Moved thread: Ron Paul Doesn't Accept Evolution

[Matteo Martini]

And the study of a single mutation is outside the field of the theory of evolution.


Making statistical predictions about measurable changes in the morphology/phisyology of organisms should be in the scope of ToE


Creationism also has no evidence supporting it, is incapable of making testable predictions, presupposes the answer to everything and refuses to adapt in the face of facts to the contrary, and is generally heavily bolstered by misrepresentations, lies, pure inventions, propaganda, and braggadocious conduct. A "theory" not only encompassing these traits, but also encompassing virtually nothing else, is certainly not scientific.


Kotatsu, I really hope you ( too ) are not accusing me of being a supporter of creationism.
I really did not think I had to point out that I am not supporting, in any way, creationism


I am a bit disappointed that the quoted passage above is your only reply to my last post.

Please, give me few hours.
My boss is walking around the office today, and I need some time to write you a peoper reply

[UnrepentantSinner]

The tectonic plate movement theory is different from ToE in one important point.
According to the model used, you can predict the movements of plates now, that is, x meters/year a plate is getting closer/farther from another one.
You can measure continental drift with lasers, and come out with a numeric value ( http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=1444888 ).
Then, you can check if your model is consistent

And since what you're describing is prediction and observation - not experimentation - you're bolstering what I said to both you and Jerome.

Obviously we can do some experimentation in the lab. For my isolation from predators example we can do that with a small population. For something like geology we can replicate things like tsumanis, erosion, asteroid impacts. But these are very small scale experiments - micro as I noted above. We can't do those same experiments on large populations with myraid environmental factors like food availibility, climate change, parasites and diseases, etc. For that we can only predict and observe much like in meteorology.

[Kotatsu]

I think there's a knee-jerk reaction in the States to Evolution deniers being Creationists because that seems to be the most vocal and active segment of the denying population.

As we have seen with Jerome and Matteo there are some who aren't Creationists, but who reject it largely out of misunderstanding.

Indeed. I find that sort of knee-jerk reaction almost as horrible as the rejection of fact they react to. In a way, it is an expression of the same mentality as what they react to.

[Kotatsu]

Making statistical predictions about measurable changes in the morphology/phisyology of organisms should be in the scope of ToE

Yes, and as I said, we can make predictions on a larger scale than what you seem to be after. We cannot predict the small things, just as you cannot predict the small things with the laws of thermodynamics. But just as with thermodynamics, we can predict the larger picture. You are just misunderstanding the level at which the theory of evolution operates. Similarly, in a discussion about the laws of thermodynamics, I would probably do the same mistakes (though I have studied it at university level for a while), as I am unfamiliar with its concepts and the whole field doesn't interest me very much. It is only natural.

However, I hope I am making an impression on you as to what the theory of evolution actually states and on what lever it can make predictions. You will find that when suitable analogies are made between it and any other theory, the levels of accuracy of the predictions of the different theories are virtually indistinguishable.

Kotatsu, I really hope you ( too ) are not accusing me of being a supporter of creationism.
I really did not think I had to point out that I am not supporting, in any way, creationism

As I wrote above in my answer to Ken, I don't believe you are even close to being a creationist. It seems to me, and I believe you have admitted as much previously, that you are not a biologist, and have no higher education in evolutionary theory. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that you will know everything about it. A non-expert in any field is likely to have the wrong impressions of that field.

Above all, you seem much more pleasant and willing to debate in a civilised manner than any creationist I have ever known :D.

Please, give me few hours.
My boss is walking around the office today, and I need some time to write you a peoper reply

Ah, employers. What are they good for, eh?

[thaiboxerken]

You said that you knew that he would become angry.

Wow, you have some serious reading comprehension problems. I said that I knew he had those stupid beliefs. He confirmed it when he said that I wasn't wrong.

[Kotatsu]

Wow, you have some serious reading comprehension problems.

Something which appears to be a common problem in this thread.

I said that I knew he had those stupid beliefs. He confirmed it when he said that I wasn't wrong.

But this is not true. He has repeatedly said, and showed, that he doesn't have those stupid beliefs. He also didn't say that you were wrong, he said that you weren't "even wrong", indicating that your opinion was too preposterous to even feature on the right-wrong scale.

[ArmillarySphere]

Hey! I live in Gothenburg, too!

Small world.

I beg to disagree.
One of the points that Popper stressed was that there was little ( no? ) value in the explanatory power of a theory.
Marxism explains everything.
So it has to be falsifiable as well, which I'm perfectly aware of. However, unless there are actually some observations that fit, the theory is meaningless.

Indeed, with a paraphrase of Occam's razor, a theory that fits no observations is not necessary to explain reality, and should be discarded.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

How do we test our hypothesis that tectonic plates make the topography of the Earth by doing an experiment?
How do we test our hypothesis that stars form in stellar nebulas by doing an experiment?

Can you understand that an observation is just as good as mixing two substances in a beaker in some sciences?

It is not the same. Just because science currently lacks the ability to test a particular hypothesis does not make observations equal to testing.


BTW, the earth may expand and contract, and nebulas may be formed by electricity. Science is not restricted by popular scientific opinion based on observations. If this were so science would come to a halt.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In the Tree of Life (http://www.tolweb.org/tree/) there are (or at least used to be, I haven't checked for a while) numerous branches which terminate in a question mark, because they can only be very tentatively placed, if at all. Many of these groups are known from the fossil record only, of course, but there are several which are still alive today.

Interesting link. Thanks.

[Henners]

Which option do you choose for me?

Am I stupid or am I a liar?


It is the sign of a weak mind when all one has the ability to think and write are poor attempts at insults.

Try a little harder and I bet you could come up with something better than:
DUMB LIAR!!!


...which is why I suggested the alternative.

No need to be so tetchy.

You choose.

[Lonewulf]

BTW, the earth may expand and contract, and nebulas may be formed by electricity. Science is not restricted by popular scientific opinion based on observations. If this were so science would come to a halt.

Sure. It's perfectly logical to disregard any popular scientific theory, no matter the evidence behind it, as soon as you start to dislike how it's touching on your religion.

[Henners]

You can not set the probability ratio of an experiment if you can not build a valid theorethical model from which the ratio comes from. (1)
Where does the 50:50 ratio comes from?(2)
Why do you adopt the null hypothesis?(3)


(1) The valid theoretical model is the hypothesis that no evolution took place and that the fossil record is therefore random. I thought I had explained that already. Perhaps you missed it or simply weren't paying attention.

(2) I've already explained where the 50:50 ratio comes from, Matteo. I have done so on several occasions. Why don't you display some initiative and go back and read one or two of them.

(3) The null hypothesis is the state of affairs that would exist if the hypothesis being tested, evolution in this case, is incorrect. See (1) for the null hypothesis.

Now, all this bluster and pretence to obtuseness that we are seeing from you is beginning to wear a little thin.

Unless you can provide a reason why 50:50 is NOT the mean probability of finding any given fossil at a given point in the record, I am afraid that I am going to declare that you are a loser, because you are either unwilling or unable to face the facts and handle them like a grown-up.

You choose.

Remember:

I have demonstrated that the probability that evolution DIDN'T happen is one chance in 10300,000

You are complaining that the sums are wrong, but you cannot say why they are.

Sooner or later that approach is going to put your integrity at risk.

[Henners]

I understand this is not a reply to my post, and maybe I should stay out of it.
I, however, do not understand why you should start insulting people when then do not agree with you.
I think this is a matter of basic behaviour.
OK, sorry for the boring comment.

Had I insulted anyone because they disagreed with me, Matteo, I would agree with your point.

However, I didn't. In some cases it is difficult to tell whether someone is saying things that are not true in order to deliberately to mislead, or because they are too thick to cope.

Still, it was a nice try at patronising and point-scoring. So, all credit for dirty tactics, even though they didn't work.

I think it is a matter of basic behaviour NOT to misattribute motives to other people. Forgive me for replying in such a straightforward manner, but I feel that the honourable thing for you to do now is to publicly apologise for publicly suggesting that I insult people because they disagree with me.

[Mister Agenda]

Matteo's tactics worked on me. He seems like a decent fellow, while Henners strikes me as a touchy jackass. Oh, Matteo, your diabolical scheming has blinded me so!

[UnrepentantSinner]

It is not the same. Just because science currently lacks the ability to test a particular hypothesis does not make observations equal to testing.


BTW, the earth may expand and contract, and nebulas may be formed by electricity. Science is not restricted by popular scientific opinion based on observations. If this were so science would come to a halt.

I'm sorry but your Magrathea gambit fails since we can make all sorts of predictions based on observations and falsify all of those predictions based on observations. We don't need to experiment on a stellar nebula in a laboratory to consider the findings scientific nor do we need to have environments and mutations reduced to a beaker in a year or two for evolutionary theory to be scientific.

BTW, you never actually addressed why the Platypus would defy evolutionary theory nor explained how it was arbitarily placed into the phylogenetic tree.

[Lonewulf]

Can you not see why the platypus is the Chimera that was spoken of earlier as a valid falsification of ToE? If not then then my assertion that any creature found will be made to fit the theory is true and as such the ToE can not be falsified.
Sure, even though poisonous mammals exist in other species. Naturally.

[Henners]

Matteo's tactics worked on me. He seems like a decent fellow, while Henners strikes me as a touchy jackass. Oh, Matteo, your diabolical scheming has blinded me so!

DamnDamnDamn.

[Lonewulf]

DamnDamnDamn.

And he curses, too.

Damn ass...




:D

[Mister Agenda]

I detect a sense of humor, tho...

[Belz...]

existed = past

Aw, not that canard, again.

[Matteo Martini]

And since what you're describing is prediction and observation - not experimentation - you're bolstering what I said to both you and Jerome.


I do not see that difference between prediction and experimentation.
I do not know if you can the measurement of plate tectonics as " experimentation ", anyway..


