Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[YoursTrue]

There is no proof in science. You know that. It has been explained to you.

If I buy a ticket to India I expect I'll be in India after the plane ride. But maybe someone is fooling me...maybe it only looks like India. Maybe it's not India, maybe someone went to an elaborate scheme to make it look like India. So no proof. Unless somehow proof turns up that I was not in India.

 

[GardenLady]

You might also learn that species change does not happen over 1 generation.

I personally have NEVER heard anyone who actually knows anything about the Theory of Evolution claim that species change could happen over one generation. Have you?

Small incremental changes, if they are favorable to survival and reproduction, accumulate over time. The line that is drawn to separate one species from another is necessarily arbitrary. Among existing species, it that dividing line is generally based on reproductive separation.

Try it this way (wish I could remember where I read this--maybe another board member can say?). A proto-human female stands on a plain. Her daughter stands beside her holding her hand. The daughter's daughter holds *her* hand. And the next daughter and the next and the next and they next.... Small incremental changes accumulate over time, each interbreeds with one of their own species.... Then the 400th(?) has reached the biological state we call homo sapiens sapiens.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I buy a ticket to India I expect I'll be in India after the plane ride. But maybe someone is fooling me...maybe it only looks like India. Maybe it's not India, maybe someone went to an elaborate scheme to make it look like India. So no proof. Unless somehow proof turns up that I was not in India.

Exactly. You don't have proof. You have evidence. If you tell me you flew to India and had a marvelous time, how could I know that with 100% certainty (proof)? But if you show me the evidence of the ticket, the itinerary, souvenirs, newspaper and internet articles announcing your arrival, even photos and video perhaps, that is evidence to support your claim. Evidence might be found to falsify your claim, but it would not be proof.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I buy a ticket to India I expect I'll be in India after the plane ride. But maybe someone is fooling me...maybe it only looks like India. Maybe it's not India, maybe someone went to an elaborate scheme to make it look like India. So no proof. Unless somehow proof turns up that I was not in India.

I was in India in 1603. Can you prove with unshakable, 100%, guaranteed for all eternity by everyone that exists that I was not? Or do you have evidence that leads you to confidently conclude that my claim is likely not correct?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I buy a ticket to India I expect I'll be in India after the plane ride. But maybe someone is fooling me...maybe it only looks like India. Maybe it's not India, maybe someone went to an elaborate scheme to make it look like India. So no proof. Unless somehow proof turns up that I was not in India.

Can the volume of evidence be so large and so strong that the uncertainty that still exists is minimized to the point that it is still possible to find falsifying evidence, but not probable?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

If I buy a ticket to India I expect I'll be in India after the plane ride. But maybe someone is fooling me...maybe it only looks like India. Maybe it's not India, maybe someone went to an elaborate scheme to make it look like India. So no proof. Unless somehow proof turns up that I was not in India.

You have mentioned many times how you learned and accepted the theory of evolution as a young student. Based on what you post, there is some not inconsiderable doubt that you understand the theory of evolution enough to accept it or reject it on the basis of evidence. Could it be that your early acceptance was not based on considering the science, but rather on what you thought the expectations of teachers and elders were for you? That would be part of the uncertainty of a claim. You can offer evidence to support your claim, but there is always uncertainty about that claim and no proof for it. It could be that you did just as you claim. But all that observers have is the evidence not that subjective experience.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I personally have NEVER heard anyone who actually knows anything about the Theory of Evolution claim that species change could happen over one generation. Have you?

Small incremental changes, if they are favorable to survival and reproduction, accumulate over time. The line that is drawn to separate one species from another is necessarily arbitrary. Among existing species, it that dividing line is generally based on reproductive separation.

Try it this way (wish I could remember where I read this--maybe another board member can say?). A proto-human female stands on a plain. Her daughter stands beside her holding her hand. The daughter's daughter holds *her* hand. And the next daughter and the next and the next and they next.... Small incremental changes accumulate over time, each interbreeds with one of their own species.... Then the 400th(?) has reached the biological state we call homo sapiens sapiens.

The way the post was worded, I took it to imply change not over a single generation, but speciation to the individual within its own lifespan. That would not be evolution in the sense of the theory. The way that you and @John53 see it is within a generation which is essentially an individual giving birth to a new species. A common creationist fallacy that is also not a claim of the theory of evolution.

That analogy of the continuous line of mothers and daughters holding hands is pretty good in conveying what the evidence supports in light of the theory.

