What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[metis]

I am in bed using my tablet. It uses Bing. Bing sucks. I tried a technique that works on Google, I copied and searched a long phrase. It did not work. But I found this article that estimates the number of generations for a complex eye to be only 400,000 in number:

Evolution - A-Z - Evolution of the eye

Ah, the eyes have it!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm curious about your statement, "We don't have the information to calculate the probabilities in the evolution of eyes."

I'm just sharing with you my thought process here:

Although a single mutation may have a large effect, we know from many studies the odds of genetic mutations and we have immense knowledge about development, speciation and genetic drift, recessive and dominant traits, etc.

But we may put that aside and do more simple math:

Your claim (and I like to go from the hypothesis method, we assume you are correct and then we can go down the path together) is "The evidence says that it did" (meaning a priori evolution works without ID and eyes developed 30 times independently).

Number of species: Estimates of the total progeny of evolution range from 5 to 50 billion species. Yet, only an estimated 5 to 50 million species are alive today. These 5 to 50 millions were obviously best adapted/evolved.

Let's take the least conservative estimate (to give the math a chance, pun not intended). Among 50 billion species, eyes independently evoled 30 times, that is, every 1.5 billion species will have 1 that evolves an eye. Sounds like great odds to me (I'm being serious). Sounds eminently reasonable.

This page advocates against ID and IComplexity: Evolution - A-Z - Evolution of the eye and says "The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octupus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy."

Ah, but the eyes that evolved independently 30 times had to also evolve connection nerves to a/the brain, focusing mechanisms, placement on the animal, and about 100 other mechanisms you and I can try to name if we're so inclined. Don't doubt it, my own eyes focus to different distances, have contracting pupils to admit different amounts of light, correct spherical and chromatic aberration, and my brain processes sight so I can catch a thrown ball that comes to me on parabola, etc., etc., etc.

For another example I find fascinating, parts of my eyes must make tiny vibration to see something the width of a single human hair, etc.

All these things and more (if your speciality was molecular biology or the inner workings of a cell you'd say HUNDREDS of mechanisms and THOUSANDS of genetic mechanisms in DNA, even millions) evolved per phylogeny perhaps 30 separate times. But you "don't know the odds", right? You don't see that the odds are astronomical? You don't see that no fossils are extant where the eyes of a species are located in the wrong place on the animal (like on their behind so they randomly evolved to see what lies behind them instead of oncoming objects)?

The last is, of course, because, random evolution has tremendous power to evolve working mechanisms, of course. It all makes sense in a blind faith sort of way (pun intended).

Your main response to IC and ID is "The evidence says that it did, so your odds are wrong. Sorry."

Which can be redacted to:

"Only fully formed species, with properly working eyes, are extant in the fossil record and exist in modern species, which can be interpreted as either GodDidIt or EvolutionGodDidIt."

Let's not talk about this any more until you think through the odds--that would be appropriate for taking the SAME data as I and assuming random processes. Occam's looking at the amazing creation that is an eye(s) says a designer did it.

I'm curious if you are ever going to defend your position? But I am curious to see a lot of things that I will never see.

Don't presume to speak for me using your own bias to replace my meaning.

Your understanding of the evolution of structures is so perverse no wonder you cannot come to any understanding of the phenomenon. Structures and organs do not evolve independently and then hook up with the rest of the body. Good grief, where do you come up with this nonsense?

No one has the information to calculate the odds of eyes evolving a priori.

Perhaps instead of inserting numbers without reference or claiming papers without attribute, you might actually read up on the subject you so clearly no nothing about. Your arguments are so pathetic, simply because you do not know anything about the subject matter you pretend expertise with.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm curious about your statement, "We don't have the information to calculate the probabilities in the evolution of eyes."

I'm just sharing with you my thought process here:

Although a single mutation may have a large effect, we know from many studies the odds of genetic mutations and we have immense knowledge about development, speciation and genetic drift, recessive and dominant traits, etc.

But we may put that aside and do more simple math:

Your claim (and I like to go from the hypothesis method, we assume you are correct and then we can go down the path together) is "The evidence says that it did" (meaning a priori evolution works without ID and eyes developed 30 times independently).

Number of species: Estimates of the total progeny of evolution range from 5 to 50 billion species. Yet, only an estimated 5 to 50 million species are alive today. These 5 to 50 millions were obviously best adapted/evolved.

Let's take the least conservative estimate (to give the math a chance, pun not intended). Among 50 billion species, eyes independently evoled 30 times, that is, every 1.5 billion species will have 1 that evolves an eye. Sounds like great odds to me (I'm being serious). Sounds eminently reasonable.

This page advocates against ID and IComplexity: Evolution - A-Z - Evolution of the eye and says "The complete evolution of an eye like that of a vertebrate or octupus took about 2000 steps. Nilsson and Pelger used estimates of heritability and strength of selection to calculate how long the change might take; their answer was about 400,000 generations. Far from being difficult to evolve, the model shows that it is rather easy."