Obviously we can do some experimentation in the lab. For my isolation from predators example we can do that with a small population.

If you can do this kind of experimentation, and predict the changes in morphology/physiology of a certain part of a population with a prefixed degree of confidence, then I am with you


For something like geology we can replicate things like tsumanis, erosion, asteroid impacts. But these are very small scale experiments - micro as I noted above. We can't do those same experiments on large populations with myraid environmental factors like food availibility, climate change, parasites and diseases, etc. For that we can only predict and observe much like in meteorology.

Again, if you can predict evolution in living organisms as much as you can predict bad weather, the speed of the moving tectonic plates, the movement of ( shift to red ) of galaxies, and so on.. then it is exactly the same thing

Yes, and as I said, we can make predictions on a larger scale than what you seem to be after. We cannot predict the small things, just as you cannot predict the small things with the laws of thermodynamics. But just as with thermodynamics, we can predict the larger picture. You are just misunderstanding the level at which the theory of evolution operates. Similarly, in a discussion about the laws of thermodynamics, I would probably do the same mistakes (though I have studied it at university level for a while), as I am unfamiliar with its concepts and the whole field doesn't interest me very much. It is only natural.

If you can do that, then you are right.
But, I would be very suprised if we can predict the evolution of living organisms " in lab " or in open conditions.
Predicting evolution, means, prediting the changes in morphology/phisiology of living organisms at quantitative level ( same as what you can do with physics, chemistry, plate tectonics, astrophysics, .. ), for a set environmantal conditions.
The prediction should be more accurate than what you can have with common sense ( if there is any common sense in evolutionary biology outside ToE, I do not know ).
AFAIK, this is impossible, and I have not read any comment of you which points in that direction.
I still have to read your last long comment, though..

[Matteo Martini]

Matteo's tactics worked on me. He seems like a decent fellow, while Henners strikes me as a touchy jackass. Oh, Matteo, your diabolical scheming has blinded me so!

OK.
Please, now, do not become a creationist :)


Still, it was a nice try at patronising and point-scoring. So, all credit for dirty tactics, even though they didn't work.



That was just my opinion, as I did not want the thread to derail into a war of religion between pro and against evolution.
Please, consider that comment as just an opinion

(1) The valid theoretical model is the hypothesis that no evolution took place and that the fossil record is therefore random. I thought I had explained that already. Perhaps you missed it or simply weren't paying attention.


I disagree with that.
The hypothesis that the fossil record is random is just one of the hypothesis you can make.
There may be other hypothesis, such as the hypothesis that evolution took place, but worked not by the mechanism of natural selection, but in some other way.
The fact that, currently, there is no alternative hypothesis to evolution, does not allow you to say that, if the ToE were wrong, the order of the fossil would be random.
We simply know too less to say that.


(2) I've already explained where the 50:50 ratio comes from, Matteo. I have done so on several occasions. Why don't you display some initiative and go back and read one or two of them.


Please, read my comment above.
I also beg to stress that, in any case, the 50:50 ratio would be wrong.
In detail, if you find that a fossil of a dinosaur is dated about 80 millions year ago, and, according to the actual scheme of the evolution, the ToE says that that dinosaur should have been living from 120 to 70 million years ago, if compared with the hypothesis of fossils being completely random, the odds in favour of the ToE would be much much more than 50:50
They would somehow be 50 millions ( that is 120 millions - 70 millions ) / the time in which life has been on Earth ( ? ) = 0,0001%
But I disagree that the null hypothesis can be random fossils.


(3) The null hypothesis is the state of affairs that would exist if the hypothesis being tested, evolution in this case, is incorrect. See (1) for the null hypothesis.


You are using the concept of " null hypothesis " wrongly.
Read here:
" In statistics, a null hypothesis is a hypothesis set up to be nullified or refuted in order to support an alternate hypothesis. When used, the null hypothesis is presumed true until statistical evidence in the form of a hypothesis test indicates otherwise. "
Bold mine.
The point is, that there is no evidence to say that, being ToE wrong, the order of the fossils would be completely random.
This is an assumption you are making.
But, it is based on what?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Sure. It's perfectly logical to disregard any popular scientific theory, no matter the evidence behind it, as soon as you start to dislike how it's touching on your religion.

I do not have or practice any religion of any sort.

I do understand that science is ever evolving with new ideas and new testing abilities because of new technologies which can reverse previous scientific thought.

One example would be the origin of life. It was known that life came spontaneously (tadpoles from swaps, maggots from meat) until it was shown that this was not possible, but now we are exploring the hypothesis of abiogenesis which is essentially the same idea.

What I am amazed at is the religious adherence to what ever the current scientific dogma happens to be.

I do know for a fact that current scientific thought is incorrect in many areas. Why do I know this? Because that is the nature of science. That is how science is supposed to work.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Had I insulted anyone because they disagreed with me, Matteo, I would agree with your point.

However, I didn't. In some cases it is difficult to tell whether someone is saying things that are not true in order to deliberately to mislead, or because they are too thick to cope.

Still, it was a nice try at patronising and point-scoring. So, all credit for dirty tactics, even though they didn't work.

I think it is a matter of basic behaviour NOT to misattribute motives to other people. Forgive me for replying in such a straightforward manner, but I feel that the honourable thing for you to do now is to publicly apologise for publicly suggesting that I insult people because they disagree with me.

I do not recall you adding anything to this thread other that insults, denials of insults, and demands for apologies from others claiming that you are insulting.

Keep to the topic and do not personalize the argument.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

BTW, you never actually addressed why the Platypus would defy evolutionary theory nor explained how it was arbitarily placed into the phylogenetic tree.

It does not follow the lineage according to evolutionary theory. Are to claim the this creature is a living missing link? Ohh, yes all creatures are links and therefore evidence. Can you not see the circular reasoning?

If it suits you to state that it does follow the lineage than my point about any creature being made to fit the lineage is correct and ToE can not be falsified.

[RecoveringYuppy]

It does not follow the lineage according to evolutionary theory. Are to claim the this creature is a living missing link? Ohh, yes all creatures are links and therefore evidence. Can you not see the circular reasoning?

If it suits you to state that it does follow the lineage than my point about any creature being made to fit the lineage is correct and ToE can not be falsified.
Since you are making a positive statement that it does not follow the lineage, could you please explain how it does not??

I don't know how beat to death this particular idea might be in this thread since I'm coming back in at the end, but the marsupials and their geographic releationships are yet another piece of evidence in support of evolution.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Since you are making a positive statement that it does not follow the lineage, could you please explain how it does not??

I don't know how beat to death this particular idea might be in this thread since I'm coming back in at the end, but the marsupials and their geographic releationships are yet another piece of evidence in support of evolution.

This is my point. All creatures will fit the theory. It is not falsifiable by observation. We do not have the time to test the theory properly, thus we can not falsify the theory through experimentation. The theory as it stands today is unfalsifiable and therefore not sound science.

[RecoveringYuppy]

This is my point. All creatures will fit the theory.
You just said that it didn't fit the theory.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

You just said that it didn't fit the theory.

No, I presented two options.

If it does not fit the theory than the theory is falsified.

If it is fit to the theory than it is an example of how any creature can be fit to the theory and as such the theory can not be falsified.

[Matteo Martini]

No and yes, in that order.
..



Just wait.
I have read it all, but it really takes quite a lot of time to reply.
I have understood ( I think ) the point where we do not understand each other ( at least, me ).
Please, wait few hours

[Kotatsu]

One example would be the origin of life. It was known that life came spontaneously (tadpoles from swaps, maggots from meat) until it was shown that this was not possible, but now we are exploring the hypothesis of abiogenesis which is essentially the same idea.

But it is only the same idea to the same extent that the statements "Santa brings presents which he magically produce from a large sack" is the same as "presents are constructed by a variety of workers in different countries from a variety of raw materials produced elsewhere, after which they are transported all over the world, sold at a retailer to your parent, wrapped either at home or in the store, and placed under the Christmas tree the day before after you went to bed, without any kind of magic being involved at all."

What I am after is the observation that the old hypothesis you refer to --- and I cannot remember the name now --- assumed that fully formed modern organisms suddenly occurred from dead material due to concentration of life force or something, while the modern concept of abiogensis states that life itself only gradually emerged from non-life, and then --- since evolution always takes the scenic route --- eventually arrived at modern organisms. The end result --- existence of modern organisms --- is of course the same, but there are enormous differences in vital details.

[danielk]

I think it's called Spontaneous Creation.

[Kotatsu]

It does not follow the lineage according to evolutionary theory. Are to claim the this creature is a living missing link? Ohh, yes all creatures are links and therefore evidence. Can you not see the circular reasoning?

It does fit logically into the position of being a descendant of an earlier mammal which has retained some characters of the not-quite-modern-mammals-yet organism.

If it suits you to state that it does follow the lineage than my point about any creature being made to fit the lineage is correct and ToE can not be falsified.

Again, a chimera as described earlier would fit the bill perfectly, as would an organism which exists without any mechanism with which it can transfer the equivalent of genetic information to its descendants.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm pressed for time right now so I'll need to reply to responses to me above, but I wanted to add to Kotatsu's post.

What I am after is the observation that the old hypothesis you refer to --- and I cannot remember the name now --- assumed that fully formed modern organisms suddenly occurred from dead material due to concentration of life force or something, while the modern concept of abiogensis states that life itself only gradually emerged from non-life, and then --- since evolution always takes the scenic route --- eventually arrived at modern organisms. The end result --- existence of modern organisms --- is of course the same, but there are enormous differences in vital details.

Spontaneous Generation was the idea that maggots came from raw meat, mice came from grain, geese from barnacles and a number of other things instantaneously and spontaneously. This idea was falsified 200 years ago.

That is completely different from the idea that self-replicating chemicals eventually, over a billion years possibly, eventually developed into what could be called life.

