Falsifying Evolution.

[Furrowed Brow]

As far as evolutionary theory goes Dollo's Law seems to have been disproved. Thus evolution is reversible. A recent article in the Newscientist 13 January 2007, looks at possible examples of atavism.

Atavist examples cited are an hump back whale with a pair of leg-like appendages, web toes in humans, a dolphin with an extra pair of flippers similar to those found in the fossil record of 40 million years ago. Things get even more interesting when it transpires that some traits such as metamorphism (tadpole to adult form) in salamanders has been turning on and off for tens of millions of years.

Thus a trait/characteristics can appear in a population that has not been present for tens of millions of years.

So here is a crazy thought. What conclusion should we reach if fossil skeleton were found in 40 million year old rock that appear to be modern human. Would evolutionary theory as it applies to humans be utterly disproved, or would evolutionist need to look harder at the genetic story. Are their back doors in the theory like atavism that allow the theory not to be falsified. If the latter, is Q1 evolution theory really falsifiable?

I for one say evolution theory is falsifiable. I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock. But lets test if I am just swallowing evolutionary dogma. What if rabbits do start turning up in Cambrian rock?

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

[jcrawford]

It is weird how the fossils show up in the right times and places together.

It is not weird at all, since the fossils are supposed to be dated according the geologic strata in which they are found, and the geologic strata is dated in accordance with evolutionary theory about the formation of the strata.

The geologic column is a myth since it is only defined and classified in such obvious places as the Grand Canyon, which is not similar and does not correlate to any other known place on earth.

[Goat]

I for one say evolution theory is falsifiable.

It has to be falsifiable in order to qualify as a "scientific" theory.

I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock. But lets test if I am just swallowing evolutionary dogma. What if rabbits do start turning up in Cambrian rock?

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

Although Rabbits are a great example to use because magicians seem capable of pulling them out of their hats with great ease at will, I would draw your attention to an actual case of the evolutionary timetable being out of sync with the fossil evidence such as the Laetoli footprints fossilized in volcanic ash somewhere in East Africa, supposedly 3-4mya.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

According to the date, the footprints cannot be human, yet according to the footprints themselves the date needs to be changed to about 2mya in order to associate them with H. erectus who was about as human as any of us posting on this forum.

what you fail to realise is that, considering the fossils found, these footprints are exactly what would be expected of a small bipedal ancestor of modern man. It might be be 'man', yet it fits the time frame for the hominad Australopithecus afarensis perfectly

[jcrawford]

what you fail to realise is that, considering the fossils found, these footprints are exactly what would be expected of a small bipedal ancestor of modern man.

That is exactly what they are. The footprints of some modern African pygmy's human ancestor.

It might be be 'man', yet it fits the time frame for the hominad Australopithecus afarensis perfectly

That's how evolutionists think. When they use the date, they are forced to classify the fossil as whatever species fits into that time frame, no matter that the footprints look entirely human and would make humans co-existent with or ancestral to Australopithicine apes.

On the other hand, if evolutionists decide that the footprints are human, then they will have to perform their magic bunny act by changing the date of the fossils to within the time-frame that Homo erectus or habilis lived in Africa. That would be less than 2mya.

To understand human evolution, one only needs think like a human evolutionist.

[otseng]

I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock.

Cambrian fossils can only be marine life. So, it wouldn't make sense to find a rabbit in Cambrian rock.

And so, the deck is stacked. If a rabbit (or any land animal) is found, there's no way it can be said it's in the Cambrian layer.

What I find interesting is that there are no geological stratas that are dated in the same Cambrian era that originated on land. At least I find no reference to it. Why should stratas 550 MYA form only underwater? Why wouldn't layers form on land?

Also, I've already pointed out the rapid origin of complex life in the Cambrian Explosion. To me, this already falsifies evolution. But, of course this is not sufficient for evolutionists to say this is falsification.

[diggnate]

I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock.

Cambrian fossils can only be marine life. So, it wouldn't make sense to find a rabbit in Cambrian rock.

And so, the deck is stacked. If a rabbit (or any land animal) is found, there's no way it can be said it's in the Cambrian layer.

Great Point! I completely forgot about that. So, here's how I, the evolutionist, explain away finding a rabbit in the cambrian (or any pre-mammalian period).

Cambrian fossils, by definition, do not contain mammal fossils. Therefore, if we find a rabbit, or any mammal, in rock layers, it could not possibly be considered cambrian rock by its very definition.

The notion that "finding a rabbit in the cambrian" would falsify evolution is laughable.

