tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post6937562634982550126..comments2024-01-23T02:32:28.567-08:00Comments on Darwin's God: The Evolution of an Explanation of a Small-Headed Sea SnakeUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger191125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-24354906402632400952014-05-27T05:07:16.082-07:002014-05-27T05:07:16.082-07:00Sell and buy used and new goods.
Post ads for free...Sell and buy used and new goods.<br />Post ads for free or get free account via Facebook Login in one click.<br />More details <a href="http://www.postallads4free.com/" rel="nofollow">more</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06381326607775120236noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15459746918267856662013-03-26T09:42:16.275-07:002013-03-26T09:42:16.275-07:00Species boundary? Reproductive isolation often gra...Species boundary? Reproductive isolation often grades between closely related organisms. We also have many cases in the fossil record of directional change. Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-58793464155861827002013-03-26T05:30:46.885-07:002013-03-26T05:30:46.885-07:00We can measure the growth of mountains... we can m...We can measure the growth of mountains... we can measure genetic variation oscillating AROUND the mean within the species boundary - but we can't measure or observe the directional change that ToE requires. One can't take the movement of a grandfather clock and extrapolate that in a million years it will turn into a propellor. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-68265126399924153922013-03-26T04:09:02.430-07:002013-03-26T04:09:02.430-07:00Blas: Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith ...<b>Blas</b>: <i>Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify the error(s)." </i><br /><br />So, first would be doubt about the fossil themselves, which is reasonable considering they contradict the rest of the fossil record. However, given provenance, it would certainly undermine the current theory of evolution in terms of historical sequences. It's reasonable to say that the verified existence of rabbits in the Precambrian would falsify the current theory of evolution. Whether some other theory of evolution would rise from the ashes could only be answered when such a fossil is found. <br /><br />But, in fact, we don't find rabbits in Precambrian strata. Look all you want. You won't find a hare either, or any Leporidae, and you won't find Centaurs or Griffins. There's a reason why. <br /><br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59701834041842722032013-03-25T20:52:56.729-07:002013-03-25T20:52:56.729-07:00Just checking. In fact, I never took this "ra...Just checking. In fact, I never took this "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" thing seriously as science...just rhetoric by some darwinists committed to defend their theory at any cost. <br /><br />I hope I remember yours and now others' dissention when my evolutionist friends argue the classical "rabbits in the pre-cambrian" as an accurate criterion of falsification...<br /><br />Here are some examples (one of them we find easily here in this blog):<br /><br /><br />The statement that “evolution cannot be disproven” is just silly. It’s true that any one piece of evidence would probably not be enough to make us pitch the entire theory, but some– like Haldane’s example of the fossil rabbit from the Precambrian– would certainly throw the whole paradigm into turmoil.<br /><br />http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/03/how-to-disprove.html<br /><br /><br />LS - <br /><br />Another liar heard from. The TOE makes no prediction that can specifically and completely falsify it. Zilch. Nada. I challenge you right here to provide just one that is not a lie or a deception.<br /><br />Ritchie:<br /><br />The oft-cited 'rabbit in the Cambrian' would falsify evolution. Or, more specifically, if the fossil record showed no progressive change in species. If instead, all classes of animals appeared all over the place. But this is not the pattern we observe.<br /><br />http://darwins-god.blogspot.com.br/2012/07/difference-between-science-and.html<br />Darcyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761021377330198537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-9334438616559971462013-03-24T03:48:44.844-07:002013-03-24T03:48:44.844-07:00Like I said, you have to weigh all the evidence. ...Like I said, you have to weigh <i>all</i> the evidence. <i>On its own</i>, rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would probably not be sufficient to overturn the theory.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-15303154907004219592013-03-23T21:46:10.690-07:002013-03-23T21:46:10.690-07:00[Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubt...[Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. <br /><br />Ian: Godfrey-Smith makes perfect sense...]<br /><br />[Blas: Then ToE is not falsifiable<br /><br />Thorton: Keep repeating that lie if it makes you sleep better at night...]<br /><br />So, Ian (and Thorton), if that makes perfect sense, finding rabbits in the precambrian wouldn't (for you) falsify TOE, right?Darcyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08761021377330198537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-6583312124715624552013-03-23T20:14:41.331-07:002013-03-23T20:14:41.331-07:00Its just a small segment of biologists that study ...Its just a small segment of biologists that study evolution. So one can't claim the whole tribe of biologists. They do actual biology and not evolutionary biology.<br />Its very few people and the rest just accept their conclusions.<br /><br />Hypothesis is not more then a hunch or guess or apple on the head.<br />its only a beginning of the scientific methodology.<br />Evolution is a hypothesis but is not a theory.<br />It can not demonstrate to have been evidenced by the relevant fields it proclaims to pronounce upon. Its not tested either.<br />Instead a carelessness was built into the hypothesis of justifying it unpon unrelated fields of subjects.<br />This is why they always invoke fossils, genetics, and so on AS the evidence.<br />yet no biology.<br />Even if true evolution would have a hard time bringing biological scientific evidence as its about past and gone events and processes.<br />nevertheless the evidence they do bring is misclassified as biological evidence and so evolution is not a biological theory.<br />As it couldn't be worthy of if it was not true.<br />Whats not true couldn't possibly have excellent/scientific evidence backing it up.<br /><br />Do you know of any biological scientific evidence for evolution?<br />whats your single most favorite if you do??? Robert Byershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05631863870635096770noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66958168994621452902013-03-23T18:09:23.322-07:002013-03-23T18:09:23.322-07:00Blas March 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM
[...]