 

[John53]

The way the post was worded, I took it to imply change not over a single generation, but speciation to the individual within its own lifespan. That would not be evolution in the sense of the theory. The way that you and @John53 see it is within a generation which is essentially an individual giving birth to a new species. A common creationist fallacy that is also not a claim of the theory of evolution.

That analogy of the continuous line of mothers and daughters holding hands is pretty good in conveying what the evidence supports in light of the theory.

I don't understand his/her question at all, originally it sounded like they were asking if species change can happen over 1 generation. Maybe English isn't their first language or maybe my English comprehension isn't up to par.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't understand his/her question at all, originally it sounded like they were asking if species change can happen over 1 generation. Maybe English isn't their first language or maybe my English comprehension isn't up to par.

It is historically noteworthy to point out that many have indicated a lack of understanding of her questions and points, often adding why they don't make sense to them. To me, this disparity is more evidence indicating that the claimed understanding of the science is less than as claimed. I don't doubt she believes she understands and well enough to reject portions of science. That often appears to be the case with creationists and others attacking science. But the rejection based on an understanding of basic science and that specific to the topic does not come across to me.

I know that I find it difficult to formulate meaningful questions about subjects I am unfamiliar with. I try to overcome this flaw by learning some basics about the subject that I have questions about. That doesn't seem to be a real interest to some. Perhaps it is a fear that learning more may answer questions they do not want answers to.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't understand his/her question at all, originally it sounded like they were asking if species change can happen over 1 generation. Maybe English isn't their first language or maybe my English comprehension isn't up to par.

I think asking questions and answering them is the basis of an important indicator of the validity of a position. I have noted anecdotally, that some people with certain positions and claims answer questions less often, while their questions, when understood, are answered more frequently and usually with evidence or valid analogies explaining evidence.

You, I and others are experiencing this on other threads. Questions are asked, but remain unanswered. Or the answer is that we are too ignorant to understand. Or that it has been answered in the very items that raise our questions. Further explanation is not offered. To me, that is a good indicator that the position we are questioning is pretty thin and flawed. Perhaps even the person making the claims realizes this and chooses not to answer questions.

 

[YoursTrue]

I was in India in 1603. Can you prove with unshakable, 100%, guaranteed for all eternity by everyone that exists that I was not? Or do you have evidence that leads you to confidently conclude that my claim is likely not correct?

lol ok now you made me laugh. Tell me I didn't laugh...in the meantime, however, while domestic cats resemble lions or tigers, there is simply, as you say, no proof that they evolved. And I personally doubt that lions can be mated to produce eventually small little cats of the domestic variety, but then -- that's me doubting that lions can evolve by crossbreeding of the voluntary kind to become little housecats. But what do I know? And frankly, what do scientists know? As a matter of fact, looking at it closely enough, here's what proof is about ligers and tigons:
"...males of the liger and tigons are sterile so they can’t reproduce. However, the female ligers and tigons, unlike many hybrids, can reproduce with a male tiger and a male lion. So the reproduction ratio of these hybrids is very low and unreliable to the cat species. Ligers and tigons do not contribute to the biodiversity of the cat species."
Can Tigers Mate With Lions: Ligers and Tigons, a Guide rangerplanet.com/can-tigers-mate-with-lions-ligers-tigons …In other words, it's proof of the scientific kind (unprovable of course) that -- lions and tigers cannot successfully produce reproductive offspring in the "long run."

 

[YoursTrue]

It is historically noteworthy to point out that many have indicated a lack of understanding of her questions and points, often adding why they don't make sense to them. To me, this disparity is more evidence indicating that the claimed understanding of the science is less than as claimed. I don't doubt she believes she understands and well enough to reject portions of science. That often appears to be the case with creationists and others attacking science. But the rejection based on an understanding of basic science and that specific to the topic does not come across to me.

I know that I find it difficult to formulate meaningful questions about subjects I am unfamiliar with. I try to overcome this flaw by learning some basics about the subject that I have questions about. That doesn't seem to be a real interest to some. Perhaps it is a fear that learning more may answer questions they do not want answers to.

He is showing that he really did not understand the question/point I was making. And at this point, it's ok. Because it did have some further discussion or elucidation. Perhaps further examination or questioning will 'give the answer,' which of course, there is no "proof" of. An answer being true. When I first got on these boards I believed there are certain proofs in science, such as: vaccines that work. (i.e., polio vaccine, smallpox vaccine, etc.) To me that was proof that the vaccines worked for their intended purpose. I have the greatest respect for those scientists that enabled that search and experimentation and application. Conversely, there is no proof to the theory of evolution. Scientifically speaking, of course. Unless you say there is? Fossils are not proof, but that's my opinion and obviously not everybody's opinion. It seems they're a sure sign in many people's minds of the veracity of the theory, that it's no longer a theory but fact. (I've read that some object to the term 'theory,' because it seems they think evolution is a "law." Not a theory. But anyway - so goes the world.)