Abiogenesis is not the same as Spontaneous Generation JDN.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

But it is only the same idea to the same extent that the statements "Santa brings presents which he magically produce from a large sack" is the same as "presents are constructed by a variety of workers in different countries from a variety of raw materials produced elsewhere, after which they are transported all over the world, sold at a retailer to your parent, wrapped either at home or in the store, and placed under the Christmas tree the day before after you went to bed, without any kind of magic being involved at all."

I see where you are trying to go but this is a poor analogy. A proper analogy would be that it was thought that the presents were initiated spontaneously.

What I am after is the observation that the old hypothesis you refer to --- and I cannot remember the name now --- assumed that fully formed modern organisms suddenly occurred from dead material due to concentration of life force or something, while the modern concept of abiogensis states that life itself only gradually emerged from non-life, and then --- since evolution always takes the scenic route --- eventually arrived at modern organisms. The end result --- existence of modern organisms --- is of course the same, but there are enormous differences in vital details.


All you have done is made the complexity of the initiation simple.

[Kotatsu]

This is my point. All creatures will fit the theory. It is not falsifiable by observation. We do not have the time to test the theory properly, thus we can not falsify the theory through experimentation. The theory as it stands today is unfalsifiable and therefore not sound science.

I think you may have this the wrong way, to an extent.

In any phylogenetic tree, every branch leading to a bifurcation essentially represents an organism intermediate between its immediate descendants and its immediate ancestor. If we take a tree and plot unto it morphological characters, geographical distribution, or other measurable data, we will see a pattern. Some branches my have developed a certain colouration, which is absent in others. But once it is present in one branch, all descendants of that branch will normally have it (1).

With a sufficiently resolved phylogeny, and a sufficiently well-known fossil record of the group, we can test this. If we plot the order of evolution of characters on one copy of the tree, and the actually known distribution on another copy, and compare them, we can falsify the theory of evolution (or, at least, the parts which concern themselves with the concepts I address in this post). If, for example, we see that by necessity, complex characters suddenly occur with no precursor in their ancestors --- gills in a group of plaeocene birds, for example --- and then suddenly disappear again, or if some complex characters which are possible, or even extant, in one subset of the taxa covered by the tree, but not the other, occur randomly in the tree, we can state that there is something wrong.

Uah, I have to go to work!

---
(1) The situation is a bit different with organisms that live under extreme circumstances, such as intestinal parasites or so.

[Kotatsu]

I think it's called Spontaneous Creation.

I'm pressed for time right now so I'll need to reply to responses to me above, but I wanted to add to Kotatsu's post.

Spontaneous Generation was the idea that maggots came from raw meat, mice came from grain, geese from barnacles and a number of other things instantaneously and spontaneously. This idea was falsified 200 years ago.

That is completely different from the idea that self-replicating chemicals eventually, over a billion years possibly, eventually developed into what could be called life.

Abiogenesis is not the same as Spontaneous Generation JDN.

Thank you, both.

[Kotatsu]

I see where you are trying to go but this is a poor analogy. A proper analogy would be that it was thought that the presents were initiated spontaneously.

I agree; the analogy is not very good. I just got up and haven't had an tea yet this morning, and will blame that.

The point I tried to make was that under one hypothesis, objects occur in their current state fully formed by magical processes, and under the other, the modern state was achieved only gradually during an extended period of time. They are similar in the end result, but not in the way the end result was obtained.

All you have done is made the complexity of the initiation simple.

Yes. Why is this wrong? Simple things exist.

[Kotatsu]

Just wait.
I have read it all, but it really takes quite a lot of time to reply.
I have understood ( I think ) the point where we do not understand each other ( at least, me ).
Please, wait few hours

No worries. As long as you don't give up on me.:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It does fit logically into the position of being a descendant of an earlier mammal which has retained some characters of the not-quite-modern-mammals-yet organism.

Which simpler creature from which the poison mammal derived has poison expelled from its legs?



Again, a chimera as described earlier would fit the bill perfectly, as would an organism which exists without any mechanism with which it can transfer the equivalent of genetic information to its descendants.


Who has decided that a Chimera can not breed? Also, if not breeding is the criterion for a Chimera than ToE again can not be falsified by a Chimera because the inability to breed falls within the survival of the fittest aspect of the theory and a Chimera would not last past the individual and as such would fit the theory.

[Kotatsu]

Which simpler creature from which the poison mammal derived has poison expelled from its legs?

I know little of palaeontology, and vertebrates do not generally interest me, but perhaps someone else can give you a more exact name. I can only suggest that it is not inconceivable that the poison glands and other organs connected to this may be an autapomorphy, that is, a character which defines a clade and is not found in any other clade (clumsily worded; still no tea!). This means that we may find the poison glands only in organisms that are direct ancestors to the platypus, and that the development of these glands is one of the characters that separated it from other contemporary mammals.

Who has decided that a Chimera can not breed? Also, if not breeding is the criterion for a Chimera than ToE again can not be falsified by a Chimera because the inability to breed falls within the survival of the fittest aspect of the theory and a Chimera would not last past the individual and as such would fit the theory.

You are misunderstanding me. I said that a chimera would falsify it, or that an organism, regardless of if it can breed or not, cannot transmit any information to the next generation would do it. The theory of evolution is not only common descent, but also, and more importantly, the mechanisms by which this is achieved.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I think you may have this the wrong way, to an extent.

In any phylogenetic tree, every branch leading to a bifurcation essentially represents an organism intermediate between its immediate descendants and its immediate ancestor. If we take a tree and plot unto it morphological characters, geographical distribution, or other measurable data, we will see a pattern. Some branches my have developed a certain colouration, which is absent in others. But once it is present in one branch, all descendants of that branch will normally have it (1).

With a sufficiently resolved phylogeny, and a sufficiently well-known fossil record of the group, we can test this. If we plot the order of evolution of characters on one copy of the tree, and the actually known distribution on another copy, and compare them, we can falsify the theory of evolution (or, at least, the parts which concern themselves with the concepts I address in this post). If, for example, we see that by necessity, complex characters suddenly occur with no precursor in their ancestors --- gills in a group of plaeocene birds, for example --- and then suddenly disappear again, or if some complex characters which are possible, or even extant, in one subset of the taxa covered by the tree, but not the other, occur randomly in the tree, we can state that there is something wrong.

Uah, I have to go to work!

---
(1) The situation is a bit different with organisms that live under extreme circumstances, such as intestinal parasites or so.


I do not disagree with the presentation of the data outside of the fact that we are placing the creatures in the "tree" based on their characteristics. This is circular thought. This is having a conclusion and placing the data so as to confirm the conclusion.

[RecoveringYuppy]

No, I presented two options.
No. You said:

It does not follow the lineage according to evolutionary theory.

If it does not fit the theory than the theory is falsified.
True. Please explain how it does not fit the theory.

If it is fit to the theory than it is an example of how any creature can be fit to the theory and as such the theory can not be falsified.
No. Various people, including myself, have explained how some creatures would not fit the theory. But all existing creatures that we know of do fit the theory, so we accept the theory.

As described to you by several people, the set of creatures that would not fit the theory is vastly larger that the set of existing creatures we have examined which do fit the theory. That is confirmation of the theory.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I know little of palaeontology, and vertebrates do not generally interest me, but perhaps someone else can give you a more exact name. I can only suggest that it is not inconceivable that the poison glands and other organs connected to this may be an autapomorphy, that is, a character which defines a clade and is not found in any other clade (clumsily worded; still no tea!). This means that we may find the poison glands only in organisms that are direct ancestors to the platypus, and that the development of these glands is one of the characters that separated it from other contemporary mammals.



You are misunderstanding me. I said that a chimera would falsify it, or that an organism, regardless of if it can breed or not, cannot transmit any information to the next generation would do it. The theory of evolution is not only common descent, but also, and more importantly, the mechanisms by which this is achieved.



Your mind is fabulous!

Forgive me, it is approaching 2AM here and I am unable to give back to you what I am receiving. I must retire from this conversation until tomorrow to give you a fair response to your exceptional thinking.

:)

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No. You said:

In response to what?

You must understand the context of a sentence within a conversation to gain a full understanding of its meaning.

[Kotatsu]

I do not disagree with the presentation of the data outside of the fact that we are placing the creatures in the "tree" based on their characteristics. This is circular thought. This is having a conclusion and placing the data so as to confirm the conclusion.

No. It is having a conclusion or, rather, a prediction --- the true tree looks like this --- and testing it to see if a new set of data --- a previously unsequenced organism thought to be fall within the ingroup, a newly discovered fossil organism, or similar --- will falsify that prediction or not. In most cases, it does not, as most systematists are highly trained in their specific group, and many groups have had their systematics and taxonomy debated and changed and reinterpreted since the early 19th century. However, it is not unusual that new data throws a well-established phylogeny or taxonomy into complete disarray. Just look at Sibley and Ahlquist who changed the way we classify birds by looking at the genes rather than at morphology. "Platyhelminthes" is also undergoing enormous upheavals due to the usage of other kinds of data, as is the entire higher-level classification of the animal phyla. Only the other day I was at a master thesis presentation concerning how the traditional (mainly morphological) groupings of fungi are completely demolished when genetic data is used instead.

However, this does not void the fact that these sort of studied do not falsify the theory of evolution as I described it in my very long post above. In the stricter sense, the organisms and their relationships do not matter. What matters is that evolution occurs, how it occurs, and why it occurs. So in that way, you are correct. We will never abandon the theory of evolution due to any tree, as we already know that evolution occurs, and have some ideas about the whys and hows. In essence, you here do the same mistake as Matteo in describing as ideas and concepts of vital importance those which are not.

[Kotatsu]

Your mind is fabulous!

Forgive me, it is approaching 2AM here and I am unable to give back to you what I am receiving. I must retire from this conversation until tomorrow to give you a fair response to your exceptional thinking.

