Jump to content


Photo

Is Tiktaalik Still Considered A Transition To Land Dweller?


  • Please log in to reply
154 replies to this topic

#41 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:39 AM

I'm not sure what point this comment is following from...  But here's the thing.  I think in Evo-Land it's safe to assume that if an aquatic creature is going to evolve onto land, then it will need to go through some kind of amphibian transition.  But there are no rules in Evo-Land that say this transition had to occur at some point in the Devonian rock layers. 

 

It would help to conceptualize this if you imagine that we have no knowledge of the fossil record.  Pretend no fossils have been found.  Now, what does evolution theory tell you about where we should find different types of fossils?  It really doesn't tell you much of anything.  What if we go digging in our hypothetical fossil record and find reptiles and mammals mixed up in the Devonian rock layers?  If I put my Evo-Goggles on, I can simply conclude that there was a rapid land adaptation at this point.  I will then construct Evo-Theory around what I have found in the fossil record.  Do you see how Evo-Theory can accommodate many different fossil patterns?  (Sure, each pattern would have its own strong and weak points, but evolutionists are adept at playing up the strong points, and relegating the weaker points as mere enigmas to be solved at a later date.)

 

This is what evolutionists have done with the actual fossil record. 

 

I understand now what you are saying.

But there is a common example of "bunnies in the Cambrian" that evolutionists use to demonstrate that evolution is falsifiable.

This claims that if vertebrates are found to exist inbedded in the Cambrian layer that that would blow everything out of the water.

You could apply your argument here as well and say that evo would then simple expand the range of vertebrates.

But science is constantly rethinking it's ideas. In fact, creationists love to pounce on them when they do (teach the controversy)

 

But lets look at the creationists creed:

"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."

 

This is from answers in Genesis and something like this appears on most every other creationists website.

 

So while science, I will argue, rationally examines evidence and is forced to make changes in their ideas everytime contradicting data is introduced, creationism boasts that anything contradictory must be interpreted somehow to fit their ideas.

 

 

I guess this point can be argued which side does this and which side doesn't, but consider that while science is supposed to change it's conclusions based on new data, creationism cannot and will not by creed, change any ideas based on new data



#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:46 AM

But lets look at the creationists creed:
"By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record."
 
This is from answers in Genesis and something like this appears on most every other creationists website.

This is worth its own thread...

#43 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:49 AM

Done!...

http://evolutionfair...5784#entry99299

#44 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 12 January 2014 - 09:38 AM

I understand now what you are saying.

But there is a common example of "bunnies in the Cambrian" that evolutionists use to demonstrate that evolution is falsifiable.

Evolutionists say the same thing about finding "higher" land mammals in any Paleozoic layers.  For the same reasons I've already described.   On another note, it's basically the same thing as me, a young Earth Creationist, saying "Rabbits in the Cambrian would falsify YEC, because we know the Cambrian layers represent where underwater, benthic ecosystems were first buried".   There, now YEC is equally as falsifiable as Evolution.  Would you be satisfied with this?  Or maybe you see how silly such falsification criteria is?

 

This claims that if vertebrates are found to exist inbedded in the Cambrian layer that that would blow everything out of the water.

I think you mean land-based vertebrates. (as vertebrates are already found in the Cambrian).    Yes, based on current evolution theory,  this would be very problematic.  But current evolution theory was fashioned around a fossil record which shows consistent absence of fossils of terrestrial organisms in the lower Paleozoic layers.  Of course it is safe to make that prediction now.

 

Think about it this way,  current Evo-theory already acknowledges an "explosion" of body plans in the Cambrian, with scarce evidence of any kind of morphological origin.   In our thought experiment of discovering an alternate fossil record (before the advent of modern Evolution theory), what would be so different about having a hypothetical "explosion" of organisms adapted to land, much earlier in life's history?  Would this not simply be treated as a curious enigma as the Cambrian Explosion is treated today? Evolution has no rules against such a progression.

 

We could even think of memes and explanations for these alternate fossil records:

 

The Vertebrate Explosion of the Silurian: When fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, rapidly diversified underwater and on land due to exploiting a huge environmental niche offered by the development of a backbone. 

