can you give a specific example related to evolution?
see the problem now? some biologists says that finding X will falsify evolution and other disagree. there is no general agreement among biologists how to falsify evolution. this is a huge problem if evolution is a scientific theory.
i dont think so. even if all fossils were mixed it will not falsify evolution. evolution doesnt predict order in the fossil record. remember that even at darwin time darwin said that the missing links are missing because they didnt had enough fossils at time. he didnt said that the fact of missing fossils falsify evolution. so even if we will find out that all fossils are mixed together in the fossil record, this will not be a problem for evolution. at best we can argue that many fossils are still missing and we just didnt found them yet. or we can argue for extreme convergent evolution.
actually we do find many modern fossils among primitive fossils. (and by the way i dont think that this is a prediction of YEC either). but for now we are talking about evolution and not about creation.
Not really. Karl Popper just isnāt a good guide to how science is or ought to be done. You need to adopt a probabilistic understanding at least, and likely (ha) a Bayesian one. Falsification is a delusion; more or less likely, especially compared to alternative hypotheses, is the way out.
Of course it does, at least when combined with a standard view of deep time and geology.
And he was right, wasnāt he? 160 years of subsequent discoveries have revealed many of those ālinksā.
But we wonāt find that. We have already found the contrary, and already had in Darwinās time. Darwin was able to see the biotic progression in the fossil record already. Your premise is false.
What examples are you talking about there? And what would be the prediction of YEC? Are you talking about the oak trees being able to run faster than the Eoraptors in order to escape the flood for longer?
This is not correct. There are many things that, if we had found them, would reveal evolution as false, and there would have been no disagreement.
For instance, if the earliest fossil record showed every single organism that has ever lived, and all that was evident thru the record was extinction, with no new forms ever arising.
Or if we found that each species had its own molecule that provided the basis for heredity, rather than DNA being used universally.
Or if mutations never happened, but we regularly witnessed entirely new species of organisms suddenly being poofed out of thin air by magic.
Or if we did not find a nested hierarchy when we attempted to classify organisms.
Iām sure I could come up with others.
The error your make is in limiting us to observations that could be made in the future, rather than considering all of the observations that could have been made over the last 150 years that would have disproven evolution, but which were never made (because evolution just happens to be true.)
Specific predictions arenāt possible without a comprehensive understanding of how DNA can be preserved, which we donāt currently have. Itās extremely difficult to assess the detailed preservational conditions in a specimen even after itās found. Weād generally expect to see a trend towards more poorly preserved DNA in progressively older specimens though, and thatās what we see.
On the other hand, YECs canāt really allow the possibility of DNA being preserved for even a few thousand years, because they interpret all or most of the geological column to be just a few thousand years old, and all the same age at that.
The creationist objection will always be of the same sort. An artifact of the data is that a false convergence is noticed when no limits are placed on the time axis. Below says it was ātested and eliminatedā but the so-called āeliminationā process was to appeal to deeper and deeper time.
Creationists fully expect these results due 1. a common Creator and 2. a common DNA among living organisms. These two facts alone will return a false positive of universal common ancestry. There is no surprise here.
" Early (pre-Darwinian) biologists suggested several ideas as to the relationship of modern organisms, but a relevant one here is the āarchetypeā model [25] that suggested that a number of āformsā were originally created within high-level groups. For mammals say, one āformā would have been a giant cat, which then independently evolved (or degenerated) into lions, tigers, leopards, panthers, cheetahs, etc. In our examples, this is tested (and eliminated) by demonstrating that successively deeper datasets continue to show ancestral convergence. In other words, we do not see a set of āarchetypeā species originating at just one point in time ā there is continuity in the evolutionary process."
That makes no sense. If there is no actual convergence going on, extending the dimension of time shouldnāt force convergence.
Parallel lines donāt converge if you add more kilometers to their length.
None of this explains ancestral convergence in nodes that go deeper than wherever you imagine the original ākindsā originated. Sorry, your explanation just doesnāt work.
It works beautifully. And more convincingly than this deep time model. Nothing in this research begins to eliminate creationism. It only reinforces it.
I think you come back with these kinds of empty remarks because you cannot overturn the creationist model. Thatās all I can figure because you have not demonstrated any research above creationist research.
So for those who are genuinely interested, the question here is why we should expect ancestral convergence in increasingly ancestral nodes on phylogenetic trees from different clades, if in fact these clades do not also share common ancestry.
To pick an example, imagine if all rodents and all primates share a common ancestor (common descent), versus rodents as a clade being independently created and only sharing a single rodent common ancestor, and all primates (excluding humans) sharing a single primate common ancestor. Now the question becomes, why should increasingly ancestral nodes in the tree of rodents, converge on a sequence more similar to primate sequences, and why should increasingly ancestral nodes in the primate tree, converge on a sequence more similar to rodents sequences? And why should the common ancestor of all rodents be most similar to the common ancestor of all primates, instead of most similar to any extant primate? Clearly this is a genuine prediction of common descent, but has no obvious explanation on independent creation.
Speir seems to suggest that this is just an accidental byproduct of extending the time dimension further back, because species āshare a common creator and share DNAā. But thereās nothing in that that explains why we should get ancestral convergence, so I ask speir to explain why it should by showing the model he appears to insist would yield this result.
He then responds that I just āran itā myself (I ran a creationist model where?), and piles further laughable assertions on top such as the creationist model working beautifully (what model?) and that it all reinforces creationism.
Clearly communication is meaningless with such an individual. But heās a creationist, so if heās on your āteamā do let me know how proud you are of his performance.
I am clearly referring to the researchersā paper and the model they ran and published. They unwittingly ran a creationist model because 1. a common Creator, using 2. common DNA and 3. imposing varying mutations on similar creation āthemesā, initiates life based on separated animal kinds.
6000 years later, your team comes along, runs some sequencing, goes too deeply back in time, and mistakenly infers common ancestry.
This is all to be expected in a creationist model like they just ran.