 

[Dan From Smithville]

lol ok now you made me laugh. Tell me I didn't laugh...

I have no way of knowing. The only evidence is your claim to have laughed and that I was somehow able to control that response. You want proof, and conclude that this proof you demand is not offered, while your opening line here is offered without proof or evidence. Not only have you been made aware of the standards of science, you cannot meet the burdens of your own demand and have created a double standard.

Once again, proof is not a standard of science. No one is offering proof as the basis to accept any claim, conclusion or theory of science. Constantly demanding it under the knowledge and awareness of this seems disingenuous to the extreme.

in the meantime, however, while domestic cats resemble lions or tigers,

Evidence through homology of morphology that a relationship between these species exists.

there is simply, as you say, no proof that they evolved.

Never will be proof as has been explained to you too many times to count or recall. There is a continually growing body of evidence that is several hundred years old or older that evolution as a theory is sound and explains the observations and evidence we see.

And I personally doubt that lions can be mated to produce eventually small little cats of the domestic variety, but then -- that's me doubting that lions can evolve by crossbreeding of the voluntary kind to become little housecats.

Perhaps, but are you claiming that the ancestor to modern cat species is supposed to be something the size of a lion? Are you claiming that Andre the Giant and pygmy peoples cannot have arisen from the same ancestry and are unrelated? Are you now claiming that your personal doubt is the basis to use to draw conclusions here and in science? I believe that you doubt, but it is not clear that is on the basis of any rational conclusions from the evidence.

But what do I know?

One wonders.

And frankly, what do scientists know?

Much information that has been conveyed to you and others here and elsewhere on this forum and beyond.

As a matter of fact, looking at it closely enough, here's what proof is about ligers and tigons:

Evidence and not proof.

"...males of the liger and tigons are sterile so they can’t reproduce. However, the female ligers and tigons, unlike many hybrids, can reproduce with a male tiger and a male lion. So the reproduction ratio of these hybrids is very low and unreliable to the cat species. Ligers and tigons do not contribute to the biodiversity of the cat species."
Can Tigers Mate With Lions: Ligers and Tigons, a Guide rangerplanet.com/can-tigers-mate-with-lions-ligers-tigons …In other words, it's proof of the scientific kind (unprovable of course) that -- lions and tigers cannot successfully produce reproductive offspring in the "long run."

What do you think this means? Can you explain what you are trying to use this evidence to support?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no way of knowing. The only evidence is your claim to have laughed and that I was somehow able to control that response. You want proof, and conclude that this proof you demand is not offered, while your opening line here is offered without proof or evidence. Not only have you been made aware of the standards of science, you cannot meet the burdens of your own demand and have created a double standard.

Once again, proof is not a standard of science. No one is offering proof as the basis to accept any claim, conclusion or theory of science. Constantly demanding it under the knowledge and awareness of this seems disingenuous to the extreme.

Evidence through homology of morphology that a relationship between these species exists.

Never will be proof as has been explained to you too many times to count or recall. There is a continually growing body of evidence that is several hundred years old or older that evolution as a theory is sound and explains the observations and evidence we see.

Perhaps, but are you claiming that the ancestor to modern cat species is supposed to be something the size of a lion? Are you claiming that Andre the Giant and pygmy peoples cannot have arisen from the same ancestry and are unrelated? Are you now claiming that your personal doubt is the basis to use to draw conclusions here and in science? I believe that you doubt, but it is not clear that is on the basis of any rational conclusions from the evidence.

One wonders.

Much information that has been conveyed to you and others here and elsewhere on this forum and beyond.

Evidence and not proof.

What do you think this means? Can you explain what you are trying to use this evidence to support?

It's amazing to me, maybe not to others, that you don't understand what I think that means. (Amazing.) So let me explain -- it means that if ligers and tigons try to naturally reproduce, they will not contribute to the "biodiversity of the cat population."" See? Get it? OK, I'll explain. It means that if ligers and tigons attempt to reproduce, it's fruitless to further a population of mixed diversity. Which is essentially what evolution claims to be, only slightly different. Want me to explain that?

