tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post7932504173355497662..comments2023-05-14T14:31:25.733+01:00Comments on The Palaeobabbler: How to falsify evolution using the fossil recordThe Palaeobabblerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-83200302545450416852012-03-05T22:46:47.815+00:002012-03-05T22:46:47.815+00:00Hey Timothy!
It is good to know that you are read...Hey Timothy!<br /><br />It is good to know that you are reading the blog. Sadly I am very snowed under at the moment so I can't blog for a while (I've got a cladistic analysis, a petroleum report, a biostratigraphical study and a dissertation to do, among other things).The Palaeobabblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-62044989056672985172012-02-19T06:34:43.394+00:002012-02-19T06:34:43.394+00:00Hey PB,
Just had to say, thanks for getting back ...Hey PB,<br /><br />Just had to say, thanks for getting back to what you do so well. Keep up the good work, I'll be reading as much as you post.<br /><br />Cheers and God Bless,<br />Timothy FavelleTimothy Favellehttp://www.jesuslovesyourmom.netnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-41832576924123230812012-01-31T22:50:49.511+00:002012-01-31T22:50:49.511+00:00Hey RK,
With regards to anachronistic fossils, it...Hey RK,<br /><br />With regards to anachronistic fossils, it is only those which appear earlier than expected which can potentially falsify evolution; fossils found later than expected would not do it. Additionally, with fossils earlier than expected, it is only really a subset of those types. <br /><br />When we take the nature of evolution and the nature of fossilisation into account, then we should really expect to have some fossils which surprise us and cause us to extend the range of the group in question. <br /><br />With rabbits in mind, simply finding a rabbit a few million years earlier than expected will just extend their range further into the past (we often can't know they were there without fossils showing it). But find a rabbit before some "primitive" traits evolved and there would be problems. For example, rabbits are highly derived mammals, so finding a rabbit before the evolution of basic mammal features, such as mammary glands or fur (the mammalian inner ear bones might be a better choice regarding fossils) and it would make no evolutionary sense. <br /><br />The Talk Origins quotation is not surprising. It confirms that such a find would cause huge problems for the theory of evolution, particularly with common descent. The old creationist "I accept micro but not macroevolution" might even become widespread in such a case, as evolutionary change is observable.The Palaeobabblerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04287371449302573605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5902167463933710289.post-57830042100701368572012-01-31T11:58:00.991+00:002012-01-31T11:58:00.991+00:00PB,
I hope you had a wonderful holiday.
Concer...PB,<br /><br />I hope you had a wonderful holiday. <br /><br />Concerning your point, I'm not sure why you said, “Fossils which are later than expected would not falsify evolution.” Isn't that the very definition of anachronistic? A rabbit in the Precambrian is certainly earlier than expected. However, if such a critter were ever found, I suspect we would read a headline that says something like, “New find shows rabbits evolved earlier than expected.” As you know, I've read many headlines that say almost exactly that about other finds.<br /><br />It's admirable that you propose a way to falsify evolution because most evolutionists I know absolutely refuse to do so. The idea of a rabbit in the Cambrian has been suggested before as a possible way to disprove evolution. However, it must have occurred to some evolutionists that such a thing might someday be found and so they disqualified it in advance as evidence against their theory. Let me give you a quote I found on Talk Origins:<br /><br />"In order to falsify a theory, you need to know what the theory says. Finding an out-of-sequence fossil or an "impossible" animal may not falsify evolution, but it would falsify the particular theories (in this case historical theories) about that group of organisms - for example, if we found a modern rabbit in the Cambrian Era, we would have a massive problem with existing phylogenies. We might even say that if the program of constructing phylogenies based on the theory of common descent were that wrong, there might be a problem with common descent, and abandon that theory. But this, in itself, would be insufficient to falsify the entire set of theories of evolution, although it might be enough to make people think twice about the general set of assumptions on which they are based." <br /><br />http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may05.html#r49 <br /><br />So there you have it. For the truly devout, even a rabbit in the Cambrian would not disprove evolution. <br /><br />Have a great day.<br /><br />God bless!!<br />RKBentleyRKBentleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00566375018731000081noreply@blogger.com