 

Some of the same transitional-looking forms could be cobbled together.  They don't have to be in order.  We've already demonstrated that in the discussion about Tiktaalik and the earlier tetrapod trackways.

 

You could apply your argument here as well and say that evo would then simple expand the range of vertebrates.

But science is constantly rethinking it's ideas. In fact, creationists love to pounce on them when they do (teach the controversy)

The scientific establishment only rethinks ideas in the context of Evolution.  Alternate hypotheses... not even alternate hypotheses, the mere hint or suggestion that Evolution may not have occurred, is completely censored.   I know people have this need to believe scientists are generally objective and self-critical, but it simply is not true, most especially when it comes to anything related to the subject of origins. 



#45 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 12 January 2014 - 10:07 AM

I think you mean land-based vertebrates. (as vertebrates are already found in the Cambrian).  

 

Oops, ya, I did mean that...thanks

 

 

Yes, based on current evolution theory,  this would be very problematic.  But current evolution theory was fashioned around a fossil record which shows consistent absence of fossils of terrestrial organisms in the lower Paleozoic layers.  Of course it is safe to make that prediction now...

Think about it this way,  current Evo-theory already acknowledges an "explosion" of body plans in the Cambrian, with scarce evidence of any kind of morphological origin.   In our thought experiment of discovering an alternate fossil record (before the advent of modern Evolution theory), what would be so different about having a hypothetical "explosion" of organisms adapted to land, much earlier in life's history?  Would this not simply be treated as a curious enigma as the Cambrian Explosion is treated today? Evolution has no rules against such a progression.

 

 

I must be misunderstanding, this seems to say that science must conform to the evidence.

I would think that would be a good thing.

 

Perhaps this is another topic, but what would be the alluvion explanation for predicting Tiktaalik's location.

I know of hydraulic sorting, and sorting by hierarchy, are there other explanations?



#46 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 12 January 2014 - 11:02 AM

I must be misunderstanding, this seems to say that science must conform to the evidence.

I would think that would be a good thing.

There's nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis around the data.   

 

What I am trying to demonstrate is that the fossil record can hardly be used as evidence for Evolution, (or as a condition which Evolution predicted), when Evolution could accommodate a myriad of radically different fossil sequences.  And then when evolutionists turn around and say "See how falsifiable our theory is? If we found Species Fossil X inside Rock Layer Y, then Evolution would be disproven."   But the modern theory of Common Descent was developed to accommodate the fossil record.. do you see the deception in this?

 

 

Perhaps this is another topic, but what would be the alluvion explanation for predicting Tiktaalik's location.

I know of hydraulic sorting, and sorting by hierarchy, are there other explanations?

 

The Flood model, like Evolution theory, attempts to form hypotheses or explanations to accommodate the fossil record.  Flood geologists would predict Tiktaalik's location the same way evolutionists did.. by focusing on rock layers which seem to represent the most relevant ecosystem.  The prediction is based on raw fossil data, and not the theoretical origins of animals.

 

As for a Flood model explanation for the fossil sequence, I think would be best generalized with Ecological Zonation(habitat), and Species mobility.  There is a dominant pattern of ecosystems that begin on the ocean floor, and progressively rise upwards towards amphibian ecosystems, and then land based.  This would represent an order of rapid burial by vertical/elevation habitat.  Species mobility considerations would factor into the general separation of reptiles and mammals.  Mammals are much faster and much greater stamina then reptiles.  If floodwaters were steadily inundating the dry land,  higher land mammals would easily distance themselves from reptiles while in search of shelter on higher ground.  (some reptiles would already be living at higher ground)   Whales, Seals, and other aquatic mammals would not be expected to be found in the bottom rock layers, because unlike ecosystems that are bound to the sea floor,  they are fast deep-water swimmers, that could easily evade a marine avalanche/burial type of event.  Intelligence would also play a factor. 

 

There are some good summaries of fossil sorting mechanisms here:

http://creationwiki....ting_mechanisms



#47 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 January 2014 - 02:31 PM

There's nothing wrong with forming a hypothesis around the data.   

