Has science falsified macroevolution?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Orogeny
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Orogeny said:
Yep, that ignorant Darwin. Didn’t predict a thing about DNA. BAN HIS NAME FROM ALL SCIENCE BOOKS!!!

Seriously, buffalo, is there a point to this? Are you really surprised that discoveries have been made since Darwin first put forth his ideas? Is relativity to be discarded because it does not work at the sub-atomic level? Really?Ok, Ed Chick, when did you take over buffalo’s post?😉

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Funny! 😃

How many times have you read posts here that trumpet evolutions ability to make predictions?

It’s OK to keep making the point that evolution predicted this and that, but where it fails you turn to such comments? You cannot have it both ways. Let’s be honest about it. And actually am not talking about Darwin himself, but the current evolutionary biologists. What it boils down to is evolution has had its failures in prediction.

What’s fair is fair, no?
 
buffalo said:
Funny! 😃

How many times have you read posts here that trumpet evolutions ability to make predictions?
Click to expand...
Quite a few. I have been the author of many of those posts.
It’s OK to keep making the point that evolution predicted this and that, but where it fails you turn to such comments?
Click to expand...
Do you require all scientific theories to not only make correct predictions but to also predict every single possible outcome or unknown process?
You cannot have it both ways. Let’s be honest about it.
Click to expand...
Honestly, I’m not asking for it both ways. What does the failure to predict all of those things have to do with the predictions that have been made? I am still not clear if you put this requirement on all scientific theories.
And actually am not talking about Darwin himself, but the current evolutionary biologists. What it boils down to is evolution has had its failures in prediction.
Click to expand...
Failure to predict is not the same as failure of the prediction. You do understand that, right?

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
Quite a few. I have been the author of many of those posts.Do you require all scientific theories to not only make correct predictions but to also predict every single possible outcome or unknown process?Honestly, I’m not asking for it both ways. What does the failure to predict all of those things have to do with the predictions that have been made? I am still not clear if you put this requirement on all scientific theories.Failure to predict is not the same as failure of the prediction. You do understand that, right?

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Sure do.

The failure of prediction is HGT. This clearly departs from the Tree of Life.
 
buffalo said:
To use your famous line - so we should stop looking and trying?
Click to expand...
How is that a reply to my statement? If I don’t understand the meaning of a term, I don’t use it. If you don’t understand what “kind” means, regardless of whether or not it will be defined in the future, you shouldn’t use it.

Peace

Tim
 
buffalo said:
Sure do.

The failure of prediction is HGT. This clearly departs from the Tree of Life.
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but I had a long night last night. What is HGT?

What does the “Tree of Life” have to do with your previous post? You complained that Darwinisn failed to predict horizontal gene transfer, junk DNA not being junk, gene expression is controlled by sophisticated regualtory circuits and that bacteria do not solely evolve in random fashion. The failure to make those prediction is not the same as predicting that there is no horizontal gene transfer, etc.

The “Tree of Life” was a conceptualization of how things evolved. That was found to be the wrong way to look at it, but that discovery didn’t in any way falsify any of the theory of macroevolution.

Peace

Tim
 
Orogeny said:
How is that a reply to my statement? If I don’t understand the meaning of a term, I don’t use it. If you don’t understand what “kind” means, regardless of whether or not it will be defined in the future, you shouldn’t use it.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Well, as you know the source of the word is from Genesis. So there is a meaning of this that we do not yet fully grasp.

A few possibilities -

Basic Functional systems
Morphological characteristics
First created distinguishable sources of all living things

Perhaps all of the above.

I suppose the ECF’s should not have used the word trinity either. 😦

Of course we can consult the dictionary:

Kind–noun 1. a class or group of individual objects, people, animals, etc., of the same nature or character, or classified together because they have traits in common; category: Our dog is the same kind as theirs. 2. nature or character as determining likeness or difference between things: These differ in degree rather than in kind.
 
Orogeny said:
I’m sorry, but I had a long night last night. What is HGT?

What does the “Tree of Life” have to do with your previous post? You complained that Darwinisn failed to predict horizontal gene transfer, junk DNA not being junk, gene expression is controlled by sophisticated regualtory circuits and that bacteria do not solely evolve in random fashion. The failure to make those prediction is not the same as predicting that there is no horizontal gene transfer, etc.

The “Tree of Life” was a conceptualization of how things evolved. That was found to be the wrong way to look at it, but that discovery didn’t in any way falsify any of the theory of macroevolution.

Peace

Tim
Click to expand...
Time for a cup of coffee. 😃 Horizontal Gene Transfer. I just don’t want to keep typing it out anymore. 😉

So your claim is there are no failures?
 
buffalo said:
Horizontal Gene Transfer. I just don’t want to keep typing it out anymore. 😉

So your claim is there are no failures?
Click to expand...
That has been his public claim for a long time – “there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory”.

The Tree of Life was a mapping of evolutionary predictions. When that was proven false, the theory of linear descent was falsified. That’s a failed prediction.

Now the claim is that we have the “right” Tree of Life diagrams (the tangled jungle of life), in spite of the many obvious problems one can see with that prediction.
 
reggieM said:
Sure, it supposedly made “facts” more factual. Someday, we’ll have facts that don’t need to be corrected and “certainties” that are not filled with contradictions and errors. The complete overhaul of the so-called, tree of life to now what is a jumbled mass of confusion is the the first step.
Click to expand...
What on earth are you going on about?:confused:
 
M0nkey said:
Again, that evidence is based purely on speculation. Jaw bones on reptiles is just that, jawbones on a reptile; it says nothing of mammals. Your evidence has to go beyond this speculation.
Click to expand...
Not at all, though to be fair most people don’t understand the significance of unique character combinations.

That aside there is overwhelming evidence for common decent.
 
reggieM said:
That has been his public claim for a long time – “there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory”.

The Tree of Life was a mapping of evolutionary predictions. When that was proven false, the theory of linear descent was falsified. That’s a failed prediction.

Now the claim is that we have the “right” Tree of Life diagrams (the tangled jungle of life), in spite of the many obvious problems one can see with that prediction.
Click to expand...
You do all know the horizontal gene transfer only occurs at the very bottom of the “tree”. The “tree of life” is still very applicable to hominid evolution.
 
reggieM said:
If you believe this, then you’re not a Catholic. If you don’t believe it, then you’re spreading lies.
Click to expand...
So which is it reggie? Am I lying about being a Catholic or just an athiestic liar?

Why can’t I use the same argument you use to besmirch science?

Peace

Tim
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top