-mainstream scientist hypothesized that the phylogenetic tree should be re-ordered in a journal I can't even find. How does that change anything we've been talking about here?

 

[drkitten]

ETA Wait a minute. You don't meant C. lupus refers to wolves, dogs, and coyotes?

coyote = Canis latrans
wolves = Canis lupus
dogs = Canis familiaris

Is this still true? I thought they'd reclassified dogs as C. lupis now (e.g., the domesticated dog is C. lupis familiaris, the dingo is C. lupis dingo, etc.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Is this still true? I thought they'd reclassified dogs as C. lupis now (e.g., the domesticated dog is C. lupis familiaris, the dingo is C. lupis dingo, etc.

Surveyors redrawing the map after the rivers change course, as the theory of erosion predicts. And the rivers weren't polite enough to ask them for permission to deviate from their flawless, unchanging maps.

 

[delphi_ote]

Is this still true? I thought they'd reclassified dogs as C. lupis now (e.g., the domesticated dog is C. lupis familiaris, the dingo is C. lupis dingo, etc.

It varies depending on the source, but I believe you are correct. Taxonomy is a messy subject!

 

[hammegk]

How does that change anything we've been talking about here?

Since my position has always been that intermediate forms are wished-for rather than demonstrated by the fossil record, makes no difference to me that one of the all time favorites may be scientifically demonstrated not to be one.

Of course the just-so-story narrative will be re-written.


Yes, family canidae are "one 'species'", albeit not by current scientific-evolutionist-accepted definition.


BronzeDog: NO "Species Change" has ever been *observed*.

 

[Schneibster]

Oh look, hammy's changed the subject again.

Intermediate forms didn't work out for him, falsifiability didn't work out for him, now we're back to observable speciation events --- hold on, isn't this where I came in?

Observable speciation events isn't going to work out well, either. And that's the tip of the iceberg; about a hundred articles are published each year on new speciation events, according to this.

 

[Bronze Dog]

BronzeDog: NO "Species Change" has ever been *observed*.

Didn't they recently find some fruit flies that speciated naturally?

I also seem to recall some experiments where they bred a new species of fruit fly in only 37 or so generations.

Anyone know more about those?

 

[Schneibster]

Hammy, the crap that works when you go around knocking on doors, and can dismiss the occasional intelligent one as "doomed to go to hell," isn't going to work very well on an informed audience. Every single argument you have or will come up with has been answered, and not merely answered but exhaustively answered, on the talkorigins site. If you are interested in learning why it is that so many scientists (and particularly biologists) are convinced that evolution occurs, has occurred, and will continue to occur, and is responsible for the variety of life on Earth, go read it; I'm going to make a practice on this thread of linking the specific answer on talkorigins for every argument you make. Ply your BS on the credulous; a skeptic site isn't the place. On a skeptic site, it's trolling.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Hammy, the crap that works when you go around knocking on doors, and can dismiss the occasional intelligent one as "doomed to go to hell," isn't going to work very well on an informed audience. Every single argument you have or will come up with has been answered, and not merely answered but exhaustively answered, on the talkorigins site. If you are interested in learning why it is that so many scientists (and particularly biologists) are convinced that evolution occurs, has occurred, and will continue to occur, and is responsible for the variety of life on Earth, go read it; I'm going to make a practice on this thread of linking the specific answer on talkorigins for every argument you make. Ply your BS on the credulous; a skeptic site isn't the place. On a skeptic site, it's trolling.

Somewhere, I remember a skepchick(?) linking to a website with a number for every creationist claim. Happen to know where that list is?