What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[BilliardsBall]

You keep saying this but you never actually demonstrate it.

And not only that, but it's based on long-ago debunked creationist claims going back about 50 years or so. Science has obviously come a long way since then. But seriously, these talking points were old back then. I mean seriously, look at you here talking about how it's impossible for the eye to have evolved. What are you going to do next, quote-mine Darwin? Come on.

Apparently you aren't aware either that scientists have pieced together how eyes have evolved (from, but not limited to), examples in species that exist today all over the world that exhibit eyes in various stages of the sequence of eye evolution that they've pieced together.

The Origin of the Vertebrate Eye - Evolution: Education and Outreach
Visualizing the Evolution of Vision and the Eye
Evolution and development of complex eyes: a celebration of diversity
Eye evolution and its functional basis
Light and the evolution of vision | Eye


By the way, irreducible complexity, as a concept, has been dead in the water for years.

I am aware of the typical arguments. These I've not heard addressed:

Since I have an arched foot with 26 bones in it--and an arch structure is irreducibly complex (the arch falls without each component within) and there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes--what is the statistical likelihood that the arched foot evolved via random processes, most of these processes reducing, rather than adding, information?

Or since the eye is thought to have evolved up to 30 times across different species, what " "?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I hold SIZABLE evidence for God, it is clear you've not studied prophecy or gematria--or know the love of Christ.

Prophecy is one of the huge failings of the Bible, all the Bible code nonsense that I have seen failed. And how does the "love of Christ" help you? I do not think that you understand the concept of evidence in this context.

As to prophecy this article gives reasonable standards for a "true prophecy" and they give the reasons for those standards. I doubt if your prophecies can meet those standards:

Biblical prophecies

 

[Subduction Zone]

Sample questions:

Since I have an arched foot with 26 bones in it--and an arch structure is irreducibly complex (the arch falls without each component within) and there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes--what is the statistical likelihood that the arched foot evolved via random processes, most of these processes reducing, rather than adding, information?

Or since the eye is thought to have evolved up to 30 times across different species, what " "?

An arch is not irreducibly complex, and it is a poor analogy. Arches do not reproduce. That right away makes it a bad thing to compare to. And the evolution of an arch is dead simple. It occurred slowly. Bones are never straight. There is always going to be some variation from being perfectly straight. When the variation is genetic it is affected by natural selection. It only takes a slight edge for an improvement to be introduced into the system. Feet were never "flat". There always was some variation. And if selection keeps the more arched ones in a thousand generations or less an arched foot will be the norm. This is a very easy change.

You should know by now that there are not any examples of "irreducible complexity" that have survived peer review. In fact most of them are so weak that they do not even survive the initial publication process. Behe has lost all of his credibility in the scientific community. There is nothing career ending with being wrong. All scientists are wrong at times or they ae simply not trying hard enough. What is not appreciated is being wrong and then endlessly denying it.

 

[metis]

Behe has lost all of his credibility in the scientific community.

I listened to him debating an anthropologist about 3-4 decades ago, and he literally made a complete fool of himself by positing "evidence" that wasn't even remotely logical. And in the Dover case, he did that again.

 

[Heyo]

Since I have an arched foot with 26 bones in it--and an arch structure is irreducibly complex

Evolution – Arched Foot

Rethinking the evolution of the human foot: insights from experimental research | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242093215_The_evolutionary_history_of_the_human_foot

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Sample questions:

Since I have an arched foot with 26 bones in it--and an arch structure is irreducibly complex (the arch falls without each component within) and there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes--what is the statistical likelihood that the arched foot evolved via random processes, most of these processes reducing, rather than adding, information?

I know there is no point in asking, since you have twice failed to address my questions, but I'll ask a few more anyway.

How is it that you have determined the irreducible complexity of the arch in human feet? For that matter, how have you substantiated irreducible complexity in general? Do you mean that there are no known fossil intermediates or that they simply don't exist and never have? How have you determined that?

I don't know how it would have evolved through random processes. I would say that the probability is pretty small to non-existent, especially given that evolution as we understand it is not a purely random process. What is the theoretical basis that you use to consider evolution as a purely random process?

What significance is it that you see in making claims about purely random processes adding or reducing information in living populations? How does that apply to the observed phenomena of evolution?

Or since the eye is thought to have evolved up to 30 times across different species, what " "?

You lost me even more here. Not only is this not an effective response to my previous questions, it sort of just hangs there for no discernable reason and appears to be a pointless jab at evolution to no logical end.

Are you not aware that the known animals with eyes have different eyes arising from different embryonic origins and some with radically different structures? Do you think that insect eyes and humans eyes are pretty much replicas of each other?

What is the basis for your hanging and ever so empty declaration about convergent evolution of eyes?

 

[BilliardsBall]

An arch is not irreducibly complex, and it is a poor analogy. Arches do not reproduce. That right away makes it a bad thing to compare to. And the evolution of an arch is dead simple. It occurred slowly. Bones are never straight. There is always going to be some variation from being perfectly straight. When the variation is genetic it is affected by natural selection. It only takes a slight edge for an improvement to be introduced into the system. Feet were never "flat". There always was some variation. And if selection keeps the more arched ones in a thousand generations or less an arched foot will be the norm. This is a very easy change.

