Evolution? How?

C'mon CI. Try to stay with us.

from http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&oi=defmore&q=define:falsifiable

Definitions of falsifiable on the Web:

confirmable: capable of being tested (verified or falsified) by experiment or observation
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

This page discusses how a theory or assertion is "falsifiable" ("disprovable" opp: "verifiable"), rather than the non-philosophical use of "falsification", meaning "counterfeiting." The idea comes from the work of the philosophers Sir Karl Popper and Ernest Gellner.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiable

real life, Only creationists are capable of what you define. You fail to understand the definition of science.

I'm sorry, but I have to ask you to explain what you mean. How is it contradictory? All the molecules are interacting with one another by laws of physics that involves the sharing of electrons or electromagnetically attracted to each other and is not contradictory with the known property of matter because it involves the action of electrons, protons, and neutrons.



What's this about blind chance? I don't understand what you're trying to say, that the likelihood of evolution happening is infinitesmal? If certain organic molecules in certain places and certain conditions are left for billions of years to interact with each other, then the likelihood of evolution is good, and guess what, it's been a long time.

And what is the "chance" of someone designing this world for us? We've certainly never seen it, and how did it come to existence in the first place? Has it always been? Well in that case, you're talking about the Universe and evolution is a part of the processes that occured in primitive species in this universe.




Patterns are observable, and a part of science is to logically connect the dots together. This is the best theory so far and your arguments propose no valid objections or contradictions. If you are looking for a better theory, then you should start gathering datas and logically connecting dots now.



Scientific theories are falsifiable but not in the sense that you are implying. Scientific theories are falsifiable in that if it is proved wrong in valid experiments, it should be discarded for a better theory. However, if it is not proven wrong, it will remain a theory with the possibility of being proven wrong in valid experiments.

I guess we can interpret "scientific theories are falsifiable" to mean more than one thing. Taken in the most obvious terms, the statement is without any foundation, and the writer must show examples to support it.

Sorry, upon re-reading your paragraph I suddenly realised I'd misread it.

This sentence



is what I thought I read and would be false.

You, of course, forget that evolution doesn't really cover what you describe, which is abiogenesis.

Evolution in the strictest terms does not cover abiogenesis.

However, can you do nothing except attack evolution? What do you hope to prove by attacking evolution? That it is false? So what if you do prove it to be false? That does not automatically prove Creationism to be true?

I asked you several pages to provide an argument for Creationism without referring to Evolution. Where is your proof that your viewpoint is correct? I am still waiting and have been waiting ever since my first Evolution vs. Creationism debate. So far, no one has given a satisfactory answer.

If the chance of something happening is infinitesimal and you have billions of years you may very well experience the event. But if the chance is zero, don't skip dinner while you wait.

It is not a matter of wanting to prove or disprove evolution. Nor is it a matter of wanting to prove or disprove the existence of God. What we may or may not want is irrelevant.

What might be relevant is what premises we may choose as a basis for truth and how these axioms are brought to a logical conclusion. You really can't have two contradictory truths.

So what are you saying?

Not really. I think you simply misunderstood the statement.

Poppers own statement is unfalsifiable, and its not even universally accepted. We use it as a "test of kind' for the various disciplines. Dont worry ci, its like Dr Geislers use of aliens in Mclean vArkansas. Its a point of debate , its not a critical component of what "science is"
real life is new to these debates and we cut her some slack.

Good Pat Oliphant Cartoon


http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.ucomics.com/patoliphant/viewpo.htm

See August 23

xingu, That's one of the better ones of late. Thanks for sharing it with us.

The world is hundreds of millions of years old-not a few thousand that the hard core creationists want people to believe. You may not like it, but that won't change the scientific facts.

Humans evolved from small ape like creatures-we weren't created in our current form as hard core creationists want people to believe. You may not like it, but that won't change the scientific facts.

Creationism, and religion in general, are the crutches of frightened little minds who are unable to come to terms with the billion to one accident that represents their existence.

As I mentioned to Farmerman, I think it is the evolutionist's confusion of their scientific theory with 'fact' that may cause the word 'theory' when used in this context, to be misunderstood and disrespected.

Like it or not, evolution is still a theory, unproven and unobserved. You may think that available evidence is best explained when interpreted by evolutionary theory, however your opinion does not elevate a theory to fact.

You still have major hurdles to overcome.

As mentioned earlier, you can start with explaining how life produced itself from non-living materials.

Simple chemicals will need to come together to form complex chemicals. Not just any old chemicals, but dozens of specific substances that will be needed to support the life of the future cell, when it's composition is unknown and unplanned. And they ALL must be there IN THE SAME PLACE ON THE PLANET, accidentally, and in the proper amounts and composition.

(Just so you won't have to look it up, the Earth's surface area is estimated at 197,000,000 square miles. Just getting two of these chemicals into the same square yard at the same time and in the right amounts is going to be fun. You will need dozens, if not hundreds, depending on how complex you want to postulate the earliest cell to be.) Your billion to one odds may have to be revised a bit.