No, off co...<i><b>Blas</b> March 23, 2013 at 4:28 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />No, off course not, what I say is any explanation of how the Himalayas were formed is not falsifiable, as it explains a unique event in the past.</i><br /><br />Yes, the formation of the Himalayas is a unique event. Suppose, however, that we have a theory which proposes that mountain ranges, such as the Himalayas, can be formed by the upthrust of rocks along the lines where tectonic plates are colliding. If we found no such mountains along tectonic plate boundaries then the theory would be falsified. The explanation of how the Himalayas were formed <i>is</i>, therefore, falsifiable.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br /><i>So they are not falsifiable until 20 Mya.</i><br /><br />Not by us, not by continuous, direct observation. Put yourself in the place of a scientist, however. How else do you think we could test such an explanation?<br /><br /><i>Wich observation would falsify ToE in 20 Mya?</i><br /><br />All current species still exist with no detectable genetic of phenotyical changes? What do you think?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-32155912045926732892013-03-23T16:28:07.867-07:002013-03-23T16:28:07.867-07:00Ian H Spedding
"Do you think anyone ever saw...Ian H Spedding<br /><br />"Do you think anyone ever saw the Himalayas forming and growing before their eyes? If not, does this mean that it didn't happen or couldn't happen?"<br /><br />No, off course not, what I say is any explanation of how the Himalayas were formed is not falsifiable, as it explains a unique event in the past.<br /><br />"These things are falsifiable if by that we mean it is possible to falsify them. It is not practical for us to falsify or verify them by direct observation because we don't live long enough and we haven't been around as a species for long enough." <br /><br />So they are not falsifiable until 20 Mya.<br /><br />Wich observation would falsify ToE in 20 Mya?<br />Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-33240205251476631572013-03-23T11:38:23.575-07:002013-03-23T11:38:23.575-07:00Jeff: You've PREDICTED nothing inconsistent wi...<b>Jeff</b>: <i>You've PREDICTED nothing inconsistent with SA ... </i><br /><br />Can't tell, because you haven't provided specifics about SA, much less provided entailed predictions. Please, either provide a clear and specific statement of SA, or avoid using the term. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>Any time you're positing event sequences </i><br /><br />Bifurcating descent. <br /><br /><b>Jeff</b>: <i>that are not known to be logically possible in terms of any set of event regularities (never mind extant ones) </i><br /><br />Bifurcating descent is logically possible. <br />Zachrielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16081260898264733380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-54906833220964545042013-03-23T08:26:13.228-07:002013-03-23T08:26:13.228-07:00It's this simple, Z. Any time you're posit...It's this simple, Z. Any time you're positing event sequences that are not known to be logically possible in terms of any set of event regularities (never mind extant ones), each such event is being posited to be logically possible as an ad-hoc assumption. You're positing millions of them. Conclusions inherit the plausibility of their grounds. You have nothing.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-11934189223793961232013-03-23T08:18:00.287-07:002013-03-23T08:18:00.287-07:00Jeff: when a theory requires millions of ad-hoc hy...Jeff: when a theory requires millions of ad-hoc hypotheses per ONE corroborated implication...<br /><br />Z: You need to focus. You said "Every unobserved hypothetical species ... is an axiom in your theory". We pointed out that they were not axioms, but implications. But you act as if we never responded, but simply repeat the same strawman.<br /><br />J: Nah. It's you that needs to focus. On the other thread, here's what was said:<br /><br />ME: You've PREDICTED nothing inconsistent with SA other than:<br /><br />1) IF bifurcated descent occurred continually over earth's biological history starting from a precambrian organism<br /><br />and<br /><br />2) IF all fossil and observed species are members of those lineages<br /><br />and<br /><br />3) a) IF there were species that are not known to humans from fossils or observations which were also members of the bifurcated lineages, some of which were genealogical intermediates to known species -- OR alternatively b) IF large, observed morphological gaps were bridged by saltations -- OR alternatively c) IF large, observed morphological gaps were bridged by both as per a) and b)<br /><br />and<br /><br />4) IF nested hierarchical tree generation rules coincidentally correpond to temporally-ordered phenotypic/morphological/extinction effects of earth's event regularities<br /><br />and<br /><br />5) IF there is exactly ONE nested hierarchy tree consistent with nested hierarchical tree generation rules<br /><br />THEN that one nested hierarchy of 5) is predicted by 1)-4).