[Goat]

I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock.

Cambrian fossils can only be marine life. So, it wouldn't make sense to find a rabbit in Cambrian rock.

And so, the deck is stacked. If a rabbit (or any land animal) is found, there's no way it can be said it's in the Cambrian layer.

Great Point! I completely forgot about that. So, here's how I, the evolutionist, explain away finding a rabbit in the cambrian (or any pre-mammalian period).

Cambrian fossils, by definition, do not contain mammal fossils. Therefore, if we find a rabbit, or any mammal, in rock layers, it could not possibly be considered cambrian rock by its very definition.

The notion that "finding a rabbit in the cambrian" would falsify evolution is laughable.

The whole notion that the cambrian "explosian" falsifes evolution is a strawman of the cambrian explosian. There is evidence of multicell creatures before then, and then there is also the evidence of the drastic change in environment (free oxygen in the water and in the atmosphere), that open up new niches to be exploited.

It also is ignoring the fact the the cambrian 'explosian' was 10's of millions of years, and not 'poof'

And, it is just not any land animal that would do. Anything that is more modern than what we think of the cambrian will do. An anchovie, or a salmon would work just as well.

[diggnate]

The whole notion that the cambrian "explosian" falsifes evolution is a strawman of the cambrian explosian. There is evidence of multicell creatures before then, and then there is also the evidence of the drastic change in environment (free oxygen in the water and in the atmosphere), that open up new niches to be exploited.

It also is ignoring the fact the the cambrian 'explosian' was 10's of millions of years, and not 'poof'

I don't remember making that statement, but perhaps you replied to the wrong person.

Anywho, the Cambrian explosion is quite an interesting study, if you asked me. Perhaps it doesn't falsify evolution (of course, such a thing is not possible), but it certainly raises questions.

Yes, we have good estimates that say the duration of the cambrian explosion is between 8-10 million years, but the data is hardly conclusive. Chances are, it isn't more than 10 my, but it could be significantly shorter. Just to be fair.

There is some very promising research that challenges the idea of a purely darwinistic interpretation of the Cambrian. Mutation rates must have been much higher, the mutative ratio must have been overwhelmingly positive (something not supported by any form of observable science), and the "drastic change" in the environment must not only have been the addition of more abundant elements, but also heavy selection pressures. For me, it just seems far too convenient to say "mutation done it" and walk away. There are simply too many unanswered question to attribute it unquestionably to evolution.

just my 2 cents...

[Goat]

The whole notion that the cambrian "explosian" falsifes evolution is a strawman of the cambrian explosian. There is evidence of multicell creatures before then, and then there is also the evidence of the drastic change in environment (free oxygen in the water and in the atmosphere), that open up new niches to be exploited.

It also is ignoring the fact the the cambrian 'explosian' was 10's of millions of years, and not 'poof'

I don't remember making that statement, but perhaps you replied to the wrong person.

Anywho, the Cambrian explosion is quite an interesting study, if you asked me. Perhaps it doesn't falsify evolution (of course, such a thing is not possible), but it certainly raises questions.

Of course it raises questions.. Every fossil, in addition to answering some questions, brings up a dozen more questions. It does raise questions, but not
about the validity of evolution. If anything, it reinforces the concept that very small animals can grow in size in the proper environment.

Yes, we have good estimates that say the duration of the cambrian explosion is between 8-10 million years, but the data is hardly conclusive. Chances are, it isn't more than 10 my, but it could be significantly shorter. Just to be fair.

You are wrong actually. The cambrian is split into 7 'smaller' epochs.. the first one is unnamed , and lasts for 13 million. The other six last 5 to 6 million years each.
So, if the first one was only 10 million years, and the other six was 5 million years, that still would be 40 million years. .. the 'explosian' lasted between 40 and 50 million years.. That is a LOT LOT longer than you have been insisting on.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/cambrian/camb.html

There is some very promising research that challenges the idea of a purely darwinistic interpretation of the Cambrian. Mutation rates must have been much higher, the mutative ratio must have been overwhelmingly positive (something not supported by any form of observable science), and the "drastic change" in the environment must not only have been the addition of more abundant elements, but also heavy selection pressures. For me, it just seems far too convenient to say "mutation done it" and walk away. There are simply too many unanswered question to attribute it unquestionably to evolution.

just my 2 cents...

well, the 'purely darwinistic' phrasology is a misnomer.. and is only used by those people who are attacking evolution.

And n one is saying 'mutation alone'. It is mutations, other variations, change in environment, and then followed by natural selection to fit the new environment.