:)

I am a bit wary of this praise --- perhaps undeservedly --- as I cannot figure out if you mean fabulous as in "something good" or as in "unable to see that I am using flawed logic and reasoning in circles."

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I am a bit wary of this praise --- perhaps undeservedly --- as I cannot figure out if you mean fabulous as in "something good" or as in "unable to see that I am using flawed logic and reasoning in circles."

I honestly can not keep up at this hour. I am very much enjoying this conversation. It is late and it would be unfair for me at this time to comment as my mind is running tired and this would not do you justice.

[Kotatsu]

I honestly can not keep up at this hour. I am very much enjoying this conversation. It is late and it would be unfair for me at this time to comment as my mind is running tired and this would not do you justice.

Ah, then I understand you better.

While you sleep, I thought I'd have a go at trying to explain what I mean in this post (below) better, as I have now had three cups of tea and hopefully will be able to express myself with greater clarity.

I know little of palaeontology, and vertebrates do not generally interest me, but perhaps someone else can give you a more exact name. I can only suggest that it is not inconceivable that the poison glands and other organs connected to this may be an autapomorphy, that is, a character which defines a clade and is not found in any other clade (clumsily worded; still no tea!). This means that we may find the poison glands only in organisms that are direct ancestors to the platypus, and that the development of these glands is one of the characters that separated it from other contemporary mammals.

An autapomorphic character, in essence, is a character which exists only within the ingroup, and which was not present in the last common ancestor of the ingroup and the closest related outgroup. One might say that it is the character(s) that define the ingroup; conversely, it is equally valid to say that the ingroup defines the character, because that is often the systematic/taxonomic approach. We observe or hypothesise that a certain group of taxa forms a natural group, and set out to find the characters which are present in this group, but in none of its close relatives. This in itself is a test of the taxonomic hypothesis, which can be falsified if we find data --- genetic, for example --- to suggest that what we believed was a natural group is not.

The same character can, of course, be present in other groups due to convergence, but the character is then still an autapomorphic character for each of the groups alone.

An opposing term is a plesiomorphy, which is a character that the ingroup shares with several outgroups, whether or not they are closely related. Looking for examples, I noticed that Wikipedia presents the five-toed foot of rats and apes. This is not a character which defines whatever clade we wish to put rats and apes in, because the character state evolved much earlier in the phylogenetic tree, and has since been transferred to all descendant taxa (unless secondarily lost, as in horses).

As an example of autapomorphy, we can take birds (1). What characterises birds? Well, they have an often prolonged and hardened mouth region upon which the nostrils and sometimes other organs are placed, and into which the tongue extends; in short, a beak. They have scales modified into feathers, of course, and a highly specialised system of air sacks, hollow bones, and a special kind of respiration. They have some modifications to the bone structure, particularly in those bones associated with flight.

These characters are all autapomorphic characters for a clade, as they occur in the clade, but not in closely related clades --- or, indeed, in any more distantly related clade. We can define a group of organisms based on these characteristics and call that a clade. We can further hypothesise that the combination of these traits is so unique, that it is unlikely that there will be two clades which have evolved exactly this set of characters; we thus hypothesise that the clade we call "birds" is monophyletic, i.e., it contains all the descendants of one ancestor, and only those descendants.

Of course, this is a simplified truth. If we look at the fossil record, we see a transition of characters from dinosaurs through feathered dinosaurs and early birds to modern birds. It's not as if an egg was laid by a dinosaur, and when it hatched, the chick had suddenly acquired all the features mentioned above. However, as a simple example, it serves well. The shortcomings are, of course, that each of the characters described above are defined too bluntly to be phylogenetically useful.

This is a concept that is very important to understand when trying to understand and discuss evolution, and something which creationists in their zeal often overlook. The infamous Kleinman, for instance, once asked me to describe, if birds truly originated from dinosaurs, exactly where in the dinosaur the highly modified breast bone of modern birds can be found. The question may seem valid, but is in fact nonsense, as the modified breast bone is one of the characters we use to define the clade "birds"; it cannot exist in any of the ancestors of birds, or those ancestors would be definition already belong in the clade "birds" (again, I simplify for clarity; more characters are used, and there is greater taxonomic resolution in the tree of life).

It is also important to understand that apomorphy is not an absolute concept. The same character is most often both apomorphy and plesiomorphy. For instance, when looking at the differences between various vertebrates, the characters described above are apomorpic for birds. However, when looking at differences between various order of birds, all of them are plesiomorphic, as they occur, unless secondarily modified, in all orders of birds. The closer you move to the tips of the tree of life, the more minute are the apomorphic characters which define the clades. Certain modifications to the larynx are good enough to define the clade containing all passerines, and separate that from other birds, but it doesn't do us much good when trying to separate crows from warblers and lyrebirds. Bristles at the base of the beak and a certain form of the beak, however, are, but then again that doesn't separate a magpie from a jackdaw, and so on.

Now, after this nomenclatorial excursion, let me return to my original point: the existence of poison glands and associated structures in the (back?) feet of the platypus. You asked:

Which simpler creature from which the poison mammal derived has poison expelled from its legs?

In the light of the discussion above, I think you will agree that this question, though honest, is not a meaningful one. The mere existence of poison glands in any modern animal tells us nothing of its descendancy, as the character may be autapomorphic. I don't know any details about the ancestors of the platypus, but it is conceivable that there are some, and that these, as we move backwards in time, are successively less similar to the modern platypus, and successively more similar to the creature from which both the platypus and the clade containing all other mammals derive (2).

Now, at the time when this ancestor lived, it could have looked more or less like anything (within certain bounds, of course). We cannot formulate what it looked like by reason alone, but have to rely on phylogeny and fossil remains. However, we could postulate that at some point, it "divided" into two forms: a pro-platypus, and a pro-mammal (short hand for "all other mammals").

It is conceivable that one of the characters which define the "pro-platypus" clade --- which also, by definition, contains the modern platypus --- was the development of rudimentary poison glands. It is equally conceivable that it did not. But somewhere along the line there is a development of poison glands and its associated structures, and regardless of when that happens, it is an autapomorphy for the clade containing the modern platypus.

Thus, the question "from what creature that expelled poison from its legs does the platypus derive" is meaningless, as that is an apomorphic character for the clade containing the platypus. It is the equivalent, using the definition given above, of saying "from which organism that has a beak, wings, specialised breathing systems and hollow bones do birds derive?"; the answer could as well be, "None", because those characters define the ingroup.

I still feel I am not really clear on what I mean, but I've already written way too much, and will let you digest this first. If you need further clarification, please say so, and I'll be happy to provide it to the best of my ability.

---
(1) I first thought of using humans, but as I am a bit queasy about using the lack of characters as a character, and couldn't come up with a good existing character we do have as opposed to other apes, moneys, or mammals, I choose to change example.
(2) I here assume there is such an ancestor, and that this division is a valid one. I acknowledge the existence of the echidna and the marsupials, but have no idea where they fit in. For the sake of the argument, we can ignore them, or assume their phylogeny has no influence.

[Belz...]

Again, a chimera as described earlier would fit the bill perfectly, as would an organism which exists without any mechanism with which it can transfer the equivalent of genetic information to its descendants.

That concept is hard to explain to some, isn't it ?

vertebrates do not generally interest me

That's... very interesting.

Dates and parties must be very interesting, with you.

[RecoveringYuppy]

In response to what?
In response to UnrepentantSinners question about the platypus obviously. And obviously you're ducking the question.

[UnrepentantSinner]

I do not see that difference between prediction and experimentation.
I do not know if you can the measurement of plate tectonics as " experimentation ", anyway..

As I have noted a number of times "experimentation" as most evolution deniers would use it is basically mixing two substances in a beaker in the lab. That is not the limits of experimentation and more importantly is not the limitation on predictions since observations of findings are just as good in many fields of science. "Predictions" can be made in a lot of scientific endevours where "experimentation" is not possible - only observations. We can't recreate the primordial solar system to "experiment" on predictions about how it formed. We can only make predictions as to what we will discover based on current theory and evidence or falsify them. The same applies with plate tectonics or evolution.

If you can do this kind of experimentation, and predict the changes in morphology/physiology of a certain part of a population with a prefixed degree of confidence, then I am with you

We can't, since we can't predict exactly what mutations will occur nor what changes in the environment will occur. Mutations are random, we have no idea of which nucleotides or genes or chomosomes will change from generation to generation so we have no way of predicting what the future will hold - evolution doesn't claim to be a prophetic endevour. You're asking evolution to do what geologists can't - predict the next earthquake down to the fault line, date, time and who will be President when it happens.

You're asking for an impossibility.

Again, if you can predict evolution in living organisms as much as you can predict bad weather, the speed of the moving tectonic plates, the movement of ( shift to red ) of galaxies, and so on.. then it is exactly the same thing

My plate tectonics example was about experimentation, not prediction. We have no idea, despite 70 million years of evidence that the Hawaiian islands were created over a Pacific hot spot that that hot spot will continue to spew magma and the Pacific plate will continue to move. We can make some predictions in sciences where there are limited variables (plate tectonics, movement of galaxies, etc.), and some based on others with more variables (meteorology), but we cannot make them beyond a certain range where the variables are totally random (like genetic mutations and environmental change).

If you can do that, then you are right.
But, I would be very suprised if we can predict the evolution of living organisms " in lab " or in open conditions.
Predicting evolution, means, prediting the changes in morphology/phisiology of living organisms at quantitative level ( same as what you can do with physics, chemistry, plate tectonics, astrophysics, .. ), for a set environmantal conditions.
The prediction should be more accurate than what you can have with common sense ( if there is any common sense in evolutionary biology outside ToE, I do not know ).
AFAIK, this is impossible, and I have not read any comment of you which points in that direction.
I still have to read your last long comment, though..