 

[YoursTrue]

I have no way of knowing. The only evidence is your claim to have laughed and that I was somehow able to control that response. You want proof, and conclude that this proof you demand is not offered, while your opening line here is offered without proof or evidence. Not only have you been made aware of the standards of science, you cannot meet the burdens of your own demand and have created a double standard.

Once again, proof is not a standard of science. No one is offering proof as the basis to accept any claim, conclusion or theory of science. Constantly demanding it under the knowledge and awareness of this seems disingenuous to the extreme.

Evidence through homology of morphology that a relationship between these species exists.

Never will be proof as has been explained to you too many times to count or recall. There is a continually growing body of evidence that is several hundred years old or older that evolution as a theory is sound and explains the observations and evidence we see.

Perhaps, but are you claiming that the ancestor to modern cat species is supposed to be something the size of a lion? Are you claiming that Andre the Giant and pygmy peoples cannot have arisen from the same ancestry and are unrelated? Are you now claiming that your personal doubt is the basis to use to draw conclusions here and in science? I believe that you doubt, but it is not clear that is on the basis of any rational conclusions from the evidence.

One wonders.

Much information that has been conveyed to you and others here and elsewhere on this forum and beyond.

Evidence and not proof.

What do you think this means? Can you explain what you are trying to use this evidence to support?

Now here's a question -- since many people are disturbed by the bombing of places in Ukraine, including a maternity hospital, IF evolution is true - IF death is foretold by "natural selection" or the way things are for humans, why feel bad? Let me guess. It's because some believe that humans evolved to feel bad by natural selection, some of them, anyway, when criminal actions are performed or beheld. Right?

 

[YoursTrue]

I was in India in 1603. Can you prove with unshakable, 100%, guaranteed for all eternity by everyone that exists that I was not? Or do you have evidence that leads you to confidently conclude that my claim is likely not correct?

Maybe you were in someone's genes that lived in India? Or everyone's genes, lol, anyway I don't think so - but maybe you or others do. It generally, however, takes two to make a baby.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Maybe you were in someone's genes that lived in India? Or everyone's genes, lol, anyway I don't think so - but maybe you or others do. It generally, however, takes two to make a baby.

If I were told this, I would doubt it since, humans aren't known to live 418 years which is the time between then and now. I don't have proof that humans cannot live that long, but the evidence I do have does not support that lifespan. But you tell me you need proof that I wasn't there at that time and without it, I must have been there at that time.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Now here's a question -- since many people are disturbed by the bombing of places in Ukraine, including a maternity hospital, IF evolution is true - IF death is foretold by "natural selection" or the way things are for humans, why feel bad? Let me guess. It's because some believe that humans evolved to feel bad by natural selection, some of them, anyway, when criminal actions are performed or beheld. Right?

Here are more questions you will not answer.

What leads you to conclude that natural selection foretells death? What does that mean? Natural selection describes the mechanism of evolution and neither makes it true nor falsifies it. So how do you imagine the falsification of a mechanism would falsify the theory? We would need to find the correct mechanism, but the theory of change in populations over time would remain.

What does the emotional response to tragedy have to do with falsification of the theory of evolution? Where is the connection? Why is the theory contingent on how people respond to tragedy? Responses to tragedy vary along a spectrum and the theory remains. A theory is only useful in the application to what it is formulated to describe. It is not a theory about human emotions. This seems a pointless line of question that only bolsters your personal beliefs and has no bearing on this aspect of science.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It's amazing to me, maybe not to others, that you don't understand what I think that means. (Amazing.) So let me explain -- it means that if ligers and tigons try to naturally reproduce, they will not contribute to the "biodiversity of the cat population."" See? Get it? OK, I'll explain. It means that if ligers and tigons attempt to reproduce, it's fruitless to further a population of mixed diversity. Which is essentially what evolution claims to be, only slightly different. Want me to explain that?

Is the conditionally sterile product of a forced artificial reproduction a good basis to make the conclusion that you are making? They do not naturally reproduce due to a number of barriers to hybridization. Are you claiming uncited evidence that tigers and lions regularly interbreed? Are they only slightly different since they are normally incapable of breeding together? You make a lot of assumptions that you have not validated. I think the diversity between the two species is too great to break the species barrier and all you have found is situation where there is evidence to show that. It is not evidence to falsify evolution, but rather shows that given enough time, organisms with a shared ancestry can no longer effectively interbreed.

It is neither proof for or against evolution. It is simply evidence and evidence that you have misinterpreted.

 

[metis]

Not necessarily. Meaning not all humans insist on having children.

But it still would happen, and probably by this time we easily would see massive worldwide starvation and not just with us humans.