Ah, but the eyes that evolved independently 30 times had to also evolve connection nerves to a/the brain, focusing mechanisms, placement on the animal, and about 100 other mechanisms you and I can try to name if we're so inclined. Don't doubt it, my own eyes focus to different distances, have contracting pupils to admit different amounts of light, correct spherical and chromatic aberration, and my brain processes sight so I can catch a thrown ball that comes to me on parabola, etc., etc., etc.

For another example I find fascinating, parts of my eyes must make tiny vibration to see something the width of a single human hair, etc.

All these things and more (if your speciality was molecular biology or the inner workings of a cell you'd say HUNDREDS of mechanisms and THOUSANDS of genetic mechanisms in DNA, even millions) evolved per phylogeny perhaps 30 separate times. But you "don't know the odds", right? You don't see that the odds are astronomical? You don't see that no fossils are extant where the eyes of a species are located in the wrong place on the animal (like on their behind so they randomly evolved to see what lies behind them instead of oncoming objects)?

The last is, of course, because, random evolution has tremendous power to evolve working mechanisms, of course. It all makes sense in a blind faith sort of way (pun intended).

Your main response to IC and ID is "The evidence says that it did, so your odds are wrong. Sorry."

Which can be redacted to:

"Only fully formed species, with properly working eyes, are extant in the fossil record and exist in modern species, which can be interpreted as either GodDidIt or EvolutionGodDidIt."

Let's not talk about this any more until you think through the odds--that would be appropriate for taking the SAME data as I and assuming random processes. Occam's looking at the amazing creation that is an eye(s) says a designer did it.

How can there be meaningful discourse with you when you do not have the requisite knowledge to properly address and support your own position or knowledge of biology and math necessary to make a case? You seem to think that the eyes found in different animals are all derived from the same genetics, tissues, embryonic origins and possessed of the same structures. How could they be? Not being that way, the only reasonable place to seek explanation is to examine independent evolutionary origins. Given that even someone as unskilled in the arts as you are should recognize that eyes exist in such divergent groups as invertebrates and vertebrates should be a solid clue for you of independent evolution.

I'm done with you too. I don't have hip waders.

 

[gnostic]

If we compare the theory of Evolution to that of Creation, Creation attempts to start its explanation to before time=zero; universe was formless and void. Evolution, starts much much later in time; after abiogenesis. Evolution skips the harder questions in terms of the origins leading to their replicators. This late starting point always bothered me.

Say the theory of Creation decided to play apples to apples, instead of being the only one who tries to do it the hard way. For example, say we got rid of the first chapter of the Bible; Genesis, and started the Bible at the book of Exodus? This change in the starting timeline, sort of takes away most of the arguments against the Creation theory, offered by science and Evolution. It is because Creation takes the harder road; discuss origins, that most of the counter arguments appear.

Instead of being able to take the easy road, what would happen if Evolution takes, was required t to deal with origins as part of its story? What would happen is many scientists would start to speculate, all types of scenarios, making the Evolutionary theory appear much less clear cut. The lower road that evolution takes; shorter timeline, helps create an illusion of being more complete; dice included. This illusion would disappear if they had to take the higher road of origins.

If we started the Bible at Exodus, there is much less provocative theory remaining. The miracles of Moses are easier to explain by natural explanations compared to forming the universe from nothing. The debate between Evolution and Creation is more political than it appears, since this not a level playing field by any rational standard, with science unable and unwilling to expand evolution to origins, like the Creationists attempt to do.

Wow!

This post is full of misinformation BS.

Creation from Genesis, isn’t science and isn’t a theory, for Genesis 1 & 2 offered no explanations.

For creation to be explanations, it would identify and explain in details about the biology of plants, the biology of marine life, the biology of birds, the biology of land animals and humans.

Saying fishes swim isn’t an explanation, nor is birds with wings can fly, nor that some land animals walk or crawl, none of these are explanations, because a kindergarten kids know that much.

There are no details on HOW they can respectively swim or fly or walk or crawl, nothing about their physical anatomy (bone structure, muscles, organs), nothing about their anatomy function (hence physiology).

Explanations, as used in scientific theories, hypotheses, etc, required levels of details don’t exist in Genesis Creation.

You comparing Creation with Evolution, would be like comparing fairytale in children books with Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica (Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, 1687).

Genesis offered nothing of value to science, especially if you seriously believe that Adam was made from the “dust of the ground” (Genesis 2:7), which I would presume the author meant “soil”...all without reproduction and birth, and created magically, all fully grown.

If you readily believe this to be true, then it would be no different from believing in stork delivering baby to mother.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Your simple math is not how one calculates the odds.

How would your math differ?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Where did you cut & paste most of this from as they clearly are not the words you use on a daily basis here?

Rude and also uninformed. I have three college degrees.

 

[BilliardsBall]

How can there be meaningful discourse with you when you do not have the requisite knowledge to properly address and support your own position or knowledge of biology and math necessary to make a case? You seem to think that the eyes found in different animals are all derived from the same genetics, tissues, embryonic origins and possessed of the same structures. How could they be? Not being that way, the only reasonable place to seek explanation is to examine independent evolutionary origins. Given that even someone as unskilled in the arts as you are should recognize that eyes exist in such divergent groups as invertebrates and vertebrates should be a solid clue for you of independent evolution.

