For scientists who accept evolution

[hammegk]

These models mimic the process of evolution. They would not work if evolution did not work. They work. Natural selection and mutation are sufficient to move species toward an optima according to these simulations. One more potential way that evolution could've been falsified, but wasn't. There's a substantial pile of such research, but I know you don't want to see it.

Yes, by golly, we agree that species undergo mutation. What we're discussing is mutation arriving at a new species.

If we falsified the theory, we would be searching for a new one right now. We haven't. All research for the past 100 years points to common ancestry for all species, who have been modified over millenia. Darwin's central hypothesis was right.

On what basis do you rule out finding such a piece of contrary evidence other than knowing damn well that the theory of evolution is correct?

Sorry. All of us have the butterfly collections to use. And I have not asked the Theory be falsified, only that a rational prediction be made that could falsify it.

I note that you didn't comment on my previous dog post, which addresses preciesly this issue. Was it too hard for you? Too many big words? If you want to talk about science, maybe you should do a little research first. If you want to say that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of biologists are wrong, maybe you should do a lot of research first.

I admit I missed the subtlety of your argument. Should I say C. lupus = C. lupus instead of dogs is dogs?

I know that it's silly because I know the theorry of evolution is correct, and that no such disconfirmation will be found. From a Creationist standpoint there is no reason at all why it shouldn't be found.

Who am I to argue with your choice of dogma? And if you identify me as a Creationist you are wrong.



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".

 

[Bronze Dog]

Sorry. All of us have the butterfly collections to use. And I have not asked the Theory be falsified, only that a rational prediction be made that could falsify it.

So, believing in the possibility of anachronistic fossils is irrational... why?
So, believing that an artificial life program designed to emulate evolution could fail to live up to evolution's predictions is irrational... why?

 

[delphi_ote]

I admit I missed the subtlety of your argument. Should I say C. lupus = C. lupus instead of dogs is dogs?

Dogs and wolves have interbred for tens of thousands of years according to their mitochondrial DNA. There are entire dog breeds that originate from a particular cross between wolves and dogs that can be pinpointed in their mitochondrial DNA. All dogs and wolves share a common ancestor that can be traced in their mitochondrial DNA. We can see where the tree of inheritance branchs, and where it comes back together. Dogs evolved from wolves, and man domesticated the dogs. We can actually see it happen step by step, molecule by molecule.

So are we talking about two distinct species here (according to whatever your definition of "species" is?) Do you have an alternate hypothesis for this data? It certainly presents a lot of difficulties to your "dogs is dogs" hypothesis (and the rest of your arguments, for that matter.) Dogs is not dogs. Dogs is also wolves, and wolves is also dogs. They evolved along mostly different paths because natural selection acted one way on dogs and another on wolves.

P.S. I only looked all of this up because you were talking about dogs. We could do the same thing for plants, humans, apes, E. choli, rats... and these types of experiments are 10 years old. The data and software to conduct them is publicly available. I did a very large one all by myself for fun once. Your intellectual dishonesty is going to get buried in the age of genomics. The truth about the origin of life is in the genome of every organism on Earth.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Who am I to argue with your choice of dogma?

I thought it was the complete absence of facts on your side which made you incapable of arguing with the theory of evolution. If, as you imply, if is merely a feeling of humility, then you have my permission, just this once, to disregard your inferiority and address me as though you were my equal.

And if you identify me as a Creationist you are wrong.

You never do anything but parrot YEC dogma. If you are not a creationist, why are all your stated ideas identical to theirs?

Oh, and why, whenever you're pressed on this point, do you always refuse to say? I find it startling that you have opinions which you're more ashamed of than the fundie dogma which you recite to us.

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".

Since you are unable to find any point on which to criticize this criterion, it would be hard to find something "better". Will you suggest how one could improve on something in which you can find no flaws?

 

[Bronze Dog]

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".

Missed that bit: I'm having this terrible... nevermind. I think he's deliberately omitting my mention of a-life programs two or three times earlier, probably trying to move the topic away from them.

 

[Dr Adequate]

So, believing in the possibility of anachronistic fossils is irrational... why?
So, believing that an artificial life program designed to emulate evolution could fail to live up to evolution's predictions is irrational... why?

To which I would add:

So finding that a hummingbird is more closely related to a crocodile than to anything else that isn't a bird is only to be expected, but finding that birds were more closely related to marsupials than crocodiles would be "silly"... why?