 

What I am trying to demonstrate is that the fossil record can hardly be used as evidence for Evolution, (or as a condition which Evolution predicted), when Evolution could accommodate a myriad of radically different fossil sequences.  And then when evolutionists turn around and say "See how falsifiable our theory is? If we found Species Fossil X inside Rock Layer Y, then Evolution would be disproven."   But the modern theory of Common Descent was developed to accommodate the fossil record.. do you see the deception in this?

 

I agree. The scientific method is based on the following procedures

 

Observation: Observe phenomena

Hypothesis: Make an educated guess as to the cause of said observations

Experiment: Test your guess

Result: Interpret data

 

What you have described is that evolutionists use the initial observation as their evidence for the hypothesis they claim. One of the initial observations made to assume evolution was that there is some similarity within organisms.

 

It would be the same as me claiming the Earth is the centre of the universe because the sun goes around us and then use that as my evidence. In fact I believe this was the old way of doing science, in that one simply assumed a cause that seemed reasonable and that was it. However with the advent of the scientific method this is not acceptable. The third on the list is Experiment, which means evolutionists need to undertake some form of test in order to demonstrate that their claims are indeed correct. An experiment is done empirically in that it must be observable, measurable, repeatable and falsifiable.

 

Its a bit silly to use the initial observation as their evidence...

 

 

Man 1: I observe X so I think Y is going on

Man 2: How do you know that X is causing Y

Man 1: Because X is occuring

 

The elephant in the room is the fact that even if X is occurring it doesn't demonstrate that Y is the cause. Since Y was simply claimed to be the cause by Man 1, this proves nothing.

 

I guess it all goes back to the assumption of "Evolution did it" ;)


 



#48 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 12 January 2014 - 05:20 PM

I agree. The scientific method is based on the following procedures

 

Observation: Observe phenomena

Hypothesis: Make an educated guess as to the cause of said observations

Experiment: Test your guess

Result: Interpret data

I'm not a man of science but does this work?

 

Observation: stratigraphic record shows different fossils separated by rock layers.
Hypothesis: These fossils show a progression of aquatic animals leading to terrestrial animals.

Experiment: Go to the exact layer where you think one of the transitional animals would be found and predict that you will find one of the missing elements.

Result: Finding the exact hypothetically predicted animal helps supports your claim.

 

It would be the same as me claiming the Earth is the centre of the universe because the sun goes around us and then use that as my evidence. In fact I believe this was the old way of doing science,

 

Science proposed the Earth was the center of the Universe?wink.png

Actually, I always thought the old way of doing science was to find evidence that the Bible was literal.

 

Again, not a science person, but what part of science isn't based upon assumption?

 

Isn't everything based on the assumptions of the findings of those before us?

Do we need to prove Newton's and Einstein correct everytime we send something into orbit?

 

Your ideas are based on assumptions as well.

 

And how does the idea that it's a big conspiracy disprove anything.

I've never made it in a science journal but I'll wager that conspiracy theories will get you published?wink.png



#49 nonaffiliated

nonaffiliated

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 694 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 44
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • USA

Posted 12 January 2014 - 06:05 PM

There are some good summaries of fossil sorting mechanisms here:

http://creationwiki....ting_mechanisms

 

Thanks for the link.

I  wasn't familiar with the ecological zonation idea, and the link helped me to understand what was being proposed earlier.

I had only known of hydraulic sorting, and

There are some good summaries of fossil sorting mechanisms here:

http://creationwiki....ting_mechanisms

 

Thanks for the link.

I  wasn't familiar with the ecological zonation idea, and the link helped me to understand what was being proposed earlier.

I had only known of hydraulic sorting, and differential escape as the explanations of the geologic column.



#50 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 12 January 2014 - 07:08 PM

I'm not a man of science but does this work?

 

Observation: stratigraphic record shows different fossils separated by rock layers.
Hypothesis: These fossils show a progression of aquatic animals leading to terrestrial animals.

Experiment: Go to the exact layer where you think one of the transitional animals would be found and predict that you will find one of the missing elements.

Result: Finding the exact hypothetically predicted animal helps supports your claim.