You're simply moving goalposts. Evolutinary theory makes a lot of predictions as I noted with the link to the 29 Evidences essays which provide a prediction and potential falsification with every evidence. I also gave you two predictions based on those two new species you cited earlier - the rat will be more closely related genetically to rabbits than to kangaroos and the marsupial will be more closely related to opossums than to humans. Please feel free to save those predictions to your hard drive and correct me if I'm wrong.

[Henners]

I do not recall you adding anything to this thread other that insults, denials of insults, and demands for apologies from others claiming that you are insulting.

If that is indeed the case, either your memory is extremely poor, or your imagination is extremely powerful.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It does not follow the lineage according to evolutionary theory.

I've already explained this previously but I'll do it again - the Platypus is exactly the sort of being we'd expect to find according to evolutionary theory and we're lucky to have it and the Echidna still in existance since otherwise we'd have to rely on the fossil record. The definition of a transitional species is that it has characteristics of progenator taxa and descended taxa. Monotremes have fur, mammalian jaws and mammary glands making them axiomatically Mammals. They also have a cloaca and lay leathery eggs connecting them to our reptilian ancestors. I fail to see how this puts them outside of mammalian lineage "according to evolutionary theory" which predicts such beings should exist.

Are to claim the this creature is a living missing link?

Yes and no because "missing link" is a Creationist weasel phrase. Fossil Monotremes were clearly Monotremes as far back as the fossil record goes, but they are perfect living examples of what we would expect - according to evolutionary theory - to find in terms of a transitional species. The mammal-like reptile to Monotreme species might never be identified, but we have exactly what Creationists have been demanding for a transitional species alive... not just in the fossil record.

Ohh, yes all creatures are links and therefore evidence. Can you not see the circular reasoning?

Personally I hate that sentiment since what evolution deniers are asking for is a species with characteristics shared between taxa above species level. We find such shared characteristics in Monotremes as well as many extinct species known only from fossils. Every species is in the process of transitioning to another species or sub-species, but that's a far cry from claiming that species forming a new genus, family or order is tautological.

If it suits you to state that it does follow the lineage than my point about any creature being made to fit the lineage is correct and ToE can not be falsified.

I've given you my list a number of times but you have never addressed any of them. The assertion is yours so you need to support it with facts or admit you cannot.
Explain how a shrimp with a backbone fits the phylogenetic tree.
Explain how an iguana with mammary glands fits the phylogenetic tree.
Explain how a human with a chitenous exoskeleton fits the phylogentic tree.
Explain how a trout with fur fits the phylogenetic tree.

You've made your claim about "anything" fitting into evolutionary theory without evidence so it's time to put up or shut up.

[Giggywig]

As I have noted a number of times "experimentation" as most evolution deniers would use it is basically mixing two substances in a beaker in the lab. That is not the limits of experimentation and more importantly is not the limitation on predictions since observations of findings are just as good in many fields of science. "Predictions" can be made in a lot of scientific endevours where "experimentation" is not possible - only observations. We can't recreate the primordial solar system to "experiment" on predictions about how it formed. We can only make predictions as to what we will discover based on current theory and evidence or falsify them. The same applies with plate tectonics or evolution.
Since MM seems to like physics, how about gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring)?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Which simpler creature from which the poison mammal derived has poison expelled from its legs?

A mammal that excreted a tonxin out of it's rectum? Oh, wait, skunks are placental.

Here's the problem... we've shown you that there are other venomous mammals. We've explained that Chimera's are a potential falsification for evolution, but you have yet to demonstrate that the Platypus spurs are some crazy impossible advent, are basically snake fangs on their shanks, or how their structure could not be derived from existing structures (see homology argument). Why is that? Is your only argument incredulity?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Since MM seems to like physics, how about gravitational lensing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring)?

:) I'm still waiting for a satisfactory reply as to how we're supposed to translate mixing two substances in a beaker into exterminating predators to see how a species would evolve (in the macro) in a different "natural environment".

[Schneibster]

Me, I'm waiting to see whether anyone's going to notice that echidnas have spurs on their legs too, in just the same place anatomically speaking as platypuses, but no poison glands.

[Kotatsu]

That's... very interesting.

Dates and parties must be very interesting, with you.

I disslike parties, and have very few dates. My middle name is "Nerd", by the way.

[Kotatsu]

Me, I'm waiting to see whether anyone's going to notice that echidnas have spurs on their legs too, in just the same place anatomically speaking as platypuses, but no poison glands.

This comment is exactly the sort of information I asked for in my long post above. Thank you! It does modify my description somewhat, but the essential point, I believe, still stands.

[Matteo Martini]

I will reply splitting the post in two as it is very long, and I am scared of pushing the refresh button by accident in the middle of the typing ( already happened once )

No and yes, in that order. However, whether or not we can do that has nothing to do with the "scientificity" of the theory of evolution, as that is outside the scope of what the theory of evolution aims to describe.


I did not get it, but, let` s move on..


And in the theory of evolution, we can predict when the genotype --- again in a general case --- will start to vary from that of the original organism (i.e., already in the next generation) and, if we look at a particularly well-studied gene, how long it will take before the differences between the ancestral sequence and the descendant sequence will have reached a certain degree.


I have not really clear what you mean by " certain degree ".
However, AFAIK, evolution, in the means of natural selection of random modifications in the DNA happens after hundreds of generations or more
Anyway, we are discussion this point more precisely below


We can do this because the theory of evolution is, in a sense, disconnected from the actual organisms on which evolution operates.
In a vastly simplified version, the theory of evolution is the following statement:
If we have a reproducing population which transfers traits to its progeny, and there is variation in these traits, and the success in reproduction of the population varies according to characteristics of these traits, then over sufficient time the population will change genetically and, eventually, morphologically, physiologically, and behaviourally from the state it once was in. These changes are subject to several influencing factors, including natural selection, sexual selection, random drift, and so on. These changes are also independent of changes in other population with which no exchange of inheritable traits occurs.

To this can be added several amendments and clarifications, but in the simplest of terms, that is it. That is the entirety of what the most stringent version of the theory of evolution states. You will notice in this statement the absence of any mention of where a change will occur, when it will occur, and how it will occur. These things, to an extent, are covered by the amendments, but the statement above is the theory which I and several others are talking about when we say that we know ways to falsify the theory of evolution.


Yes, but I have seen that you are talking about " several influencing factors ".
Now, how can you make an experiment about evolution of a species without taking into consideration ( and being able to mearure ) those several influencing factors?
Let me explain.
If you are talking about changes in the morphology, physiology, and behaviour of a species, I agree that you my have evidence ( I think you have ) that these changes happen, but the ToE does not state just that.
It also says that the environment somehow selects the changes that are more " fit ", and trashes the changes that are less " fit ".
This happens, as the individual that is bearer of the change has more possibility ( or less possibility ) to survive and/or reproduce so, statistically, changes that are more " fit " to the environment are more lickely to be passed into the next generation(s), changes that are less " fit " to the environment are less lickely to be passed into the next generation(s).
This also needs to be tested somehow, if you want to test the ToE.
BTW, I note that the influence of the genetic drift was not considered in the first iteration ( version ) of the ToE ( the one I learned in school ), so it seems that there have been more iterations of the same theory.

[Matteo Martini]

The theory of evolution as formulated above can be falsified in any number of ways, many of which have already bee mentioned. It is enough to find that there are no changes at all in the traits of a population over sufficient time for the theory of evolution to be falsified.


The facts that traits of a population change over time says nothing about why those changes happened, and the reason why changes happened is a main part of ToE, so it needs to be falsified as well.


It would be equally sufficient to see that isolated populations of the same organism living under different circumstances (i.e., different selection pressures) evolve the same characters at the same time, regardless of if it is appropriate for the conditions of the specific population or not for the theory of evolution to be falsified.

Not enough, as if you do not have control on the changes ( i.e. you can not say when and which changes happen with a certain degree of confidence ), it means that you can not predict them


This would be, instead, the older notion of the "ladder of evolution", by which organisms are destined to evolve into a certain shape --- eventually man, the "crown of creation" --- after sufficient time. Similarly, it would be of the same cloth as the idiotic creationist question, "If we evolved from apes, why are there still apes?".


As there is an environmental niche for apes to exist, so why should apes disappear?


We have mentioned several of the amendments as well. For instance, the whole discussion about fossils and the pre-cambrian rabbit uses the amendment of common descent, namely that when all present populations are traced backwards, we will see a pattern of these population merging with each other as the characteristics and genomes of the organisms become less and less modern. Eventually, we will have joined all modern populations into a single one, which is the "mother population" of all living things.


1) the notion of " modern " is arbitrary
2) you are still speaking about tracing facts backwards, not predicting them forwards

[Matteo Martini]

To this is coupled the amendment of nested hierarchies, which state that an organism will, in the perfect case, retain the characteristics of all the groups it belongs to, and that character evolved on one branch of the tree of life will spread to all the descendants of that branch. This suggests that while a certain trait --- eyes, lungs, toes, the ability to digest lead --- may evolve several times over time, each of these events will be different than the others, unless there is lateral transfer of traits (such as in bacteria). We can see that wings have evolved several times, but they are never the same structure. bat wings are different from bird wings, both are different from insect wings, and all three are different from pterosaur wings (though these are superficially similar to bat wings).

With the evolution of insect wings a clade was formed in which all members have wings (or have later lost them again); this clade is known as "insects", and it is separate from other arthropods. Within this clade, the possibility to fold the wings eventually evolved, and we got insects which can fold their wings, and those that can't. In the former group, a subset evolved cover wings, and again there is a division between beetles and other insects. Among beetles, various populations over time evolved the various characteristics of their respective families, subfamilies, tribes, genera, species and subspecies.


I agree that ToE has a good explanatory power on why wings of bats are different from wings of insects, but I beg to note that the explanatory power of a theory has nothing to do with the scientificity of that theory.

