Defending the Tale of the Whale

[T_aquaticus]

@Rhythmic_supercat

I’m highlighting that they could be true, but I can’t verify it,

Why can’t you verify it?

@Rhythmic_supercat

I can’t verify that these predictions were made, but I’ll grant them that they did.

It’s a rather obvious prediction. If cetaceans evolved from terrestrial mammals then there should have been species at some point that had a mixture of cetacean and terrestrial mammal features. We can look at fossils to see if there are any that have that mixture of features.

@Rhythmic_supercat

What i don’t see in the individual fossils of a species that I’ve seen on the internet are any changes within that one species that would clearly indicate it is in fact changinging to something else.

What changes are you looking for?

@Rhythmic_supercat

We are shown two different species that have some differences as we see in extant animals, but In the one species on it own, we don’t see any small changes pointing towards it becoming something else, not from what I have seen so far, maybe you have seen them, so I happy to have an update on this type of information.

Again, what changes are you looking for?

@Rhythmic_supercat

No, I can verify that they work by using them after they are fixed, that’s the verification. .

Given your stubbornness in other posts, I doubt that you would even count that as a verification.

@Rhythmic_supercat

If I was stopping myself i wouldn’t be in this forum. The issue is, the methods you use to verify isn’t something I can follow. Think back to the whale language eg I gave earlier, so your process that you send me simply are out’ve my depth as it is for most people. Can you acknowledge that most people will not get a grasp of rock dating methods?

It’s just a matter of want-to and time. If you want to learn this material there is nothing stopping you.

@Rhythmic_supercat

None of that proves that you can prove evolution to be wrong. Maybe there was a miscommunication here???. That was showing 29 evidences for macroevolution being true, [unless I’m reading it wrong, which wouldn’t be the 1st time] YES, you can throw out some hypotheses and theories as new information comes in, but as I stated you can’t prove the overarching concept of evo to be wrong.

You can prove the overarching concept of evo to be wrong. It is a very falsifiable theory. The link I gave you lists 29 such potential falsifications. Here is an example:

Potential Falsification:

When it became possible to sequence biological molecules, the realization of a markedly different tree based on the independent molecular evidence would have been a fatal blow to the theory of evolution, even though that is by far the most likely result. More precisely, the common descent hypothesis would have been falsified if the universal phylogenetic trees determined from the independent molecular and morphological evidence did not match with statistical significance. Furthermore, we are now in a position to begin construction of phylogenetic trees based on other independent lines of data, such as chromosomal organization. In a very general sense, chromosome number and length and the chromosomal position of genes are all causally independent of both morphology and of sequence identity. Phylogenies constructed from these data should recapitulate the standard phylogenetic tree as well (Hillis et al. 1996; Li 1997).
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1

In other words, the tree of life based on the physical characteristics did not correlate with the tree of life based on DNA sequence then the theory would have been proven wrong.

@Rhythmic_supercat

Yes but these are unfolding in real time and can be tested and observed and repeated. If a scientist can test and observe a conclusion in their own respective labs and get the same results ,then even creationist scientist acknowledge and agree.

You can do the same with the distribution of physical characteristics in both living and fossil species and the DNA sequences of genomes from living and extinct species. This type of data can be used to test conclusions within the theory of evolution. It is all observable and repeatable.

@Rhythmic_supercat

It is the historical sciences that causes a problem. We don’t see one species of animal changing to another species of animal completely different from it’s original form.

The mixture of features in fossils is observable and repeatable. The theory of evolution makes predictions about which mixtures of features you should and should not see.

@Rhythmic_supercat

Currently the bacteria are still bacteria, they have modified so I have read, but are still bacteria.

And humans are still apes, still primates, still mammals, still amniotes, still vertebrates, and still eukaryotes.

@Rhythmic_supercat

If it was however observable, repeatable science. I have no doubt they would also accept historical evolution as tey do with most sciences. I’m not sure if you see why yec creationist have a problem with that. You don’t have to agree with it, but can you understand their reasoning? just out of curiosity.

YEC is misrepresenting how science is done. They incorrectly claim that you should be able to observe the hypothesis. That isn’t how science is done. Observations and hypotheses are separate things. Everything we use to test the theory of evolution is observable right now.