<br /><br />... Do you have any evidence AT ALL for 2)-4)?<br /><br />YOU: Those are axioms of the theory. The nested hierarchy is the entailment. <br /><br />J: Now, do you not realize why I included saltations in 3)? Because the nested hierarchy exists INDEPENDENT of the hypothetical intermediate traits. Thus, it is explicable by SA or saltations ALSO. The only way you can rule out saltations to explain the morphological gaps is to say the nested hierarchy is implied by assuming UCA IFF UCA occurred non-saltationally. But that means you have to ASSUME the existence of millions of unobserved species to even GET the implication of the nested hierarchy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35010260978305450022013-03-23T07:32:11.441-07:002013-03-23T07:32:11.441-07:00Blas
Thorton: "What would falsify the germ ...<i>Blas<br /><br />Thorton: "What would falsify the germ theory of disease?"<br /><br />As far as I remember, this was falsified, the presence of the germ is not the cause of the disease, just correlation.</i><br /><br />LOL! Maybe you should get the word out to all the doctors and nurses at hospitals who spend billions of dollars a year on disinfectants and sterilization of their equipment. Think of all the time doctors would save too not having to scrub down before performing operations. And all the guff about washing your hands after going to the lavatory, who would have thought it was pointless?<br /><br />This is the kind of tard nugget the IDiots produce that keeps you coming back for more!Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-40757238811128624592013-03-23T07:22:26.157-07:002013-03-23T07:22:26.157-07:00Blas
The explanation of how Lenski E. Coli evolve...<i>Blas<br /><br />The explanation of how Lenski E. Coli evolved from Cit- to Cit+ is falsifiable. Extrapoling this experiment and postulating that this is the way a pig became a whale is not falsifiable.</i><br /><br />Of course it is. Just test the DNA of pigs and whales. If they are found to have different non-compatible forms of DNA then the idea they evolved from a common ancestor - evolution - is falsified.<br /><br />Not falsified doesn't equal not falsifiable, no many how many times you repeat your mistake.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-86029347639477583352013-03-23T07:16:19.626-07:002013-03-23T07:16:19.626-07:00Blas
Then ToE is not falsifiable
Keep repeating ...<i>Blas<br /><br />Then ToE is not falsifiable</i><br /><br />Keep repeating that lie if it makes you sleep better at night. Hopefully the laughter from the scientific community won't keep you awake.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13095422542627003842013-03-23T07:13:50.667-07:002013-03-23T07:13:50.667-07:00Yes, it is, but it wouldn't be easy, nor shoul...Yes, it is, but it wouldn't be easy, nor should it be, given all the evidence accumulated to support it.<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-56561699805422914082013-03-23T07:06:18.353-07:002013-03-23T07:06:18.353-07:00Blas March 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM
[...]
The explan...<i><b>Blas</b> March 23, 2013 at 6:15 AM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />The explanation of how Lenski E. Coli evolved from Cit- to Cit+ is falsifiable. Extrapoling this experiment and postulating that this is the way a pig became a whale is not falsifiable.</i><br /><br />I disagree. <br /><br />If the theory postulates that the transition from pig to whale would take millions of years then we should not expect to see it happening in real time because, as individuals, we don't live long enough, nor have we been doing science for long enough. Do you think anyone ever saw the Himalayas forming and growing before their eyes? If not, does this mean that it didn't happen or couldn't happen?<br /><br />These things <i>are</i> falsifiable if by that we mean it is <i>possible</i> to falsify them. It is <i>not practical</i> for <i>us</i> to falsify or verify them by direct observation because we don't live long enough and we haven't been around as a species for long enough. That alone doesn't mean they didn't or couldn't happen, though.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-77374335179333488502013-03-23T06:47:27.903-07:002013-03-23T06:47:27.903-07:00Then ToE is not falsifiable. Then ToE is not falsifiable. Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-18103203448009363562013-03-23T06:41:46.076-07:002013-03-23T06:41:46.076-07:00Blas March 22, 2013 at 3:09 PM
[...]
