Evolutionary Theory predicts almost nothing?

[FarWanderer]

I would not turn to evolutionary theory because it predicts almost nothing.

Rarely have I encountered a statement that strikes me as ridiculous as this. What in biology does evolutionary theory NOT predict?

[For_The_Kingdom]

Not fine. All I did was point out "macroevolution is evidence for macroevolution" is a tautology, what I did stated/implied is different species of animal from a common ancestor (including those your considered to be the same kind) is macroevolution.

It doesn't matter what you "call" it..I don't see it, nor do I buy the evidence being presented for it.

That's perfectly acceptable, so now all you have to do is present The Christian God, which I would gladly accept as evidence for the Christian God.

Been there, done that..and you don't accept it. Well, I don't accept your religion either. No robbery/fair exchange.

Then you are disagreeing with science.

I'm fine with that.

Well, no, I don't know that - I can't know that since it's false. Both we see in nature.

"We" don't see anything in nature. I've never saw a reptile produce a bird...not suddenly...not gradually...not by individuals...not by groups.

Not...period.

Now, if you saw it...the next time you see it..record it, show it to me..and I will become an evolutionist just like you.

Until then, you can keep your voodoo science.

I don't want to equate them though... Macroevolution encompasses microevolution, that much should be obvious.

Sure, according to the theory. Just like according to Marvel Comics, Peter Parker was bit by a radioactive spider.....yeah.

Finches changing from short beaks to long beaks, that's micro evolution. Different species of finches, that's macroevolution.

At the end of the day, it is still a bird. When finches stop being a bird, then holla at me.

But you did, you said so yourself, "we can see it (observe), experiment with it (selective breeding), and make predictions (in a hundred years we will have x breed) re: dogs copulating and producing different species/breeds of dogs.

*cough* microevolution..

Humans are vertebrates, too. And you should see the resemblance between humans, and snakes. They are remarkably similar.

We are indeed.

See, that's what I'm talking about right there. I just can't rock with that.

First of all, I don't know how many original "kinds" there were of each animal. There could have been many different prototypes of the same "kind" of animal...but it is still the same "kind" of animal.

Right, we are the same kind of animal as snakes, as you pointed out, we are remarkably [/b]similar.

Or this^.

But it does highlight the double standard you use, re what you "see" and "don't see."

It does?

We could. Which is why "kinds" is a weasel word and serve only to confuse the target audience.

It works for me.

[benchwarmer]

Um, what? The basic idea behind evolution is that organisms reproduce and when they do so there is the possibility of mutations. This is imminently falsifiable.

1) Do organisms reproduce?

2) When they do, are they exact copies of one of their parents? i.e. a clone. Or do they only contain exact DNA from one or both parents. i.e. whatever they have, has it all been passed on without any mutations?

I hope you can agree that both of these are easy to falsify.

How would I falsify the extremely general observation that "organisms reproduce"? Stop noticing that organisms do in fact reproduce? This sort of thing is far too broad and basic to be a meaningful hypothesis.

You would falsify it by showing that no organisms reproduce. i.e. if everything stopped reproducing, then no move evolution would happen. Seems straight forward to me.

Just because you can't falsify it (because living organisms do reproduce) doesn't mean it's not possible to falsify it. The ability to be able to falsify something does not mean that you will actually be able to or no science would stand up. i.e. if everything is falsified, not much validated science is happening.

I could easily counter that my scientific theory of creationism postulates that organisms exist (because God created them). So here's my falsification test for creationism: Do organisms exist? LOL

Um, no. You introduced an imaginary, unobserved, non falsifiable entity right into your theory i.e. 'God'. So not a useful theory in science since it can't be tested until you can observe this 'God' of which you speak.

I actually do agree that if we were to isolate individuals belonging to a sexually reproducing species, for example, from all other members of the species, they would fail to reproduce. In that experimental context, "organisms reproduce" (and by implication evolution, as you have presented it) would be not just falsifiable but false. But you are presumably arguing that evolution is not false, so I don't think such a procedure would help your case.

In your isolated group of animals that are not reproducing, there is in fact no evolution. However, the theory of evolution is not limited to your data set. Bob's pet rabbits ARE reproducing and evolution explains how the kits traits are inherited from the parents.

Your example actually helps the case for evolution. When no reproduction happens, no evolution happens. All you end up with is old organisms that eventually die. For data sets where reproduction does happen, so does evolution.

And it almost sounds like you're suggesting that any offspring that are not clones are mutated. I hope that's not what you're suggesting.

I said "mutations", not "mutated".

Here's the real problem, though: The idea behind hypothesis testing is not to test the factual observations that led to the hypothesis but to test predictions deduced from the hypothesis, and specific to the hypothesis, in such a way that they can be shown false if the hypothesis is false. Asking whether organisms reproduce or whether they are all not clones falls well short of that standard.

