[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

It is falsifiable. You just want to falsify it. Which you can't because there is no actually existing evidence to falsify it.

Back to this again. Except you can't define information coherently enough to use it for the actual function DNA.

Yeah, I can.

Not only can you line up hearts from different organisms you can observe the formation of the human heart.

The formation process of the human heart from baby to adult is no evidence for evolution.

And these have phases that look very much like fish and amphibian hearts, and even something simpler, as just two pulsating tubes with interconnections which is very similar to an earthworm's heart.

And noguru's head looks like a manatee's.

Originally Posted by Frayed Knot

Huh? Wouldn't a demonstration that something is impossible, be a pretty solid falsification of it?

Yip.

You keep demonstrating that you have a basic misunderstanding of the terms used in science.

Evolution isn't science.

I see you've backed off your old claim that evolution depends on an increase in the information in DNA. That's good as far as that goes, but what you've substituted here makes no sense. The "integrity of the information in DNA"? What's that mean?

They are pretty much the same thing.

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Evolution is not falsifiable, but we can show it to be impossible. Evolution depends upon an increase in the integrity of the information in DNA. This cannot happen by the natural selection of random changes.

In practice you are probably right but if the ToE is in fact false then there would be every reason to think it could be falsified. Which is one good reason for me anyway to consider it as a fact.
Perhaps you should get out in the field and look for a Precambrian rabbit or two, then I would eat my hat gladly if you found any.
You might even buy me a new one from your Nobel Prize money while you gloat and give up your rickshaw job.

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

You do understand that something can be theoretically falsifiable by particular types of evidence, but that no such evidence might actually exist? Any scientific idea is technically falsifiable, but may not be actually falsifiable (at least at current) if it is actually correct. Take the earth rotating around the sun. How would you falsify it?

If you can *actually* falsify something, it is incorrect. But I thought that would be obvious even to you.

The formation process of the human heart from baby to adult is no evidence for evolution.

The question was "how could vital organs have evolved" being that they are vital. I showed a series of plausible, in that they actually exist, steps.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

You do understand that something can be theoretically falsifiable by particular types of evidence, but that no such evidence might actually exist? Any scientific idea is technically falsifiable, but may not be actually falsifiable (at least at current) if it is actually correct. Take the earth rotating around the sun. How would you falsify it? If you can *actually* falsify something, it is incorrect. chuckle: But I thought that would be obvious even to you.

That's for sciencey things.

The question was "how could vital organs have evolved" being that they are vital. I showed a series of plausible, in that they actually exist, steps.

Oh, right.

Except all your "steps" are still vital organs. And none of them are linked to any of the others.

I think you missed a few steps.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by alwight

I at least am quite happy that it does in fact do that very well indeed based in honest real evidence, without having to force-fit any particular preconcluded doctrinal, supposedly inerrant alternatives.

That's a nice claim. What is the explanation?

Later Edit: It strikes me that even you might agree that evolution of the old Earth variety is a reasonably enough explanation in itself for the available evidence, even if you do think it is mistaken.

Not at all. Evolution is entirely unreasonable according to the evidence.

In that case I suggest that it is now time for creationists to falsify it instead of expecting to have every last detail fully explained for you.

It's your theory. As you explain it I'll show you how it doesn't work long before you fill in every last detail.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

And it is well explained if creationists would actually bother to read the literature, or even a textbook.

But creationists love to claim "evolutionists have no answer" for things that actually have copious amounts of "answers" in the form of published papers and books.

Besides your claim "I'm smarter than you so just believe me when I say evolution is true", what about evolution am I wrong about?

And the copious amounts of answers for evolution are mostly just-so stories. But when you get to the crux of the story, there is no answer.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Yet another *Wrong* Science Friday. Figured out your squid ink issue yet, Bob? Made an on-air retraction this week?

My favorite here: "The guys start the show asking how, theoretically, vital organs could evolve, since by definition, they are vital."

Someone apparently never took comparative zoology. There's a nice progression in complexity (and presence) of quite a number of vital organs.



Here's a detailed discussion

It's really unfortunate that doctors don't learn about the origins of the organs they work on . . . .

Nice pictures. How many nucleotide differences is it between those hearts?

[Alate_One]

Originally Posted by Stripe

That's for sciencey things.

Yeah, like evolution . . . .