Read:"...<i><b>Blas</b> March 22, 2013 at 3:09 PM<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Read:" Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. </i><br /><br />Godfrey-Smith makes perfect sense.<br /><br />Science has a duty to weigh <i>all</i> the evidence, both for and against a theory. Should a single adverse finding tip the balance against a theory where there is already a large amount of supportive data? Not necessarily. It <i>might</i> indicate a fundamental and possibly unrecoverable error but it might also just be an anomaly for other reasons. Either way, it should be seen as an opportunity not a setback.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11311738457332907931noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-45579364591034928232013-03-23T06:15:36.709-07:002013-03-23T06:15:36.709-07:00Thorton said
"What would falsify the germ th...Thorton said<br /><br />"What would falsify the germ theory of disease?"<br /><br />As far as I remember, this was falsified, the presence of the germ is not the cause of the disease, just correlation.<br /><br />"What would falsify the theory of gravity?"<br /><br />theory of gravity was changed since the first postulation by new evidence, and we have the external stars behaviour that shows theory of gravity needs adjustments like dark matter.<br /><br /><br />"If you can't answer, does that mean those aren't scientific theories?"<br /><br />It depends of the defiition of scientific theories.<br /><br /><br />The explanation of how Lenski E. Coli evolved from Cit- to Cit+ is falsifiable. Extrapoling this experiment and postulating that this is the way a pig became a whale is not falsifiable.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-59617563116208802012013-03-22T16:39:27.931-07:002013-03-22T16:39:27.931-07:00Blas
As I said is not falsifiable.
Except for th...<i>Blas<br /><br />As I said is not falsifiable.</i><br /><br />Except for the ways I just gave you. You IDiots say a lot of really stupid things with no connection to reality.<br /><br />What would falsify the germ theory of disease?<br /><br />What would falsify the theory of gravity?<br /><br />If you can't answer, does that mean those aren't scientific theories?Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-66638481969175546272013-03-22T16:33:02.197-07:002013-03-22T16:33:02.197-07:00ThortonMarch 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM
"Why? if yo...ThortonMarch 22, 2013 at 4:10 PM<br /><br />"Why? if you change the criteria the whole argument changes."<br /><br />No, you will use the same argument (evolution is still valid because of ovwrhelmig evidence from different branches of the science) for two different subjects precambrian rabbits or dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades. <br /><br />"So orphan genes don't falsify ToE."<br /><br />No, I do not said that, my question was if orphan genes fullfill your criteria of falsiability.<br /><br />"It's pretty stupid to start demanding ways to falsify ToE now, after it's amasses 150+ years of positive supporting evidence form hundreds of different scientific disciplines. That's like demanding a way to falsify the germ theory of disease *today* given all we know. The discoveries that would falsify ToE were available from the first day but they were never found."<br /><br />As I said is not falsifiable.<br /><br /><br />That's what you IDiot Creationists can't seem to grasp.Blashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-13133210955786185962013-03-22T16:10:10.981-07:002013-03-22T16:10:10.981-07:00Blas
Thorton, change in the pragraph I copied fro...<i>Blas<br /><br />Thorton, change in the pragraph I copied from Wikipedia "precambrian rabbit" with "dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades".</i><br /><br />Why? if you change the criteria the whole argument changes.<br /><br /><i>By the way orphan genes aren´t dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades</i><br /><br />So orphan genes don't falsify ToE.<br /><br />It's pretty stupid to start demanding ways to falsify ToE <b>now</b>, after it's amasses 150+ years of positive supporting evidence form hundreds of different scientific disciplines. That's like demanding a way to falsify the germ theory of disease *today* given all we know. The discoveries that would falsify ToE were available from the first day <b>but they were never found.</b><br /><br />That's what you IDiot Creationists can't seem to grasp.Ghostriderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04686873801972423841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3855268335402896473.post-35543215635800243692013-03-22T15:24:50.716-07:002013-03-22T15:24:50.716-07:00Thorton, change in the pragraph I copied from Wiki...Thorton, change in the pragraph I copied from Wikipedia "precambrian rabbit" with "dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different clades".<br /><br />By the way orphan genes aren´t dozens of different forms of non-compatible DNA in different cladesBlashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13205610477389739651noreply@blogger.com