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. This its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analysed" and crying aloud for treatment.
(*) italics in the text
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.html


This leads us, again, to the example of the pre-cambrian rabbit. Finding a pre-cambrian rabbit is not impossible because of common sense or anything else (1). It is impossible because at the time of the pre-cambrian era, there were no ancestors sufficiently advanced to evolve the characteristics of a modern rabbit. The existence of a rabbit in the pre-cambrian presupposes the existence at an even earlier date of all the ancestors of a modern rabbit, because evolution is the only way we know of for organisms to occur. We can, of course assign the existence of such a rabbit to another cause, but then we have falsified evolutionary theory and have to amend our knowledge of how organisms occur to include also this as yet unknown mechanism.


No.
You can not use absence of evidence as evidence.
The fact that no fossil of rabbit has been found in the PreCambrian period can be well explain statistically, from the fact that all the fossils of rabbits have been dated in much recent times, so there is no reason to believe that a fossil of rabbit should be found in the PreCambrian in the same way, that we have no reason to suppose that we will find a fossil of an alien, in the PreCambrian


[..]

Yes. The changes would almost invariably occur already in the next generation. I write "almost" because this is not necessarily true among asexually reproducing organisms.


I would you to clarify this point as, AFAIK, evolution requires hundreds of generations or more, to work


And in all cases of evolution, I can make statistical predictions of what will happen with the population. But for the very same reason that you cannot state exactly when the free radical will "attack" my beard or a particular water molecule will condense on my window, I cannot predict exactly when and where a mutation will occur, and what the mutation will consist of.

Yes, and no. If we assume these are sexually reproducing worms, a grand total of 100% of the descendants will have mutated after 5000 generations. However, we cannot predict what these mutations will be. This is not what the theory of evolution aims to do, however, so that's fine. If not being able to predict exactly when the free radical will "attack" my beard, and the exact spot where it will do so doesn't make chemistry less scientific, then the failure of the theory of evolution to predict the position, nature and timing of a certain mutation does not make evolutionary theory less scientific.

If you can not predict what the mutations will be, how can you predict that there will be mutations at all?
I am confused.

[Matteo Martini]

Statistically, we can say that all of them will evolve. If we know a lot about the correspondence between a specific gene and specific environmental features, we can make some predictions regarding which genes will have mutated in the surviving part of the population after a while, if we subject the population to selection pressures which should affect that exact gene.

If, for example --- and I want to make it clear that I am just making this example up as I go along; I have no idea if it is a feasible one --- we know that a certain gene in the worm is the only one that controls tolerance for a certain lethal heavy metal, we can gradually increase the concentration of that metal in the environment of the population, and thus predict that there will be changes in this gene towards greater tolerance for the metal. We can't predict exact which positions will mutate, and how, because that level of knowledge is simply not possible to have. Also, we cannot control for he possibility that an entirely different gene might mutate and, by chance, bestow upon parts of the population a greater tolerance for the metal. However, we can predict that in a general case, after sufficient time at which the concentration of the metal is far beyond lethal for the original population, the remaining progeny of that population will have mutated in that gene (supposing, of course, that any worms survive at all).


If you have a model that can predict that with some kind of accuracy, then you are right.
If you have a model that can predict that, for a certain species of worm which can not sustain an x concentration of lead, when you raise the concentration of lead, after 8000 generations +/- 500 generations, 60%+/-5% of the current generation can be able to survive a concentration of +150% of lead ( previously fatal ), and, the same models can predict similar experiments with other species of worms, bacteria, insects, spiders, and so on.., then you are right.
I beg you to notice that:
1) you need to have a model who makes a prediction first, and then check it experimentally, not the other way around;
2) the model should be able to predict a series of experiments on a range of species of worms, bacteria, and so on.. ( since the scope of ToE is about all the living organisms, not just a species of worms )

[Matteo Martini]

We could select a trait or character which is beneficial to the organism, increase the selective pressure operating on that feature, trace the trait to a specific gene (or set of genes) and monitor the genetics of the population for an extended period of time. If there are differences in survival rates in the population, and this difference is correlated to genetic groupings, we have tested this prediction. If a mutation bestows on the progeny a higher survival rate compared to the parts of the population without this mutation, we have again tested the prediction.


If you have a unique model that allows you to do it consistently, on various species, in selected conditions, and in a variety of cases, then you are right.
I have no knowledge that such a model exists, but I may be wrong


We can take a taxon distributed over a large area, and sample extensively. We can then use commonly accepted methods and scales of measuring divergence times of this taxon and arrive at a prediction for how long these populations have been separated. We can then compare this with other data and arrive at the conclusion that the prediction is correct or incorrect.


See above.
BTW, the model you have should be able to predict many other things, sicen I can not see how you can predict the " divergence times of this [a] taxon ", and how more long a worm will become, if you increase ( for example ) the salinity of the water..
First you decide which test you want to make.
Then you make the prediction.
Then you make the test.
Then you check the prediction


For instance, I saw an example a while ago with squirrels. The authors had samples squirrels from Europe, Asia and North America, and observed that the time of divergence between North American squirrels and Eurasian ones coincided almost perfectly with one of the times when there was a connection between Alaska and Siberia across the Bering Strait. Thus, they could use the genes to predict a possible time of divergence, and compare that with a known geological event which could give rise to this divergence, and see that they fitted.


I disagree.
This is not a prediction.
You just compared the divergence time in one occasion with the divergence time in another occasion for the same species.
This is not what an experimental test should be.
What you are doing here ( and, I suspect, you are doing with worms, bacteria, etc. in the test you have been talking above ), is just extrapolate data from other data you alrady know.
In order to make a prediction, you have to have a model, that can be able to predict completely new happenings


Similarly, you could sample a certain taxon which leaves good fossils with a noticeable and highly specialised structure --- some insect, perhaps --- and see how far back the genetics would place the last common ancestor of the organisms with these characteristics. You can then look in the fossil record. Does the predicted time coincide with the known boundaries between occurrences and non-occurrences of fossilised remains of the ancestor of this taxon? Of course, this is a more precarious way of doing it, due to the incompleteness of the fossil record.


The point is that you already know the fossil record before making the prediction.
Also, I have not really understood how you can make such a prediction, since you apparently have no model that can do that
What do you mean by " genetics " ( in line 2 )?
BTW, I know nothing of what you are talking about, so I can be ( very ) wrong


---
(1) Of course, common sense will tell you the same thing, but only because common sense is rooted in the theory of evolution. This s what I mean with my analogy with the boiling water. We can deduce by common sense that water will boil if heated appropriately, even if we don't know the laws of thermodynamics. But that is because the phenomenon is rooted in the laws of thermodynamics, which exist independently of them having been formulated by humans. Water boiled long before anyone formulated the laws of thermodynamics; organisms evolved long before anyone formulated the mechanisms by which this occurs.

I can see a difference, not a similarity, between ToE and Thermodynamics here.
With common sense, you can deduce that water will boil.
With common sense, you can not deduce that organisms evolve.
BTW, I think this little point is kind of off-topic, if you agree

[Matteo Martini]

As I have noted a number of times "experimentation" as most evolution deniers would use it is basically mixing two substances in a beaker in the lab.
[..]



Look, I have spent few hours to reply to Kotatsu, discussing the same topics I am discussing with you.
I hope you will not mind if I reply to this post later, when I have time, as I, very honestly, see K. as well prepared on this and I have no time to reply to both of you.

[Matteo Martini]

No worries. As long as you don't give up on me.:)

If " giving up on me ", means admitting that you are right, you would not believe, but I would like to do it.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I've given you my list a number of times but you have never addressed any of them. The assertion is yours so you need to support it with facts or admit you cannot.
Explain how a shrimp with a backbone fits the phylogenetic tree.
Explain how an iguana with mammary glands fits the phylogenetic tree.
Explain how a human with a chitenous exoskeleton fits the phylogentic tree.
Explain how a trout with fur fits the phylogenetic tree.

You've made your claim about "anything" fitting into evolutionary theory without evidence so it's time to put up or shut up.

The same way an egg laying, poison producing mammal does.

If any of the examples you give were to be found they would be extolled in the manner you have extolled the platypus.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

A mammal that excreted a tonxin out of it's rectum? Oh, wait, skunks are placental.

Skunks are now older than the platypus?

Here's the problem... we've shown you that there are other venomous mammals. We've explained that Chimera's are a potential falsification for evolution, but you have yet to demonstrate that the Platypus spurs are some crazy impossible advent, are basically snake fangs on their shanks, or how their structure could not be derived from existing structures (see homology argument). Why is that? Is your only argument incredulity?

Define Chimera.

I have never stated that mammals with poison are "some crazy impossible advent". They exist. I pointed that out. I brought them up.:confused:

I also has never stated what could not be.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Define Chimera.

I defined it adequately when I introduced the word to the conversation back on the first page:


The current theory hasn't been falsified. It could be falsified by finding a "chimera" species: a species that has half it's DNA in common with one species (A) and half in another species (B), where A and B do not share any DNA. Less extreme examples could qualify as falsifications also. Any set of DNA that contradicted a family tree relationship would suffice.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In any phylogenetic tree, every branch leading to a bifurcation essentially represents an organism intermediate between its immediate descendants and its immediate ancestor. If we take a tree and plot unto it morphological characters, geographical distribution, or other measurable data, we will see a pattern. Some branches my have developed a certain colouration, which is absent in others. But once it is present in one branch, all descendants of that branch will normally have it (1).

The tree is created from supposition with the presumption that evolution occurs.


With a sufficiently resolved phylogeny, and a sufficiently well-known fossil record of the group, we can test this. If we plot the order of evolution of characters on one copy of the tree, and the actually known distribution on another copy, and compare them, we can falsify the theory of evolution (or, at least, the parts which concern themselves with the concepts I address in this post). If, for example, we see that by necessity, complex characters suddenly occur with no precursor in their ancestors --- gills in a group of plaeocene birds, for example --- and then suddenly disappear again, or if some complex characters which are possible, or even extant, in one subset of the taxa covered by the tree, but not the other, occur randomly in the tree, we can state that there is something wrong.