I'm done with you too. I don't have hip waders.

I gave a sample eye concept from our human eyes.

Your handwaving and goalpost shifting is obvious, tiresome.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would your math differ?

There is no math to be done. Your argument is fractally wrong. It is time to move on.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave a sample eye concept from our human eyes.

Your handwaving and goalpost shifting is obvious, tiresome.

Which was extremely ignorant. Our eye evolved long before we were human. You would need to go back to when our eye first evolved. You sound as if you are using one of Ray Comfort's incredibly ignorant arguments.

 

[metis]

Rude and also uninformed. I have three college degrees.

I don't care how many degrees you got, when but I read your post, it read very differently than any other post I've ever seen from you. If I'm wrong, sorry.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I gave a sample eye concept from our human eyes.

Your handwaving and goalpost shifting is obvious, tiresome.

I'm not handwaving and moving any goal posts. I'm not wasting my time anymore with you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave a sample eye concept from our human eyes.

Your handwaving and goalpost shifting is obvious, tiresome.

Good tactic! Accuse him of your sins.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't care how many degrees you got, when but I read your post, it read very differently than any other post Ihat 've ever seen from you. If I'm wrong, sorry.

I do take more care writing academic papers then in responding to time-wasting atheists, yes. Ocassionally, I err and make a careful, well-thought argument at RF to have them reply with typical stupidity and anger.

 

[metis]

I do take more care writing academic papers then in responding to time-wasting atheists, yes. Ocassionally, I err and make a careful, well-thought argument at RF to have them reply with typical stupidity and anger.

Well, using stereotypes isn't exactly an act of intelligence or honesty.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Rude and also uninformed. I have three college degrees.

That's cool and good for you. You're probably very knowledgeable when it comes to subject matter that pertains to the degrees you hold.
But that doesn't make you an expert in subject matter that falls outside of your fields of study though, right?

I mean, I'm sorry to say, you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution very well.
And that's okay, I don't understand atomic theory all that well. So I don't claim any authority on the subject matter and if I started engaging in discussion about atomic theory, it would quickly become obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I do take more care writing academic papers then in responding to time-wasting atheists, yes. Ocassionally, I err and make a careful, well-thought argument at RF to have them reply with typical stupidity and anger.

Really? You make "careful, well though argument"s here? Please point to one. This was not one of them. It failed to make any sense at all. You had no path and yet you tried to make a calculation. You tried to justify it on based a very weird misunderstanding of evolution. This argument was one of your worst. Don't get mad at others and call responses to such a juvenile argument as "typical stupidity and anger" that sounds far more like you than us. You have merely been corrected. No one has yelled at you, no one has called you names. People may have laughed a bit, but what do you expect?

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's cool and good for you. You're probably very knowledgeable when it comes to subject matter that pertains to the degrees you hold.
But that doesn't make you an expert in subject matter that falls outside of your fields of study though, right?

I mean, I'm sorry to say, you don't seem to understand the theory of evolution very well.
And that's okay, I don't understand atomic theory all that well. So I don't claim any authority on the subject matter and if I started engaging in discussion about atomic theory, it would quickly become obvious that I don't know what I'm talking about.

Creationism appears in many due to an emotional response to a concept that refutes deeply held religious beliefs. Being a creationist does not necessarily make one stupid or dishonest . But the results are often indistinguishable from those characteristics.

When it comes to scientists that actually work in the field such an inability to reason rationally when it comes evolution can be career ending. Michael Behe is far from being an idiot, yet he constantly looks like one when he tries to defend his beliefs and fails. PBS had a short series on the Dover trial. His part was played by an actor in the series. Some may think that his portrayal was not honest, but it was based upon transcripts from the trial and he has not done much better when he is in a debate. He limits himself these days to creationist sites, even though he accepts evolution.

His demand that there must be a God behind evolution when he cannot find any evidence for it caused him to ruin his own career.

 

[gnostic]

I have three college degrees.

Good for you.

The questions for you, would be:

Are any of these degrees, in biology or in related fields in biology?

And since some of your posts were involving fossils, is any of your qualifications involved in paleontology or something related to that?

If no, then in what fields are your qualifications?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Really? You make "careful, well though argument"s here? Please point to one. This was not one of them. It failed to make any sense at all. You had no path and yet you tried to make a calculation. You tried to justify it on based a very weird misunderstanding of evolution. This argument was one of your worst. Don't get mad at others and call responses to such a juvenile argument as "typical stupidity and anger" that sounds far more like you than us. You have merely been corrected. No one has yelled at you, no one has called you names. People may have laughed a bit, but what do you expect?

I expect you to be irritable and grouchy. You need to take a break from RF, relax, smoke some dope.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, using stereotypes isn't exactly an act of intelligence or honesty.

It's true in this case. Atheists I love, atheists who troll on forums are harder to love, atheists who troll religious forums are stunted emotionally.