As for answered questions.. do you have any positive evidence it was something OTHER than evolution? I am not talking about the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty, but something that shows evidecnce of somethign else.

"I don't know" is not evidence against evolution. Do you have any positive evidence of any other theory?

[diggnate]

Every fossil, in addition to answering some questions, brings up a dozen more questions. It does raise questions, but not about the validity of evolution.

Of course not, the validity of darwinian evolution is unquestionable. That's the whole point!

well, the 'purely darwinistic' phrasology [sic] is a misnomer.. and is only used by those people who are attacking evolution.

Questions being reclassified as attacks. I'm not attacking anything. Since when is it taboo to question a scientific theory?

And n one is saying 'mutation alone'. It is mutations, other variations, change in environment, and then followed by natural selection to fit the new environment.

Mutation alone does the production. The other things you are talking do nothing more than select the mutation generated information that best fits the environment.

As for answered questions.. do you have any positive evidence it was something OTHER than evolution? I am not talking about the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty, but something that shows evidecnce of somethign else. "

The onus is on you, not me. We're talking about evolution right now. If you want to discuss ID someplace else, we can arrange that later. You can't simply claim that there is no better explanation for something, and claim that your explanation is true by default.

An argument from ignorance (the "you don't have a better explanation" argument) is not an argument at all. Attempting to shift the burden of proof to me does nothing to prove your assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd say that claiming that mutation+selection produced the vast array of biocomplexity in both function and body plan in such a short (evolutionarily speaking) amount of time, is a pretty extraordinary claim.

I think you misunderstand my position against darwinsim with a positive scientific position in favor of creationism. I am more than happy to concede things like the age of the universe/earth, evolutionary adaptations, natural selection. These things are easily demonstrable. I have some serious issues with making unproven claims.

"I don't know" is not evidence against evolution. Do you have any positive evidence of any other theory?

and "I don't know of anything but evolution" is not an argument FOR a purely darwinistic explanation. This road goes both ways.

[Goat]

Every fossil, in addition to answering some questions, brings up a dozen more questions. It does raise questions, but not about the validity of evolution.

Of course not, the validity of darwinian evolution is unquestionable. That's the whole point!

In your eyes at least. However, you , for religious reasons, don't accept evolution to begin with, no matter what type. Why don't you think that over 40 or 50 million years, evolution can't account for the diversity we see, considering that the introduction of oxygen into the environment allowed for much larger organisms to exist? We have a whole bunch of unfilled niches. How do you account for the fossil record otherwise? It's not enough to say 'I can't believe it, since it is too quick, (although I don't see how 50 million years is too 'quick'). You have to give
something more than 'I don't belive it'.

And, come up with a testable alternative. Come up with something better, that is
testable and can explain the evidence.

well, the 'purely darwinistic' phrasology [sic] is a misnomer.. and is only used by those people who are attacking evolution.

Questions being reclassified as attacks. I'm not attacking anything. Since when is it taboo to question a scientific theory?

And n one is saying 'mutation alone'. It is mutations, other variations, change in environment, and then followed by natural selection to fit the new environment.

Mutation alone does the production. The other things you are talking do nothing more than select the mutation generated information that best fits the environment.

As for answered questions.. do you have any positive evidence it was something OTHER than evolution? I am not talking about the logical fallacy of personal incredibilty, but something that shows evidecnce of somethign else. "

The onus is on you, not me. We're talking about evolution right now. If you want to discuss ID someplace else, we can arrange that later. You can't simply claim that there is no better explanation for something, and claim that your explanation is true by default.

An argument from ignorance (the "you don't have a better explanation" argument) is not an argument at all. Attempting to shift the burden of proof to me does nothing to prove your assertion. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I'd say that claiming that mutation+selection produced the vast array of biocomplexity in both function and body plan in such a short (evolutionarily speaking) amount of time, is a pretty extraordinary claim.

I think you misunderstand my position against darwinsim with a positive scientific position in favor of creationism. I am more than happy to concede things like the age of the universe/earth, evolutionary adaptations, natural selection. These things are easily demonstrable. I have some serious issues with making unproven claims.

"I don't know" is not evidence against evolution. Do you have any positive evidence of any other theory?

and "I don't know of anything but evolution" is not an argument FOR a purely darwinistic explanation. This road goes both ways.

The only thing left from 'dwarinistic' for evolution is the concept of a filter to allow for variation over time. Natural selection is one of those filters. Let's see you come up with a better explaination that can be tested for. Variation plus a 'reproductive filter' can be and has been tested.