 

And my understanding is that this is exactly how they found Tiktaalik.  Based on other fossils, they narrowed down the timeline when Tiktaalik (transitional fish to land dweller) would have existed, surveyed the geologic column for exposed rock with an estimated age within the timeline, and then went looking ... way, way up in Northern Canada of all places.  And that is where they found it ... which, to me, is rather remarkable.



#51 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:22 PM

And my understanding is that this is exactly how they found Tiktaalik.  Based on other fossils, they narrowed down the timeline when Tiktaalik (transitional fish to land dweller) would have existed, surveyed the geologic column for exposed rock with an estimated age within the timeline, and then went looking ... way, way up in Northern Canada of all places.  And that is where they found it ... which, to me, is rather remarkable.

 

I believe this point was already refuted by someone else in that they used ecology not evolution to identify the layer.

 

Whilst I agree the evolutionists finally got something right, the issue is that even if their times all fit, it doesn't fit the footprints which were found to be older than Tiktaalik. Now logic would dictate that if Tiktaalik is in the wrong timezone for its first appearance, then the "data" used by evolutionists to find Tiktaalik would also be in the wrong timezone, thus making it all useless. The same applies to the other transitions which fit in with Tiktaalik, since Tiktaalik is out then all the others would be too.

 

However what I'd like to ask, how is that TESTING the hypothesis? As I said there could be an unknown cause for such an observation,  meaning your "experiment" has no falsification in that it doesn't directly demonstrate that your guess of causation is THE correct cause.

 

I already explained that simple observation of a pattern doesn't TEST anything



#52 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 12 January 2014 - 08:32 PM

I already explained that simple observation of a pattern doesn't TEST anything

Gilbo, have you ever heard the evolutionary escape-clause when the patterns don't fit anyway? It's actually a very reasonable argument but it also demonstrates that evolution has an accommodation for any finding. Even the Cambrian bunny can be absorbed in their ad hoc stories.

The argument is that a fossil found doesn't put a clear limit on the start of a body plan. So a fossil dated 70 million years old may just be the static ancestor of the true missing link which is much older but not yet found. Again, actually quite reasonable but a demonstration that evolution is really just a catch-all that affords for lots of story-telling.

It also makes the Evolution Unplugged thread viable from the evolutionist's own perspective but they won't touch it.

#53 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 January 2014 - 02:28 AM

Gilbo, have you ever heard the evolutionary escape-clause when the patterns don't fit anyway? It's actually a very reasonable argument but it also demonstrates that evolution has an accommodation for any finding. Even the Cambrian bunny can be absorbed in their ad hoc stories.

The argument is that a fossil found doesn't put a clear limit on the start of a body plan. So a fossil dated 70 million years old may just be the static ancestor of the true missing link which is much older but not yet found. Again, actually quite reasonable but a demonstration that evolution is really just a catch-all that affords for lots of story-telling.

It also makes the Evolution Unplugged thread viable from the evolutionist's own perspective but they won't touch it.

 

Sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis to cover up glaring issues ;)



#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 January 2014 - 08:04 AM

Sounds like an ad hoc hypothesis to cover up glaring issues ;)

Not entirely.

The explanation is perfectly plausible.

For example; I cringe any time a Christian laughs and says, "If evolution is true and we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?"

That argument is well answered by evolutionists and we shouldn't use it or we reveal our ignorance.

On the other hand, the argument I presented above isn't commonly understood by evolutionists either so you won't normally see a well formulated push-back when arguments over out-of-sequence fossils are presented. That doesn't mean the plausibility isn't there. It just means that people aren't readily able to articulate the argument.

The "Why are there still Monkeys?" answer, is the converse response to why younger fossils can be deemed transitional between two older fossil.

The other reason this argument may not be common is, as has been stated, it further reveals the speculative ad hoc nature of Darwinian Evolution.

It also legitimizes my no holds barred thread as a morphology playground. Why they don't take advantage is beyond me ;) ...

http://evolutionfair...ge=2#entry98699

#55 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 January 2014 - 09:11 AM

The explanation is perfectly plausible.


 

The other reason this argument may not be common is, as has been stated, it further reveals the speculative ad hoc nature of Darwinian Evolution.