Complex characters can not suddenly occur with no precursor because they will just be fit into a different branch of the tree. When we discover creatures we fit them into our supposed tree based on the presumption of evolution. We can not use the tree which we have created to evidence the presumption of the validity of the tree.

[RecoveringYuppy]

The tree is created from supposition with the presumption that evolution occurs..
No. No. No. The tree was created by a Christian creationist and led to our modern ideas of evolution. The guy (Linneaus) who developed the tree was not happy about or accepting of it's implications.

[Matteo Martini]

Reading this, I can understand why creationism is an issue.
And wonder if we are the ones not in touch with reality..

London, Dec.20 (ANI): England footballer Wayne Rooney's fiancee Coleen McLoughlin is the richest WAG - after banking over 15-million-pounds last year.
Coleen, 21, got the money from advertising, TV and book deals - and earned more than Rooney, reports The Sun.
Coleen's rise to riches started with a 3.4-million-pound contract as the face of Asda's George range of clothes. She also has deals with Diet Coke, Nike and LG Phones, and pocketed around 3.5-million-pounds from TV and magazine appearances and a fitness video.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

In the light of the discussion above, I think you will agree that this question, though honest, is not a meaningful one. The mere existence of poison glands in any modern animal tells us nothing of its descendancy, as the character may be autapomorphic. I don't know any details about the ancestors of the platypus, but it is conceivable that there are some, and that these, as we move backwards in time, are successively less similar to the modern platypus, and successively more similar to the creature from which both the platypus and the clade containing all other mammals derive (2).

It is conceivable because we are assuming evolution. The point of the question was to discern the definition of chimera in a subversive manner as it had been stated in this thread that the finding of such a creature would classify as a falsification of ToE.

Now, at the time when this ancestor lived, it could have looked more or less like anything (within certain bounds, of course). We cannot formulate what it looked like by reason alone, but have to rely on phylogeny and fossil remains. However, we could postulate that at some point, it "divided" into two forms: a pro-platypus, and a pro-mammal (short hand for "all other mammals").

It is conceivable that one of the characters which define the "pro-platypus" clade --- which also, by definition, contains the modern platypus --- was the development of rudimentary poison glands. It is equally conceivable that it did not. But somewhere along the line there is a development of poison glands and its associated structures, and regardless of when that happens, it is an autapomorphy for the clade containing the modern platypus.

Thus, the question "from what creature that expelled poison from its legs does the platypus derive" is meaningless, as that is an apomorphic character for the clade containing the platypus. It is the equivalent, using the definition given above, of saying "from which organism that has a beak, wings, specialised breathing systems and hollow bones do birds derive?"; the answer could as well be, "None", because those characters define the ingroup.

I still feel I am not really clear on what I mean, but I've already written way too much, and will let you digest this first. If you need further clarification, please say so, and I'll be happy to provide it to the best of my ability.

You do understand that we are defining "groups" (certainly acceptable) and lineage (assumed) by the characteristics of the creatures. We can not then use our created groups to place new creatures between the groups based on their characteristics and claim lineage.

If we were to find two chairs which were similar are we to assume that they were derived from the same source?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I defined it adequately when I introduced the word to the conversation back on the first page:

Your definition makes no sense in reality. What you describe can not be done, thus what you propose as facilitation is an impossibility and as such the ToE can not be falsified by this method.

RecoveringYuppy

It could be falsified by finding a "chimera" species: a species that has half it's DNA in common with one species (A) and half in another species (B), where A and B do not share any DNA. Less extreme examples could qualify as falsifications also. Any set of DNA that contradicted a family tree relationship would suffice.

How much DNA is extracted from fossils?

[JEROME DA GNOME]

No. No. No. The tree was created by a Christian creationist and led to our modern ideas of evolution. The guy (Linneaus) who developed the tree was not happy about or accepting of it's implications.

Not relevant to the point. The point being that creatures are placed in the tree of our creation and then the tree is used as evidence of the ability for falsification if a creature does not fit when we are the ones placing the creatures into the tree.

Can you not see the circular thinking here?

[Dr Adequate]

The same way an egg laying, poison producing mammal does.

If any of the examples you give were to be found they would be extolled in the manner you have extolled the platypus. That's an interesting fantasy.

I don't suppose you could give us a demonstration of it?

Remember, the great thing about the platypus is that it is an example of a stage between reptiles and more derived mammals, a transition we know happened from the molecular and fossil record, and as such is a complete slam-dunk for evolution.

You cannot say the same thing about a human with a chitenous exoskeleton.

[RecoveringYuppy]

Your definition makes no sense in reality. What you describe can not be done, thus what you propose as facilitation is an impossibility and as such the ToE can not be falsified by this method.

It's not an impossibility. It's been done in the lab. Surely you've seen the species that have had the "glow in the dark" gene found in jelly fish grafted in to them. Those lab creations are proper examples of the chimera I'm talking about (and are a product of intelligent design).

How much DNA is extracted from fossils?
You don't need to do it from fossils. There are countless creatures alive on Earth now. Find me a set of three creatures such that A appears closely related to B, B appears closely related to C, yet A and C don't also appear closely related.

Not relevant to the point. The point being that creatures are placed in the tree of our creation and then the tree is used as evidence of the ability for falsification if a creature does not fit when we are the ones placing the creatures into the tree.

Can you not see the circular thinking here?
Of course it's relevant to the point. Your point was that the tree was built on a presumption of evolution and it was not.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

That's an interesting fantasy.

I don't suppose you could give us a demonstration of it?

I did.

Remember, the great thing about the platypus is that it is an example of a stage between reptiles and more derived mammals, a transition we know happened from the molecular and fossil record, and as such is a complete slam-dunk for evolution.

My point exactly!

You cannot say the same thing about a human with a chitenous exoskeleton.

This does not exist. Thus is has no meaning.

[Schneibster]

I agree that ToE has a good explanatory power on why wings of bats are different from wings of insects, but I beg to note that the explanatory power of a theory has nothing to do with the scientificity of that theory.Actually, that's incorrect. While explanatory power is not everything, it is a necessary component; a theory that explains nothing is useless, and most scientists will reject it for that reason. In addition, the more things a theory can explain, the stronger the case against it needs to be. The explanatory power of a theory is its raison d'etre.

I found that those of my friends who were admirers of Marx, Freud, and Adler, were impressed by a number of points common to these theories, and especially by their apparent explanatory power. These theories appeared to be able to explain practically everything that happened within the fields to which they referred. The study of any of them seemed to have the effect of an intellectual conversion or revelation, opening your eyes to a new truth hidden from those not yet initiated. Once your eyes were thus opened you saw confirming instances everywhere: the world was full of verifications of the theory. Whatever happened always confirmed it. This its truth appeared manifest; and unbelievers were clearly people who did not want to see the manifest truth; who refused to see it, either because it was against their class interest, or because of their repressions which were still "un-analysed" and crying aloud for treatment.
(*) italics in the text
http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/critical_thinking/Science_pseudo_falsifiability.htmlThese are theories of social dynamics and economics. Biology has, I think, a far better claim as a "hard" science than any sociological pursuit; I hesitate to call them "sciences."

The theory of evolution by natural selection (to give it its full name, which I would recommend you do- there are many theories of evolution, two alternative theories of evolution have already been mentioned on this thread) is eminently falsifiable: by the demonstration of a creature that has evolved characteristics that were not selected for by its environment at the time those characteristics became prominent. This is nearly impossible to imagine; the entire idea behind evolution by natural selection is that creatures have the characteristics they do because those that had them survived and procreated, and those that did not, did not and are therefore all dead along with any offspring they managed to have. It's a fairly self-evident proposition given that for a species to survive its members must procreate, and if they do not then that species will not survive.

The theory of evolution period is far better established than the theory of natural selection (and the case for natural selection, as you can see, is extremely good). Speciation has been observed, not just once or even just a handful of times, and can be inferred from living creatures and the remains of their ancestors for most creatures alive today; there just about isn't anything alive today that we can't state we've found some ancestor of, and in most cases it's a very near ancestor. Living things have been around a long time, and when we look at what things were buried and preserved that lived a long time ago, they look nothing like the things we see today. Merely by supposing that life is not spontaneously generated, it's easy to see that life must have changed; and if those things are both true (and the evidence that says they are is extensive, comprehensive, and essentially irrefutable), then evolution must have happened.

So when you go up against the theory of evolution, you're fighting a truly enormous body of evidence, and when you go up against the theory of natural selection, you're fighting some pretty obvious features of the world around us. It's pretty silly, actually.

No.
You can not use absence of evidence as evidence.Actually, that's only true if you're trying to prove something. If you're gathering evidence, then an absence of evidence of a particular event can be significant. For example, a dog lives in a stable; during a particular night when it is known the dog was there, it is alleged that an individual that does not know that dog broke into the stable and performed some mischief. The dog, however, is known to be particularly savage, and will bark loudly and attack anyone it does not know if they attempt to enter the stable. No one can be found who reports that they were awakened by the dog, and the accused has not a mark on him. How likely is it that that individual perpetrated that mischief?

Other circumstances, you see, can inform your interpretation of an absence of evidence, and they must be taken into account. In this case, we have rabbits that are capable of eating only certain sorts of things, because they cannot digest others; we find none of those things, and we find no rabbits. Rabbits are also known to be highly prolific. How likely is it that we just missed the rabbits, they were really there? Not very.

In this case, you're asking essentially for proof of the unprovable. No human was there, or ever will have been. Not everything that dies is fossilized. But we can still state with high confidence that in fact, there were no rabbits then; it's approaching astronomical odds that had there been rabbits then, a few at least would have been fossilized, and we'd have found them by now. We haven't. What do you conclude from this evidence?