Both ideas sound, on the face of it, absurd. There is only one perspective from which one is sensible and the other is silly, and that is if you trace the descent of birds from archosaurs, as scientists do.

 

[Mojo]

Couldn't think of an answer to my question?

No. Couldn't think of a question to your answer.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Missed that bit: I'm having this terrible... nevermind. I think he's deliberately omitting my mention of a-life programs two or three times earlier, probably trying to move the topic away from them.

He doesn't want to look at the genetic evidence either.

Let alone the perfect convergence of all the lines of evidence. Scary!

 

[Jeff Corey]

... Dogs is also wolves, and wolves is also dogs. They evolved along mostly different paths because natural selection acted one way on dogs and another on wolves...

Actually, unnatural selection acted on dogs. The ones that weren't easily domesticated ran away or got eaten. Yum, black dog stew, Boshintang.
I wish I could find the Gary Larsen cartoon where the wolves are watching the cavemen around a fire with a dopey looking wolf with a dopey grin and his tongue out,
"It's Bob, I tell you! He's been domesticated!"
Well, as they say, one picture is worth forty words.

 

[hammegk]

So, believing in the possibility of anachronistic fossils is irrational... why?

Yes, anachronistic fossil occur from time to time, and you pointed out earlier, we just adjust the narrative a bit. What I'm finding impossible to conceive of is any discovery sufficiently anachronistic to falsify The Theory.

So, believing that an artificial life program designed to emulate evolution could fail to live up to evolution's predictions is irrational... why?

I looked around a bit, and still don't get your point. Mutation and heredity swing the characteristics of "species" all over the place. What they don't do is form new species.

If you are not a creationist, why are all your stated ideas identical to theirs?

Previously asked and answered. Articles that don't uphold The Theory don't get published. I provide alternate views, and yes, Creationists have their own ax to grind that provides an outlet for ideas at times similar to my thinking.

So finding that a hummingbird is more closely related to a crocodile than to anything else that isn't a bird is only to be expected, but finding that birds were more closely related to marsupials than crocodiles would be "silly"... why?

Er, both are silly if you truly suggesting that a hummy is "more closely related to a croc than to anything else that isn't a bird". All the age dated collections of fossils are available, and will remain available without regard to The Theory.

Dogs evolved from wolves, and man domesticated the dogs. We can actually see it happen step by step, molecule by molecule.

Er, yes, and a C. lupus remains a C. lupus - wolf, dog, coyote, etc etc.

 

[Bronze Dog]

Yes, anachronistic fossil occur from time to time, and you pointed out earlier, we just adjust the narrative a bit. What I'm finding impossible to conceive of is any discovery sufficiently anachronistic to falsify The Theory.

Sooooooooooo... what's your problem with that?

I looked around a bit, and still don't get your point. Mutation and heredity swing the characteristics of "species" all over the place. What they don't do is form new species.

When a river changes course, does it ask a surveyor's map for permission/

Previously asked and answered. Articles that don't uphold The Theory don't get published. I provide alternate views, and yes, Creationists have their own ax to grind that provides an outlet for ideas at times similar to my thinking.

Anything can get published in other outlets, though. Show us a cogent Creationist/ID article.

 

[delphi_ote]

Er, yes, and a C. lupus remains a C. lupus - wolf, dog, coyote, etc etc.

So you agree dogs evolved from wolves? Why are we having this discussion again?

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

 

[delphi_ote]

Actually, unnatural selection acted on dogs.

I don't think this selection method is really different than any other. People are animals. We're as natural as anything else.

 

[chipmunk stew]

Yes, anachronistic fossil occur from time to time

Name them, please.

What I'm finding impossible to conceive of is any discovery sufficiently anachronistic to falsify The Theory.

Perhaps because there haven't been any.

 

[Jeff Corey]

Delphi Ote,
Point well made and taken.

 

[chipmunk stew]

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.

 

[Bronze Dog]

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.

Ah, good idea. So, anachronistic fossils, failure of evolving a-life programs, and observation of that mechanism. That makes three. Did I leave out any?

 

[Dr Adequate]

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

The Sarawak Law should hold.

There should be intermediate forms in the fossil record.

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

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

 

[chipmunk stew]

Ah, good idea. So, anachronistic fossils, failure of evolving a-life programs, and observation of that mechanism. That makes three. Did I leave out any?

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.

 

[chipmunk stew]

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

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.