 

 

It may well be, however the fact that it is used after fossils are found to not fit with their timelines means it is an ad hoc hypothesis since it is a solution created to explain away that specific contradiction.

 

Additionally it demonstrates that evolution is unfalsifiable since anything can now be claimed as evidence, and even if there is something contradicting evolution it can be easily explained away.



#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 13 January 2014 - 10:24 AM

Additionally it demonstrates that evolution is unfalsifiable since anything can now be claimed as evidence, and even if there is something contradicting evolution it can be easily explained away.

Correct. And that is a primary goal of this forum to educate people on how the story-telling and good sounding 'plausible' arguments for evolution never passed empirical muster. Additionally mounting evidence keeps pushing it further and further into oblivion.

#57 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,006 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 13 January 2014 - 11:15 AM

Correct. And that is a primary goal of this forum to educate people on how the story-telling and good sounding 'plausible' arguments for evolution never passed empirical muster. Additionally mounting evidence keeps pushing it further and further into oblivion.

 

Conclusion: Evolution is unfalsifiable. This is evidenced by the numerous ad hoc hypotheses (convergent evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium), created to explain away contradictions.

 

Not sure how evolutionists can debate this point since we have two glaringly obvious examples to draw from ;)


  • want the truth likes this

#58 lifepsyop

lifepsyop

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 656 posts
  • Age: 30
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Maine

Posted 13 January 2014 - 11:35 AM

It may well be, however the fact that it is used after fossils are found to not fit with their timelines means it is an ad hoc hypothesis since it is a solution created to explain away that specific contradiction.

 

Additionally it demonstrates that evolution is unfalsifiable since anything can now be claimed as evidence, and even if there is something contradicting evolution it can be easily explained away.

 

On a genetic level, it's the same thing as "incomplete lineage sorting" (ILS)

 

We do observe ILS occurring today, as it is a natural consequence of population genetics.  However, in the context of evolution theory, it is invoked to explain away nearly any amount of genetic discordance, or ERV-like phylogenetic markers ending up in an unexpected lineage.  This makes phylogenetics non-falsifiable.  Concordance? Evolution.  Discordance? Evolution.

 

But evolutionists have trouble making that connection.  They just assert that, because it is observed today, then it is a valid explanation for discordant data.  They don't seem to understand they are now using a model with practically no potential for falsification.   This seems like one of the worst scenarios you could find yourself in from a scientific perspective, but they don't seem to mind all that much....



#59 want the truth

want the truth

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 86 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • n/a

Posted 13 January 2014 - 11:54 AM

"Conclusion: Evolution is unfalsifiable. This is evidenced by the numerous ad hoc hypotheses (convergent evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium), created to explain away contradictions."

 

Don't forget to add parallel evolution to that list!!!

 

How else would the ostrich (inhabits Africa), emu (inhabits Australia), and rhea (inhabits S. America) all evolve into similar organisms on completely different continents??

 

 

smile.png



#60 StormanNorman

StormanNorman

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,134 posts
  • Age: 46
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Pittsburgh, PA

Posted 13 January 2014 - 12:02 PM

Conclusion: Evolution is unfalsifiable. This is evidenced by the numerous ad hoc hypotheses (convergent evolution, Punctuated Equilibrium), created to explain away contradictions.

 

Not sure how evolutionists can debate this point since we have two glaringly obvious examples to draw from wink.png

 

If the next species for which we decode its entire genome does not fit in any way into the genetic hierarchy, then universal common descent will have been falsified.  And my understanding is that much of the theory of evolution is based upon UCD ... which might imply that it would falsify the entire theory ...  but, I don't know that for sure.

 

Now, as far as fossils go, I agree that an odd fossil here and an odd fossil there (like the T-Rex with possible soft tissue) isn't going to falsify the theory on their own because of the proponderance of physical evidence thing.  But, if it is significantly more than here and there, then maybe.

 

I also don't have a problem with "ad hoc" hypotheses .... as new data/evidence comes in, one may have alter different hypotheses to accommodate the new information; however, if the alterations create unlikely situations or even contradictions, then one may be out of luck with the current hypothesis.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users