No it doesn't. Evolution states that organisms that reproduce will do so with the posibilty of mutations in the transfer of inheritable traits. i.e. in layman's terms, there will be 'copy errors'.

This allows us to predict what the offspring will be like. Any genetic material they have will be from their parents and any differences will be due to mutation. The offspring won't have random genetic material nor will they have the exact same genetic material. Prediction that is falsifiable by examining the genetic material of offspring and comparing to the parents.

This is basic science, I'm not sure what's tripping you up.

The next major part of evolution is that basically only those organisms that survive long enough to reproduce are the ones that can actually reproduce. i.e. natural selection. Also falsifiable. Have you seen non surviving organisms reproducing after they have been dead?

Wow. Okay, while I agree that a truism is true, I don't agree that it's falsifiable.

Then you don't understand what the term falsifiable means. In this case, if you were to show that a dead organism was able to reproduce while it was dead then you would falsify the theory. i.e. you piled 2 dead rabbits on top of each other and they managed to reproduce.

Just because something is a fact now, does not mean it isn't falsifiable. Maybe there are some organisms that can somehow reproduce after they are dead. This would change the idea of natural selection for these organisms because even in death they still get to pass on genetic material. i.e. events that would normally stop most organisms because they didn't live long enough to reproduce somehow doesn't stop these ones. The only thing that stops these new things from reproducing is X where you would have to figure out what X was (otherwise these things would be unstoppable and reproduce continually - alive or dead).

And no, I have not seen "non surviving organisms reproducing after they have been dead," because non surviving (dead) organisms cannot reproduce after they have been dead (non surviving) by definition. Clearly a proposition that is true by definition cannot be falsified in principle.

It's only "by definition" because that is what we observe. If you observe otherwise, you falsify the theory and probably win yourself a nobel prize in the process.

That article reads as a hopeful anti evolution piece. The whole thing reads as religion, not science. It also hints there might be a conspiracy theory afoot to protect evolution. Egads...

Really? I read the whole article a second time looking for religious content and found nothing. Feel free to cite what you think is one of the more religious passages and maybe we can discuss.

I said it reads "as religion" not that it contains religious content. In other words, it's fairly obvious it is a very biased article written by someone who wants evolution to be false for some reason. Hinting that scientists are refusing to publish science that might topple the theory is preposterous and smacks of biased reporting. A scientist would LOVE to publish a peer reviewed article that toppled such a long standing theory as evolution and replace it with their own. The accolades would be grand for sure.

[Don McIntosh]

Just because you can't falsify it (because living organisms do reproduce) doesn't mean it's not possible to falsify it. The ability to be able to falsify something does not mean that you will actually be able to or no science would stand up. i.e. if everything is falsified, not much validated science is happening.

That's a good point, and I agree. On just about everything else, however, you and I disagree completely, which suggests to me that further attempts at conversation won't likely produce anything other than contention.

That doesn't sound very enlightening, let alone enjoyable. I am sure you would agree... No, on second thought I suppose you wouldn't.

I respectfully bow out. But thanks for taking time to reply.

[benchwarmer]

Just because you can't falsify it (because living organisms do reproduce) doesn't mean it's not possible to falsify it. The ability to be able to falsify something does not mean that you will actually be able to or no science would stand up. i.e. if everything is falsified, not much validated science is happening.

That's a good point, and I agree. On just about everything else, however, you and I disagree completely, which suggests to me that further attempts at conversation won't likely produce anything other than contention.

That doesn't sound very enlightening, let alone enjoyable. I am sure you would agree... No, on second thought I suppose you wouldn't.

I respectfully bow out. But thanks for taking time to reply.

You're welcome for the reply. This is a debating site after all, so contention is pretty much the order of the day. I respect your wish to not continue the discussion, but I had high hopes since you seem a very respectful and thoughtful debater based on what I've seen so far.

My only hope is that those who oppose evolution will actually take the time to really understand what the theory is and what it covers. Equally important is to understand what it is not and what it doesn't cover.

Happy trails!

[For_The_Kingdom]

My only hope is that those who oppose evolution will actually take the time to really understand what the theory is and what it covers. Equally important is to understand what it is not and what it doesn't cover.

Again, here we go again with the "We are so smart, and they are so dumb" thing.

"They just don't understand what the theory entails"
"They just don't know the meaning of evolution"
"Evolution doesn't say this, evolution doesn't say that"

It never, ever, EVER fails. Is it possible for us (disbelievers of evolution) to understand it (evolution), but refuse to accept it?

Is it possible?

[Inigo Montoya]

[Replying to post 235 by For_The_Kingdom]

Is it possible for us (disbelievers of evolution) to understand it (evolution), but refuse to accept it? 

