Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
Maybe you need to explain why HOW it falsifies the theory? What specific aspect of evolution would it disprove?
My example meets the condition that you gave for falsifying Evolution: speciation via a non Natural Selection process.
In theory. But what can happen is by finding them there we realize our assumption that they shouldn't have been there was wrong.
Or our understanding of geology was incomplete and there is an answer for their seemingly being in the wrong place.
If I observe one example where Natural Selection does not explain speciation, is Evolution falsified?
Why geology? We are talking about evolution's predictions.
Why?
OK, I was talking fossils, but let's say not. We could be wrong about land mass movement and isolated populations were not really isolated.
If we cut open a lemur and found chloroplasts, cell walls, and plant pathways it would be impossible.
The fact that the lemur wasn't green would be a big problem for physics.
If you turned on a flashlight, then opened it up and found it was a stereo speaker inside or a bar of soap, that'd be a big problem for physics, not just something that disproved the light or electrical theories.
If you are simply talking about some similarities in sequences between a lemur and tree that statistically are greater than between a bat and a lemur, that would not necessarily be outside of theory.
No.
Just because you observe one cause does not eliminate other causes. This is a very simple logical idea. That you have such problem with it says a lot about your other arguments. You need to think things through better before going online and posting silly thoughts you think are profound.
"No. Just because you observe one cause does not eliminate other causes." - mlo
Then what would falsify Evolution, if not a physical example of non "Natural Selection" speciation?
An case of a fossil appearing suddenly with a large number of body features not seen in fossils immediately before or around it. That'd do it, I think.
First, consider what predictions can be inferred from evolutionary theory. Then test those predictions.
Here's one, off the top of my head.
Prediction: That DNA sequences along an evolutionary path should show progressive amounts of change. Species near each other on the path should have more similar DNA than species further apart.
Find examples where this is not true and you've falsified this prediction.
Duck-billed platipus. Genetically-altered pigs carrying organs for human medical use.
Platypus: No. I believe VadeRetro went over this with you Here. Unless you'd like to conduct and provide us with a scientific study showing why this is not the case.
Why do you think genetically altered pigs disprove evolution? Be as complete as possible.
How is this related? We can't model things like weather because we have insufficient information resolution (never mind lacking the computing power to use it if we did have high resolution information). For the purposes of coding, noise is NOT information. Real analog signals have a noise floor, and therefore it is simple to compute a digitally coded format that will have the same information content. The noise floor determines (roughly) the smallest incremental change in the analog signal that can reliably be construed as information, which is very analogous to bit depth in digital encoding. Remember that digital signals are actually "analog" (in the sense you are using it) as well but are merely interpreted differently. Both analog and digital systems have noise, but it is found in different places and has different characteristics.
Not only is it impractical to make perfect digital representations of complex systems, it is theoretical impossible.
Not theoretically impossible, but generally impractical. What you are missing is that there is no value in making a digital representation of noise; if you really want noise in a digital signal you can add it after the fact (and if it can't be, then it isn't really noise and can be encoded). At a extremely high resolution, "analog" systems are essentially digital anyway.
I prefer digital audio to vinyl, but not to a live performance with acoustic instruments.
This is a meaningless comparison. Digital audio has (typically) between two and five channels to represent a real space that has hundreds of effective channels. For a number of reasons having to do with how humans process sound in space it is impractical to develop perfect reproductions of audio environments. It should be noted that the technology DOES exist to fully record a three-dimensional space and encode it into two channels that preserve the original feel, but the software process is expensive and has to be custom fitted to the individual. Note that the brain only gets two channels, but there is a very complex integration process that converts the hundreds of channels into the two channels that we actually hear in three dimensions. It is that integration process of hundreds of channels that has to be duplicated in software to give a perfectly realistic sense of space. Definitely not something you'll find at your local record store.
Species near each other on the path should have more similar DNA than species further apart.
Thus, echidnas should have the nearest DNA to platypi. They do.
Did you really read ThinkPlease's post? You try to make everything go away by chanting "platypus," "gene-spliced pigs," "monkeys typing Shakespeare!" You look like a terrified ingénue branishing a crucifix at a vampire.
[Plato the Platypus says: "Would someone deliberately design me?"]
(I know Plato has a sense of humor. Anything that looks like that has to have a sense of humor.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.