They, in turn, will have to avoid being chemically corrupted, compromised or destroyed by their surrounding chemically rich environment, THEN THEY MUST FIND ONE ANOTHER WHILE GROPING BLINDLY BY CHANCE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE ANCIENT GLOBE while forming themselves into the internal structures that are found in a simple cell. (The concept of a cell in Darwin's day was little more than 'jello surrounded by a membrane'.)

These complex internal structures (some refer to them as micro machines) will then have to again survive chemical destruction from the environment, THESE STRUCTURES MUST BLINDLY BUMP INTO AND FIND ONE ANOTHER WITH THE ENTIRE PLANET AS THE 'MAZE' THEY MUST NAVIGATE and manage to put themselves together into a cell.

When this "magic moment" happens and the supposed proto-cell is formed, it had better got it right. Instant success is necessary. All of the proper processes for self protection from chemical degradation as well as maintenance, feeding, waste disposal and reproduction had better be in place and working well or a quick death will follow. And whatever it needs to eat had better be nearby and in the right composition and amounts.

Sounds like your odds of just one cell are quite a bit steeper than a billion to one. Better get started. A Nobel prize awaits your success.

Oh, did I mention that all of that must be accomplished in a chemical environment that has been postulated to exist but never proven? Maybe you should work on that BEFORE starting your work on self guided chemicals building themselves into a complex, smoothly functioning organism.

(After all that, THEN you can try to explain how thousands of species repeatedly transformed themselves by blind chance into more complex species without the addition of genetic information.)

Well, since you'll be busy for a while, take good care Wilso. Can I get an invite to your Nobel prize ceremony? I kinda feel I might have inspired you if you are successful.........

A theory is supported by the facts and evidence. A theory is a plausible explanation for a phenom, in which ALL the evidence to date supports and NO evidence refutes. Thats the status of evolutionary theory
Just because you dont understand the old Miller-Urey experiment, is no reason to doubt the results.This experiment was carried out in a time when analyses of results were nearly impossible. STill, more than 2% of theyre chemicals formed were either nucleic acids or actual simple proteins. We, back then, didnt have advanced GC units and abilities to analyze individual proteins. We do today and Millers experiment, in even more complex media (like running the atmospheric mixture in a low oxygen clay media) we find even more complex peptides and nucleic acids. We actrually can see the Spectra for specific nucleotides in the cosmos. Cytosine and Adenine are in the stars. Weve found that many meteorites and comet fragments contain more proteins than we know of on earth. Oh BTW , recent geochemistry workings of old sedimenst of 3.5 to 3.7 BILLION years ago, have concluded that the atmosphere was actually more loaded with hydrogen than Millere and Urey thought, tus making the formulation of longchain organics even more a reality. Miller and Urey rule!


The truth is out there real life. Get your head outta your bum.

The only "hurdle evolution has to overcome" is the blind faith of creationists that can't see what's in front of us. They try to rationalize away science, because it threatens their religious belief in creation. I wonder how many more proofs will be required before they wake up from their stupor?

I read an article in The Scientific American some thirty years ago which discussed clays as a likely venue for the combination of long organic molecules--that is my recollection, at any event. FM, was such data out there thirty years ago, or was that speculation current then?

Real

You and your fellow Creationist try to cast doubt on evolution by insisting any unknowns or questions about its process automatically discredits everything that supports evolution.

What you Creationists can't do is provide the quantity and quality of scientific evidence to support your Biblical fantasy as there is to support evolution.

As a matter of fact, you can't provide any valid scientific evidence to support Creationism or the fact that the earth is only 6,000 years old. You trash evolution by bring up things that can't yet be explained and think that's evidence for Biblical mythology.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Question: I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact?

Answer: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof

set, yep, the speculation about clay substrates acting like electron grabbers or catalytic substrates has had a long and fruitful gestation. I dont doubt that ,30 years ago there was discussion about this very thing.The reasons are that "surface chemistry" and collapsible zeta layers phenom was some new stuff about then .

Real Life, you are once again showing your incredible ignorance. The colloquial use of the word "theory" is not what the word means in science. What you know as a theory in science is known as a hypothesis. A theory earns it's title after standing up to scientific scrutiny. Nobody in science questions the validity of Einsteins THEORY of relativity. Because it has stood up to the scrutiny of the finest minds on earth. As has evolution. Maybe you should take your terrified little mind out of the bible, and into a few biology texts. The names of the men in question escapes me at this time, but one fascinating experiment done on guppies in Africa proved evolution in an 11 year experiment. But I expect you're simply to frightened to look.

Because it can't be explained yet, then god must have done it? What a pathetic cop out. People once KNEW the earth was flat. People once KNEW that the sun revolved around the earth. But the earth ain't flat, and the sun doesn't spin around it. If science can't explain it yet, it just means science hasn't progressed far enough. Luckily there are people searching for the answers, instead of sticking their heads up their arses and hoping the questions go away.