I think, calling a thousands-of-years old book, with chapters written lifetimes later than the actual occurences is more illusionary than old bones turned to stone.
First of all, I do not think bones turned to stone is illusionary. Second, science is not about the “best” theory, it is about obtaining the correct theory.
And yes: a prediction makes a theory falsifiable…. but evolution has not yet been falsified.
Just because we haven’t been able to falsify a theroy yet, doesn’t mean we never can, and doesn’t mean it is not a theory at all because of that.
But you say evolution of today is not a scientific theory, just because we have not proven it wrong yet??
I agree that evolution has not been falsified. My point is that evolutionists have made the theory unfalsifiable. Thus it is not possible to falsify it - and thus only pseudoscience. I never said that evolution was never a theory. I think it is a theory alright - one based on pseudoscience.
To astrology: This has been falsified, i do it every day by comparing my horoscope with my life.
It seems contradicting… but so does quantum mechanics and general relativity, still these later two have proven to be among the most successful theroies in physics ever.
If you see a contradiction, usually means you haven’t fully understood the theory.
But you see, this is the same answer an astrologist would give you if questioned their “prediction.” They would say something like, “No you have not falsified astrology, because you didn’t apply the ideas correctly. You didn’t consider all the proper phases of the right moons; the rising and setting of the correct stars; or the precession of the Earth.” You see, astrology is too “complex” to fully understand. If you ask them why they cannot predict what will happen exactly, they will say it is too complex for even them to understand. Do you see the similarity here?
Now do not get me wrong here. I am not arguing that astrology is science. I am saying that the theory of evolution has the same metaphysical qualities as astrology which makes it a pseudoscience. When you debate against an astrologist, you will never be able to falsify their theory, because it is unfalsifiable.
3. Vestigial organs - … See, both situations are covered - not falsifiable.
here you bring on a thing to “prove” that evolution is fluid…
My five points that I addressed above are the exact five “indirect proofs” that Fin provided for evolution. I never brought them up - only addressed them as not being proof.
Here you say that (a) these organs are not at all an evidence used by evolutionists. Therefore your above claim and argument that is evolution is fluid is flawed. It is simple (and badly done) rethorics.
Let me clarify - at one time, evolutionists tried to use vestigial organs as proof for evolution. Today they no longer use them as proof. However, today when an evolution encounters a vestigial organ (or do not), they can always create a story to explain it.
If you look up, you might see that you claimed just that, that you mixed genetics and evolution…
Where have I mixed something up? Are you saying that the theory of Darwinian natural selection exists within the literature of population genetics? Survival differential and gene frequencies are not the same thing as survival of the fittest. Darwinian natural selection can be shown to have problems without causing a conflict with population genetics. The two theories stand on their own. As I said, evolutionists try to use population genetics to support evolution. Population genetics does not need the theory of evolution.
Survival of the fittest leads to a “genteic sieve”, where genes that put you at a disadavantage will lead to your extinction and the extinction of that gene.
Natural selection does not predict extinction. It only tries to explain it.
Wait: you say here
“evolution is about new information in the genetic code”
please mark that!
another remark: Are you sure that there does not appear a genetic difference between the different finches, one that might put different beaks forward? I am sure there is.
Is the genetic code different? - Yes.
I think the best way to look at this is by looking at the breeding of dogs. Carl Wieland has a good way of explaining it,
“…in artificial selection, with all the various modern breeds of dogs being more specialized than the parent (mongrel) population, but carrying less information, and thus less potential for further selection (you can’t breed Great Danes from Chihuahuas). In all these sorts of changes, …dogs are dogs. The limits to change are set by the amount of information originally present from which to select.”
Thus, no new genetic information is present. The more specialized organism contains a variation of what its parent organism had. Speciation allows for de-evolution. Not evolution.
Evolution predicts the occurence of intermedate steps: Like a mammal which has just “decided” to spent most of its time in water, but still has the capability to walk on land. This we can deduce from looking at our whales today and see that they have a bone-structure that can be accounted to having had legs that turned something else/useless.
Your point sabout “they are no really legs” shows that you do not really follow what is happening in this field. Finding petrified bones of that creature (the whale with legs) was a big thing…
Before we go any further on this whale thing, it is important to note that whales with legs is a myth. I did some looking into this and have found only two species with references to whales with legs. One is the Ambulocetus. I think this is the one that Fin was referring to. The most important thing to note is that this species skeleton is incomplete in all the important areas. From looking at the picture of actual bones found, saying that even 40% of the skeleton was found would be generous. Here is a quote from Don Batten,
“The skeleton is incomplete, with critical parts missing. It is also highly fragmented. To establish hind leg function it is necessary to have the pelvic girdle to demonstrate that the leg bones (femur and small proximal piece of tibia) belong to the rest of the skeleton and to determine muscle attachments. The pelvic girdle is missing!
With the forelimbs, the humerus and scapula are missing which are again crucial to interpreting function, as well as establishing connectedness to the skeleton.”
It is also important to note that the one femur associated with the skeleton was found five meters above the rest of the skeleton. No tail bones (an important part of determining if this was a whale) where found with the skeleton.
Then, even if you ignore the incompleteness of the skeleton and add all the crucial missing pieces, the majority of scientists do not even think this was a whale, but a land only, four legged, animal which had no ability to swim. So much for an intermediate.
The other species in question is the Basilosaurus. This species has been determined to be fully aquatic, not a part-land, part-sea dweller. Initially, it was questioned what the tiny hind appendages where used for. They are now believed to have been useful ‘grasping organs’ during mating. Thus they are not legs and useless leftovers from de-evolution.
So, to say that evolutionists have predicted the intermediates between land mammals and sea mammals, you are correct. However, this prediction is not falsifiable. Because no matter how many times we never find any intermediates, the evolutionists will just say we won’t find it because the record is incomplete. Do you see how they can never be wrong? It is not possible to produce evidence that would refute this so called prediction.
And yes: the theory covers periods of stasis. If the environment does not change, then any “optimization” process will come to an end some time…
Jumps can oocur, and you might notice that one jump some where will end any stasis period you had before, because that one new species puts a lot of pressure onto the old ones.
The Neo-Darwinists theory of evolution (the one we are debating here) does not cover periods of stasis. They say evolution occurred via slow, gradual change. Stasis is long periods of absolutely no change. Slow, gradual change is not a “jump.” Also, when one starts to discuss jumps, one must be careful not to go too far as too large of a jump infers saltation which is very illogical. However, this is exactly what is seen in the fossil record - large morphological gaps.
How comes that there are so many bag-carrying (correct word) mammals in Australia? Because God wanted a special continent, or because that continent split from the rest of teh continents the first, when the “best mammal” was such a type, and stayed pretty isolated from everything afterwards, not having the pressure brought up by a (by chance created and proven “good”) new type of mammals?
Biogeography is an area that evolutionists no longer use to try to prove evolution. This idea fell to the wayside in the 1960’s with the development of plate tectonics and continental drift. Here are some quotes from some top evolutionists which support my claim:
“Biogeography, discipline notorious for idiosyncrasy, or lack of an agreed method.” Patterson, C.
“We conclude, therefore, that biogeography (or geographical distribution of organisms) has not been shown to be evidence for or against evolution in any sense.” - Nelson and Platnick
It is also important to note that in you above example regarding mammals in Australia, the fossil record shows that marsupials also lived on many other continents. Just because they thrive in Australia, does not prove evolution.
Sorry that was so long winded. There were a lot of things to address.