appolose said:
The_vagabond7 said:
iT WOUDL be falsified pretty quickly if they found bird fossiles that pre-date dinosaurs. There are plenty of things that would falsify that claim. Their is plenty of evidence to back the claim from physiology to genetics. And until we can detect gravitons or whatever it is that makes gravity we can only look for evidence that objectsof mass have gravitational force. The whole humans only have 23 chromosomes compared to the 24 of our suppsoeds andcestors would have been a huge falsification forc ommon descent if they hadn't found where they fused (which by the by was exactly what they predicted they would find) on...what was it, chromosome number 2? With the centromeres and tellomers ect..sorry...drinking. Evolution could have been falsified a thousand times over but just about every prediction that the thoery makes turns out to be true. Fuck, they could even predict exactly where in the world to find a fish fossil with the nose on top of it's head and specific features in it's joints and found it. Fuck, give me some time to sober up and I'll look up the name and details on the proper fossils. Making accurate predictions is also a very large part of science and evolution gets that in spades. Large portions of science aren't repetable in a lab simply because of their nature, adn to the extent you can evolve somthing in a lab we've done so. We've speciated plants, and observed the speciation of insects. Other than being able to create new animals on demand in some srt of fast forward biosphere, evolution does everything the scientific method coudl demand of it. the kind of demand you place on it elimates prety much all science except for applied phsyics and some chemistry. But I've talked to you extensively enough to know that you can get a bit wacko, but the poitn stands that as much as we hold something like geology or cosmology to be scientific, evolution is scientific. What;s some good 90s music? feeling nostalgic.
|
Finding a bird fossil the predates dinosaurs (dating methods being another unfalsifiable thing) would not disprove that birds evolved from dinosaurs. It could simply mean that it happened to evolve from something else during that time frame, and not contradict the current belief that the fossil record shows that todays birds are descendents of dinosaurs.
As for evolution being observed today, yes, I would agree that that is science (not that I think it is actually evolution, mind you).
Sadly, I do not know of any good 90's music :(
|
That didn't make nay sense. It woud prove that birds evolved from something other than dinosaurs before dinosaurs existed but not contradict the idea that they evolved from dinosaurs...wat? Disprove half-lives and geology and you disprove dating methdos also. And if selectively breeding plants to have specific alleles changing the phenotype, and genotype to such an extent that they are no longer capable of breeding, AKA speciation is not evolution then what the hell is? Doing it to a cat? Plants don't coutn? Or is it the wacky idea that things can evolve but only a little bit, and sure they can change species an all, but at some point they just stop, I mean you can gradually change the alleles all you want, and change it into a thousand different species but at some point the phenotype just stops for no particular reason, and thusly speciation says nothing about evolution. At some ponti you just have to admit that nothing could possibly count in your mind as sufficient evidence of evolution. You can read Jerry Coyne's book and claim that it's just a bunch of coincedences that don't mean anything, but it's just daft.