The fact that no fossil of rabbit has been found in the PreCambrian period can be well explain statistically, from the fact that all the fossils of rabbits have been dated in much recent times, so there is no reason to believe that a fossil of rabbit should be found in the PreCambrian in the same way, that we have no reason to suppose that we will find a fossil of an alien, in the PreCambrianSee there? That wasn't so hard, was it? Now stop chopping logic and start THINKING. The reason we don't find Pre-Cambrian rabbits is very simple: THERE WEREN'T ANY. Simple, easy, obvious.

I would you to clarify this point as, AFAIK, evolution requires hundreds of generations or more, to workTo accomplish what purpose? For a new characteristic to appear? Not at all. That happens, as Kotatsu states, in a single generation. For a new species to appear? Perhaps- but if we're talking about bacteria, then a generation can happen in a single hour. Flu forms a new species every year, just about. It doesn't take long, Matteo. It depends what you're talking about.

If you can not predict what the mutations will be, how can you predict that there will be mutations at all?
I am confused.Because the causes of mutations are well-known, and happen all the time. They don't always produce mutations, but cosmic rays are sleeting down around us every second, every day, every week, every year, every decade, every century, every millenium, more and more and more and more forever. They never stop. A few of them cause mutations. This is the nature of the world, Matteo.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

It's not an impossibility. It's been done in the lab. Surely you've seen the species that have had the "glow in the dark" gene found in jelly fish grafted in to them. Those lab creations are proper examples of the chimera I'm talking about (and are a product of intelligent design).

Man splicing genes is evidence for possible falsification of ToE?

When man splices film does that mean that the same producer created both films?

You don't need to do it from fossils. There are countless creatures alive on Earth now. Find me a set of three creatures such that A appears closely related to B, B appears closely related to C, yet A and C don't also appear closely related.

You are setting up an impossible task. We know from our study of genes that similar creatures have similar genes. You can only presume from this fact that similarity denotes lineage.


Of course it's relevant to the point. Your point was that the tree was built on a presumption of evolution and it was not.

Good on you for being able to tell me what my point is when you quoted me stating exactly what my point is.

How come you got it wrong?

[Schneibster]

Mark me totally unsurprised that JDG would turn out to be a cretinist.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Mark me totally unsurprised that JDG would turn out to be a cretinist.

Sorry about your luck.

I only think that the ToE is not good science.

I know not what the correct answer is.

[Schneibster]

Sorry about your luck.

I only think that the ToE is not good science.

I know not what the correct answer is.OK, let's try this:

If we go digging around in the rocks, we find that there are layers, and the fossils we find in different layers are different. Almost all of the fossils we find very commonly in one layer are totally absent in other layers, whereas those other layers have their own fossils that are totally absent from all others. If we suppose that the only way living creatures come into the world is from other creatures, then what must have happened?

That's the theory of evolution. That's all there is to it. There's nothing more.

You can go on and elaborate it a bit, and say that the closer those layers are to the top, the more like the things that are alive today those fossils look. But that's unnecessary to the theory you've just declared "unscientific."

Do you have some alternative theory you'd like to propose about why that's pretty much what we find whenever we dig up fossils, considering that we've done so hundreds of thousands of times all over the world?

[RecoveringYuppy]

Man splicing genes is evidence for possible falsification of ToE?
It was a refutation of your claim that my definition of chimera couldn't exist. Since they exist they can exist.

You are setting up an impossible task. We know from our study of genes that similar creatures have similar genes. You can only presume from this fact that similarity denotes lineage.
It's only impossible because evolution is a theory based on the facts. And, yeah, it's a real stretch that the stuff we inherit might be evidence of lineage isn't it? That couldn't possibly be true could it? Guess we've been really stupid trusting paternity tests all these years.

Good on you for being able to tell me what my point is when you quoted me stating exactly what my point is.

How come you got it wrong?
You said the tree was built on a presumption of evolution. It was not.

[JEROME DA GNOME]

OK, let's try this:

If we go digging around in the rocks, we find that there are layers, and the fossils we find in different layers are different. Almost all of the fossils we find very commonly in one layer are totally absent in other layers, whereas those other layers have their own fossils that are totally absent from all others. If we suppose that the only way living creatures come into the world is from other creatures, then what must have happened?

The problem here is that the layers move. They are not uniform. Again we find circular thought in placing the layers (which are not in reality layered) in time frames based upon the fossils found within the layer.

That's the theory of evolution. That's all there is to it. There's nothing more.

Yes, that is the ToE. Assumptions proving assumptions.

You can go on and elaborate it a bit, and say that the closer those layers are to the top, the more like the things that are alive today those fossils look. But that's unnecessary to the theory you've just declared "unscientific."

Here you are incorrect. The layers are not uniform.

Do you have some alternative theory you'd like to propose about why that's pretty much what we find whenever we dig up fossils, considering that we've done so hundreds of thousands of times all over the world?

One does not need an alternative theory to discount an invalid theory.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Me, I'm waiting to see whether anyone's going to notice that echidnas have spurs on their legs too, in just the same place anatomically speaking as platypuses, but no poison glands.

That was on the Wiki page I linked to about venomous mammals. Apparently JDG didn't read it.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Look, I have spent few hours to reply to Kotatsu, discussing the same topics I am discussing with you.
I hope you will not mind if I reply to this post later, when I have time, as I, very honestly, see K. as well prepared on this and I have no time to reply to both of you.

No problem. You guys are getting deeper into the topic so I'll defer to you guys to contintue it and just read and comment on the odd point. :)

[UnrepentantSinner]

The same way an egg laying, poison producing mammal does.

A bon mot is not an "explanation". I asked you to explain how they would fit into the phylogenetic tree since it's your assertion that they would.

If any of the examples you give were to be found they would be extolled in the manner you have extolled the platypus.

Repeating your assertion is not the telling us how your assertion could be true. It's time to put up or shut up and actually explain how those examples would fit.

[Matteo Martini]

OK, let's try this:

If we go digging around in the rocks, we find that there are layers, and the fossils we find in different layers are different. Almost all of the fossils we find very commonly in one layer are totally absent in other layers, whereas those other layers have their own fossils that are totally absent from all others. If we suppose that the only way living creatures come into the world is from other creatures, then what must have happened?

That's the theory of evolution. That's all there is to it. There's nothing more.


Nope.
ToE states that the reasons why " almost all of the fossils we find very commonly in one layer are totally absent in other layers " are due to the mechanism of natural selection and genetic drift.
You need to prove this as well

[UnrepentantSinner]

Skunks are now older than the platypus?

Do you have your irony meter turned off or are you that desperate to try respond?

Define Chimera.

I provided a link to the mythological Chimera which is the context it is used in terms of falsifiability of evolution. I've provided you with a list of Chimeras a number of times now. Are you just being obtuse?

I have never stated that mammals with poison are "some crazy impossible advent". They exist. I pointed that out. I brought them up.:confused:

Then how about you explain why a mammal with poison is so problematic for evolution then instead of just repeating your assertion over and over.

I also has never stated what could not be.

I have, or at least could not be without falsifying evolutionary theory. How about you finally step up to the plate and actually explain how those things I've listed will fit into the phylogenetic tree.

Again, I'm not asking for you to explain a half-frog/half-granite being or a goat with steel horns since those things cannot exist. I'm asking to you explain how a bird that reproduces by budding or a whale with chloroplasts would fit into the phylogenetic tree.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The tree is created from supposition with the presumption that evolution occurs.

No (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#fundamental_unity).
It's based upon multiple (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#nested_hierarchy)
lines of evidence (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#independent_consilience).

[Matteo Martini]

As I have noted a number of times "experimentation" as most evolution deniers would use it is basically mixing two substances in a beaker in the lab. That is not the limits of experimentation and more importantly is not the limitation on predictions since observations of findings are just as good in many fields of science. "Predictions" can be made in a lot of scientific endevours where "experimentation" is not possible - only observations. We can't recreate the primordial solar system to "experiment" on predictions about how it formed. We can only make predictions as to what we will discover based on current theory and evidence or falsify them. The same applies with plate tectonics or evolution.


With plate tectonics and with astrophysics, you can make quantitative predictions ( = in the future ) using a model.
I am trying to find out if you can do the same with evolution, as I am skeptical.
About the primordial solar system, you are partially right, but you are using, in order to describe the primordial solar system, the laws that regoluate the solar system today, which are testable.
Is it the same with evolution?


We can't, since we can't predict exactly what mutations will occur nor what changes in the environment will occur. Mutations are random, we have no idea of which nucleotides or genes or chomosomes will change from generation to generation so we have no way of predicting what the future will hold - evolution doesn't claim to be a prophetic endevour. You're asking evolution to do what geologists can't - predict the next earthquake down to the fault line, date, time and who will be President when it happens.


ToE does not only claim that changes will happen, it claims changes happen for reasons ( which need to undergo test/falsification as well )


My plate tectonics example was about experimentation, not prediction. We have no idea, despite 70 million years of evidence that the Hawaiian islands were created over a Pacific hot spot that that hot spot will continue to spew magma and the Pacific plate will continue to move. We can make some predictions in sciences where there are limited variables (plate tectonics, movement of galaxies, etc.), and some based on others with more variables (meteorology), but we cannot make them beyond a certain range where the variables are totally random (like genetic mutations and environmental change).


About plate tectonics, you can build a mode, calculate the speed of two plates getting near of farther, and check the results experimentally.


You're simply moving goalposts. Evolutinary theory makes a lot of predictions as I noted with the link to the 29 Evidences essays which provide a prediction and potential falsification with every evidence. I also gave you two predictions based on those two new species you cited earlier - the rat will be more closely related genetically to rabbits than to kangaroos and the marsupial will be more closely related to opossums than to humans. Please feel free to save those predictions to your hard drive and correct me if I'm wrong.

The point is that, when I speak about " predictions ", I speak about " predictions " of the future.
If you are talking about the differentiation between marsupials and rats, this is something that happened in the past