Except all your "steps" are still vital organs.

Except if you go back to the worm version, they can survive without a heart. And many organisms do not have hearts at all. If they are so vital, why can some organisms survive without one? And the simplest hearts are just pulsating blood vessels.

And none of them are linked to any of the others.

Sure they are the organisms that carry them are linked. . . . by DNA, by fossils and by observing the hearts during development. If there is a sequence of events that can turn what looks exactly like a worm heart into a human heart, with all the stages in between what makes it impossible for it to occur naturally?

I think you missed a few steps.

Like?

[alwight]

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

That's a nice claim. What is the explanation?

Well no, its not in fact a claim, its actually in fact a fact, that I am personally happy that it is a fact.
While you otoh are not happy with it simply because it doesn't fit happily into your literal version of your doctrine.
Your objections are therefore disingenuous in my view because of an overriding agenda of the Bible being preserved as inerrant at all costs regardless of apparent rationality.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

Not at all. Evolution is entirely unreasonable according to the evidence.

Then we await its imminent falsification and your Nobel Prize is no doubt in the bag.

Originally Posted by Yorzhik

It's your theory. As you explain it I'll show you how it doesn't work long before you fill in every last detail.

I can't take all the credit for it of course.

Can you show me how ERVs in DNA are not strong evidence of common descent?
Or why at the same time geology and astrophysics are not sources of evidence of an old Earth?
Or why adaption clearly demonstrable through artificial selection could not be a parallel of natural selection?
I promise not to steal your Nobel Prize btw.

[Stripe]

Originally Posted by Alate_One

Except if you go back to the worm version, they can survive without a heart.

And cockroaches can survive without heads. Hardly any evidence that they evolved. So far you've got four pretty drawings and your say-so.

Got any evidence?

And many organisms do not have hearts at all.

Are we talking about things without hearts now?

If they are so vital, why can some organisms survive without one?

And the simplest hearts are just pulsating blood vessels.

Still waiting for evidence.

Sure they are the organisms that carry them are linked. . . . by DNA

They all have DNA.

by fossils

They all have fossils.

How many fossilised hearts do we have?

and by observing the hearts during development.

Greetings, Haekel!

If there is a sequence of events that can turn what looks exactly like a worm heart into a human heart, with all the stages in between what makes it impossible for it to occur naturally?

:squint:

What?

Like?

Like all of them. Evolution needs to show how an organism without a heart could develop into one with one, not line up hearts according to size from a hundred different living things and claim that as evidence.

[Yorzhik]

Originally Posted by alwight

Well no, its not in fact a claim, its actually in fact a fact

Yeah! A mighty sophist!

[voltaire]

Frayedknot. You claim that biologists know that complexity is what you get at the end of a evolutionary process. They do not know that. Wishful thinking by biologists does not equate into facts.

[voltaire]

Alwight suggested that it was now time for creationists to falsify evolution. You cannot falsify a series of millions of supposed steps that happened according to natural selection. Natural selection is true. Evolution within kinds is true. Tiny variations or microevolution is true but it is really only micro degradations of a perfectly functioning genome. They are all steps down....not up. The evolution within kinds we see in the fossil record did not happen by darwinian methods. What creationists can falsify is any one particular claim that there was a common ancestor between certain species. I believe i have read a falsification of the supposed common ancestor of chimps and humans.

[voltaire]

------Because they are vital to the organisms that have hearts. An organism with a vital organ cannot evolve into an organism with that organ. A monkey cannot have his heart evolve into something that isnt a heart. He cannot survive if his blood does not circulate, hence the name vital.

[Jukia]

Originally Posted by voltaire

Alwight suggested that it was now time for creationists to falsify evolution. You cannot falsify a series of millions of supposed steps that happened according to natural selection. Natural selection is true. Evolution within kinds is true. Tiny variations or microevolution is true but it is really only micro degradations of a perfectly functioning genome. They are all steps down....not up. The evolution within kinds we see in the fossil record did not happen by darwinian methods. What creationists can falsify is any one particular claim that there was a common ancestor between certain species. I believe i have read a falsification of the supposed common ancestor of chimps and humans.

Please provide a cite to the "falsification" of the chimp/human ancestor.

Also, what is it that causes the inability of evolution to act between kinds? And please define what a kind is first.
thanks