I explained it to you ... and yes evolution is not falsifiable (regardless of your part bird, part worm, part crab, part human thinking that not finding such a creature falsifies it).....Still you seem to fail to understand falsifiable means.
"if"... your hopes all begin with 'if' If only you can find that 'if' to falsify something. just the imagination of something not being possibly does not make it impossible and therefor falsified. I know that you know this but what i can't understand is why you keep on claiming that just because mushrooms are not humans proves your point.Relativity would be falsified if the orbit of Mercury conforms to Newtonian physics. We could potentially measure the orbit, and find it conforms to Newtonian physics, and relativity would be refuted. However, when measured, it turns out that that is not the case. So while relativity is falsifiable, it is not falsified.
Please re-read my above response.Evolution would be falsified by existence of mermaids. We could potentially discover mermaids, and evolution would be refuted. However, that is not the case. So while evolution is falsifiable, it is not falsified.
LOL ok so you first need to repeat evolution ..and nobody has done this... sure Darwin magically tried to link micro evo to macro evo by the little birdie beaks changing over several generations due to eating habits ....but even after 100s of generations all you get is a big beak bird or smaller beak birdie. .... if one wishing to try to simulate darwinian evo.... well then that actually fails , thus making darwinian evo false...and therefore falsifiable... but then again it is just a scientific simulation performed by several PHDs... and peer reviewed.:Do you see the difference between falsifiable and falsified? Good science, like evolution, is falsifiable, but is not falsified.
I have disabused you of your knee-jerk thinking about dogs evolving from modern wolves.... in a very open and peer reviewed scientific study...that was even backed up in many ways by your smithsonian link...but you seem to still believe what you want to... cool...it get it....agendas are stubborn things.You really need to understand this to be able to have any credibility in a discussion about science.
Incorrect - on many levels. So so false to think that nothing in science is proven. This is very easy to correct you on:It is in effect proven, but technically it is not. Technically nothing in science is prove, but a lot is so certain that it is effectively proven.
Can you show this forum where a 1 pound bowling ball on this planet falls at a unpredictable rates as another 1lb bowling ball of the same dimensions and ambient conditions? ....the math behind it proves that they accelerate at the exact same rates and fall accordingly in response to the varying environmental circumstances...... proven by sound science.
Sure, you probably put a bit of faith in gravity.... since you don't fully understand it (nobody here fully does) and science has to deal in theory about it.... but it is so so far above the theory of evolution that you wish and hope to proclaim as "effectively proven" when you can't even prove were dogs came from... nor humans...nor dolphins... nor cows... nor giraffes ..you have to at least admit that you are relying on a broken fossil record and just so stories of how it really works even though there are so so many missing links and gaps and unexplained complexities about the massive and purely un-darwinian appearance of life forms in the CE. (yeah... lol 'effectively proven'... maybe in your agenda mind).... so so many leading scientist would disagree with you.... and i'd tend to pick their thinking vs yours.
Yes, i agree. there are many experiments in the lab.....or computer simulations... and even in real life observations to somehow ...some may show macro-evo... so far all misses. Even with all our touting about understanding of DNA and genetics.... we have performed well over 55K guided mutations on the fruit fly... in hopes to prove evolution is possible... maybe we can get a claw... or a tail... or even a fin.... but all that keeps happening is either a dead fly,.. blind fly or wingless fly..Your claim that it is not prove is technically right, but only because technically no science is proven.
Experiments to confirm evolution are being done all the time.
please don't make silly assumptions or try to prop up your failed position by mistating my position. I don't stat anything about evolution being just bad reasoning.... what i do state is some of the bad reasoning you attempt in support of Evo... but not that evo is just bad reasoning....
Fossil digs are not experiments. The Tikitalle (sp) fossil was such a transitional golden boy farce that they had to bury it after it was shown that a real fully developed tetrapod stepped all over the scientists predictions of where it must exist in the fossil record... Basically stiff arming any evolutionists in the face and pushing back their science by as much as 19 million years ..something that science could not explain.What is repeatable is the various experiments that lead to evolution being supported. That could be finding fossils at a certain point in the geological column, and with certain radiometric dating. That could be a genetic comparison, or a comparison of other biochemistry, such as a protein sequence, between species.
yes you have, and they are greatly appreciated as it gives me a better understanding of why you believe in what you think you believe in... and offers me ample counter peer reviewed links to show why you might be on shaky ground ( in other words ... not proven...not even generally accepted science .. and therefore falsifying your claim of "confirm evolution"... you seem to jump to easily to conclusions.I have linked to several articles in our discussion. All give great examples of the types of experiment that are done and that are repeatable and that confirm evolution.
In respects to God...or an Intelligent Designer... that is correct. It cannot be scientifically principled. I really hope you grasp that much. your science cannot test metaphysics. If we want to discus quantum physics then we can better deal with things like the mind... consciousness right and wrong (morals...NDE...etc).. I suspect we'll delve into these areas once we exhaust the hard sciences of biology and morphology. All of which are legitimate.What do you mean by that? You seem to be admitting creationism cannot be science.
Silly.. why the dishonesty? I have linked many URLs to support my position... why try to be dishonest and claim such silliness? 'nothing" lol really? please go back and re-read for comprehension. you yourself openly tried to counter my links so that makes me wonder about your intellectual honestlyI have linked to numerous articles that support evolution. You seem to have nothing but empty claims like this.
You fail to understand gene expression. and how different it is between all those (70% similar) you point to .. the expression is far far different.But "dumb random blind mutations over long spans of time" perfectly fits what we observe.
Oh dear... you seem to be mislead again... are you relying on Wiki? or Cal-Berkly?The really interesting thing is how the variations fit so well with evolution. Here is a list of species indicating the number of differences in the amino acid sequence compared to that of humans.
- Chimpanzee 0
Please take a day to step back and read up on the FOXP2 differences between humans and chimps. you seem to claim that there are 0 amino acid differences but there are so many.... this is just one... - there are more - why would you say there are 0?
In chimpanzees, FOXP2 differs from the human version by two amino acids. A study in Germany sequenced FOXP2's complementary DNA in chimps and other species to compare it with human complementary DNA in order to find the specific changes in the sequence.
This, by the way, is a great example of how experiments in evolution are repeatable. You can do this analysis for yourself, and repeat this example experiment. Or pick another protein and do the experiment for that.
not really... it grasps at assumptions that you should clearly pick up on.
pretty cool artist renderings.. but common design is not common ancestry..See also here:
How does creationism explain this? It cannot. So it pretends it does not exist - which, I am sorry to say, is what I guess you will do here,