No, it isn't. If you actually understood it, you couldn't refuse to accept it. If I understand how a combustion engine works, can I refuse to accept it? Of course not. All I can do is willfully deny it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

[Replying to post 235 by For_The_Kingdom]

No, it isn't. If you actually understood it, you couldn't refuse to accept it. If I understand how a combustion engine works, can I refuse to accept it? Of course not. All I can do is willfully deny it.

But the difference is; you can see a combustion engine in progress...you can see it work...and you can see this whether you understand it or not.

Macroevolution, on the other hand...I've never saw a reptile evolve into a bird or anything remotely similar in nature. I can't see it work.

What did I tell Bust Nak in a prior post? If he see a reptile evolve into a bird, record it, show it to me, and I will become an evolutionist...so this ties into your "can I refuse to accept it" question. The answer is; no.

But I can refuse to accept it if, not only don't I find convincing evidence for it..but I actually have evidence against it.

A double-edged sword...enough for me to safely disregard the position as unscientific, illogical, and naturally impossible.

Hey, a trinity

[brunumb]

[Replying to post 236 by Inigo Montoya]

No, it isn't. If you actually understood it, you couldn't refuse to accept it. If I understand how a combustion engine works, can I refuse to accept it? Of course not. All I can do is willfully deny it.

You haven't factored in religiosity. That's where prior religious beliefs prevent rational and open-minded investigation of the subject in order to actual learn and understand what it entails. Instead, there is a reliance on lies, fabrications and outright refusal to acknowledge the facts. Jerry Coyne has shown that there is a strong correlation between the extent of religiosity and the denial of evolution. There is no point presenting evidence to a mind firmly closed by religious indoctrination.

[benchwarmer]

My only hope is that those who oppose evolution will actually take the time to really understand what the theory is and what it covers. Equally important is to understand what it is not and what it doesn't cover.

Again, here we go again with the "We are so smart, and they are so dumb" thing.

"They just don't understand what the theory entails"
"They just don't know the meaning of evolution"
"Evolution doesn't say this, evolution doesn't say that"

It never, ever, EVER fails. Is it possible for us (disbelievers of evolution) to understand it (evolution), but refuse to accept it?

Is it possible?

Sigh... This is NOT a "We are so smart, and they are so dumb" thing. This is a "some people make claims about a theory that are WRONG" thing. Like saying two scales of reproduction are different theories (micro vs macro scale evolution).

I'm perfectly fine if someone presents the correct details of the theory of evolution, but simply decides not to believe it. That's not what I argue against.

For example, FtK, if you simply said: <insert correct definition of evolution>, but I just can't believe it is responsible for the diversity of life we now see.

If you stopped there and refused to explain why any further, then we just simply have to accept you don't believe it. As soon as you start presenting incorrect definitions, making up words, failing to provide definitions, etc. you will then rightly be engaged in a debate.

It's just like if I kept claiming incorrect details about Christianity. You would likely correct me. If I just said "I don't believe it" you would eventually throw up your hands and say "Ok, it's your eternity" or some such and leave me to it.

[For_The_Kingdom]

Sigh... This is NOT a "We are so smart, and they are so dumb" thing.

Then I don't expect to see the word "understand" in your assessments as it relates to those who don't believe in evolution. It has nothing to do with understanding, but rather; accepting what we do understand.

This is a "some people make claims about a theory that are WRONG" thing.

Regardless of what the theory entails, the fact of the matter is simple; the evidence presented for the theory is weak in the eyes of the unbeliever (in evolution), and speaking of "eyes", the unbeliever hasn't seen anything in nature that will allow him to conclude that evolution on the macro scale occurs in nature.

Like saying two scales of reproduction are different theories (micro vs macro scale evolution).

Because they are. And if you feel otherwise, then we simply disagree about what terminologies entail..but that is irrelevant because it all goes back to a lack of observation for these alleged phenomenons, period.

I'm perfectly fine if someone presents the correct details of the theory of evolution, but simply decides not to believe it. That's not what I argue against.

But I do give the correct details of evolution. Doesn't the theory tell us that not only is a reptile-bird transformation in nature possible, but it actually happened? Isn't that what the theory entails? Certainly. Well, I "decide" not to believe it.

So you should be "fine" with this.

For example, FtK, if you simply said: <insert correct definition of evolution>, but I just can't believe it is responsible for the diversity of life we now see.

If you stopped there and refused to explain why any further, then we just simply have to accept you don't believe it. As soon as you start presenting incorrect definitions, making up words, failing to provide definitions, etc. you will then rightly be engaged in a debate.

I didn't give any incorrect definitions.

It's just like if I kept claiming incorrect details about Christianity. You would likely correct me. If I just said "I don't believe it" you would eventually throw up your hands and say "Ok, it's your eternity" or some such and leave me to it.

At the end of the day, whether you spend your eternity resting in a grave, or some other place...it is still "your" eternity, isn't it?