You should know by now that there are not any examples of "irreducible complexity" that have survived peer review. In fact most of them are so weak that they do not even survive the initial publication process. Behe has lost all of his credibility in the scientific community. There is nothing career ending with being wrong. All scientists are wrong at times or they ae simply not trying hard enough. What is not appreciated is being wrong and then endlessly denying it.

There are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes, because . . . ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Evolution – Arched Foot

Rethinking the evolution of the human foot: insights from experimental research | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242093215_The_evolutionary_history_of_the_human_foot

There are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes, because?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I know there is no point in asking, since you have twice failed to address my questions, but I'll ask a few more anyway.

How is it that you have determined the irreducible complexity of the arch in human feet? For that matter, how have you substantiated irreducible complexity in general? Do you mean that there are no known fossil intermediates or that they simply don't exist and never have? How have you determined that?

I don't know how it would have evolved through random processes. I would say that the probability is pretty small to non-existent, especially given that evolution as we understand it is not a purely random process. What is the theoretical basis that you use to consider evolution as a purely random process?

What significance is it that you see in making claims about purely random processes adding or reducing information in living populations? How does that apply to the observed phenomena of evolution?


You lost me even more here. Not only is this not an effective response to my previous questions, it sort of just hangs there for no discernable reason and appears to be a pointless jab at evolution to no logical end.

Are you not aware that the known animals with eyes have different eyes arising from different embryonic origins and some with radically different structures? Do you think that insect eyes and humans eyes are pretty much replicas of each other?

What is the basis for your hanging and ever so empty declaration about convergent evolution of eyes?

*How is it that you have determined the irreducible complexity of the arch in human feet?*

An arch falls without all of its components in place, and another key indicator--there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes.

It is thought that the simple eye--based on phylogenetic tree lines--evolved up to 30 separate times in different creatures. You find this statistically likely?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I am aware of the typical arguments. These I've not heard addressed:

Since I have an arched foot with 26 bones in it--and an arch structure is irreducibly complex (the arch falls without each component within) and there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes--what is the statistical likelihood that the arched foot evolved via random processes, most of these processes reducing, rather than adding, information?

Or since the eye is thought to have evolved up to 30 times across different species, what " "?

I literally just addressed the eye "argument" in the post you were responding to.

You ignored what I said and just posted it again ... ?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes, because . . . ?

Because you are wrong. That sounds pretty good to me. Didn't you fact check yourself at all?

Even if there were any it would only be a "So what?" argument. It would not support your beliefs at all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

*How is it that you have determined the irreducible complexity of the arch in human feet?*

An arch falls without all of its components in place, and another key indicator--there are no transitory fossils between my arched foot and the flat foot of other apes.

It is thought that the simple eye--based on phylogenetic tree lines--evolved up to 30 separate times in different creatures. You find this statistically likely?

How so? And repeating your false claim does not help you. Why is an arch irreducibly complex? You need something more than an argument from ignorance to support your claim.

 

[Jose Fly]

Evolution – Arched Foot

Rethinking the evolution of the human foot: insights from experimental research | Journal of Experimental Biology | The Company of Biologists

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/242093215_The_evolutionary_history_of_the_human_foot

It took me less than 5 minutes to find that and a few other really good resources that summarize the data regarding hominid fossil feet, including descriptions of specimens that exhibit intermediate traits.

Yet @BilliardsBall just repeats his question as if you'd not posted a thing. It's truly bizarre to watch, isn't it?

 

[Heyo]

It took me less than 5 minutes to find that and a few other really good resources that summarize the data regarding hominid fossil feet, including descriptions of specimens that exhibit intermediate traits.

Yet @BilliardsBall just repeats his question as if you'd not posted a thing. It's truly bizarre to watch, isn't it?

I'll stop replying to @BilliardsBall. I even contemplated to set him on ignore.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'll stop replying to @BilliardsBall. I even contemplated to set him on ignore.

I dunno....sometimes it's quite entertaining to see how they react upon being shown info they were previously sure didn't exist.

But then, I'm kinda odd that way.

 

[Heyo]

I dunno....sometimes it's quite entertaining to see how they react upon being shown info they were previously sure didn't exist.

But then, I'm kinda odd that way.

I'm content when they have embarrassed themselves enough to not be taken serious by others. They can't do any harm any more.

 

[Jose Fly]

I'm content when they have embarrassed themselves enough to not be taken serious by others. They can't do any harm any more.

That makes me wonder.....are there any creationists here at RF who haven't reached that point?

 

[Heyo]

That makes me wonder.....are there any creationists here at RF who haven't reached that point?

There are always new members but overall the creation vs. evolution debates have seriously gone down in numbers.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It took me less than 5 minutes to find that and a few other really good resources that summarize the data regarding hominid fossil feet, including descriptions of specimens that exhibit intermediate traits.

Yet @BilliardsBall just repeats his question as if you'd not posted a thing. It's truly bizarre to watch, isn't it?

I was just waiting for him to admit that Lucy was "human".

 

[Heyo]

I was just waiting for him to admit that Lucy was "human".

She had an arched foot, though not as expressed as modern humans.