Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

[Gunfingers]

The answer (admittedly off the cuff but I am pretty sure he gets this asked a lot) was examples such as sickle cell trait. He then had to go to the world of viruses.


However, the overwhelming impression that I was left with was that mutations that we see in the human population are almost without exception result in early death (miscarriage, neonatal, early childhood) or severe impairment or mild impairment. None that I am aware of in humans result in an improvement.


Therefore, my acceptance of the mechanism of evolution was called into question.

Can you not understand this?

Your instructor should have shown you
[youtube]TU-7d06HJSs[/youtube]
this video, because it contains several examples of beneficial mutations in humans, and explains that in most cases they are completely neutral. I would actually recommend watching the entire series, it contains a lot of good information.

 

[Noaidi]

Noaidi:
I am all in favour of doing this. However, the issue that I am raising is that the mechanism of evolution requires a large period of time to work where small changes over successive generations give rise to a survival benefit that is then selected by environmental changes/stress etc.

This predicted a gradual change and therefore predicted slow change.

The fossil record show no gradual change but sudden appearance of complicated and varied organisms. No gradual change within species over long periods of time.

You need to consider the rate of speciation. Terms such as 'gradual' and 'slow' are misleading. It implies a level just above stasis, with everything ticking along nicely. Species, in relatively stable environments will undergo a 'slow' rate of change, but in less stable systems, species will be required to evolve rapidly or perish. Given the nature and rate of fossilisation, it is unsurprising to find so-called 'gaps' in the record. The rate of change in a species is not constant - it will vary according to circumstance.
Darwin noted this in 'On The Origin of Species': "Species of different genera and classes have not changed at the same rate, or in the same degree."

We also have to consider the timescales involved here. A speciation event that took 50,000 years would be almost instantaneous in the geological history of that species - a history that could have spanned millions of years.

 

[Christian Doc]

Willamena,

You don't time is essential for evolution? Well, then I think you need to reread this:

Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

"Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life"

It is an essential part of how the theory of evolution supposedly explains the diversity of life. If you do not have the large amount of time, then evolution is wrong.



Gunfingers,

Thank you for the link. However, I prefer links where they are not ridiculing somebody else. But I did find it useful because one of the areas that I am looking to specialise in Osteoporosis and thus the bone density related mutations will be useful.
(I always find the NEJM excellent!)

Painted Wolf

"That has nothing to do with the theory of evolution."

I took the above link from the ones that you recommended. Surely you must see that millions of years is essential for evolution to be realistic to explain the diversity and complexity of life we see?

I do understand the theory of evolution. I understand that it requires enormous amounts of time in order that you can get the numbers of generations required to diversify the species to the point that they are different species. (thus the tree of life in evolutionary theory requires long periods of time)

Revoltingest

Do you think anyone might provide strong evidence for a young earth?

Well, we'll just have to see won't we. I have read that there is evidence that radioisotope half lifes are not as constant as people once thought.



Noaidi

"We also have to consider the timescales involved here. A speciation event that took 50,000 years would be almost instantaneous in the geological history of that species - a history that could have spanned millions of years."

Well, glad you admit that an enormous amount of time is required to fill in the gaps in the fossil record.

"Species, in relatively stable environments will undergo a 'slow' rate of change, but in less stable systems, species will be required to evolve rapidly or perish."

Interesting that you speak of evolution as a driving force. I think that actually either a species will survive or die. Changing is only part of evolutionary theory.

For example, an illustration so that people can see my point.

Lets take organism A. It normally resides on land, eating fruit of trees. Lets introduce climate change that takes away the trees. Evolution says that organism A will change and eat something else or die.

Well, when we observe this now what normally happens is that they die. If you take away the food supply then the animal dies.


Different scenario. Organism C lives in the sea, eating fish. The sea slowly dries out.

Evolution would suggest that organism C will either change or die. The way in which it might change is that it will grow lungs, change its entire structure and walk on earth.

I think the more likely thing would be that it would just become extinct.


The process of evolution being driven quickly by environmental pressures just doesn't seem to work. If you change the environment rapidly, animals die. Thats what happens. They don't become different animals rapidly (by rapidly, I will be generous and given 10 generations even though the climate can change rather rapidly in a local area), they die.

Evolution thus requires long periods of time and slow climatic change.

Or it needs a new mechanism.



If evolutionist conservationists really believed that evolution could work rapidly why would they try to save endangered species? Why not just let them change rapidly in response to the climatic change?

 

[Freedom21]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[DeitySlayer]

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Would you care to elaborate on that intellectual milestone?

 

[painted wolf]

I took the above link from the ones that you recommended. Surely you must see that millions of years is essential for evolution to be realistic to explain the diversity and complexity of life we see?

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies over time... this can happen in just a couple of generations. Regardless of if you start with several "kinds" or not... deep time or not ...doesn't change that.
The young Earth creationist model requires MORE evolution than any other.

I do understand the theory of evolution.

Then you wouldn't use the "bacteria are still bacteria" canard.

I understand that it requires enormous amounts of time in order that you can get the numbers of generations required to diversify the species to the point that they are different species. (thus the tree of life in evolutionary theory requires long periods of time)

Actually speciation can happen in just a few decades. This has been shown both in the lab and out in the field. Several times actually.

wa:do

 

[Willamena]

Willamena,

You don't time is essential for evolution? Well, then I think you need to reread this:

Evolution 101: An Introduction to Evolution

"Over a large number of years, evolution produces tremendous diversity in forms of life"

10,000 isn't a large number of years? But really, it requires generations, not years. The website oversimplifies.

 

[Noaidi]

Interesting that you speak of evolution as a driving force. I think that actually either a species will survive or die. Changing is only part of evolutionary theory.

Natural selection is the driving force. Species adapt or die in a changing environment.

The process of evolution being driven quickly by environmental pressures just doesn't seem to work. If you change the environment rapidly, animals die. Thats what happens. They don't become different animals rapidly (by rapidly, I will be generous and given 10 generations even though the climate can change rather rapidly in a local area), they die.

I think you may be over-generalising. If you change the environment rapidly, many may die. Some will survive because they can adapt quickly enough to the changing conditions.

If evolutionist conservationists really believed that evolution could work rapidly why would they try to save endangered species? Why not just let them change rapidly in response to the climatic change?

Good question, and one that could be tackled on a new thread (to avoid side-tracking this one). Here, morality comes into the equation. Anthropogenic species extinctions can be avoided and we have a duty (IMHO) to reduce the rate of extinctions if we can. Many species are currently endangered because of the way a single species (us) lives a life of greed and wants (huge overgeneralisation there, but you see what I'm getting at).

 

[evolved yet?]

Your instructor should have shown you
[youtube]TU-7d06HJSs[/youtube]
this video, because it contains several examples of beneficial mutations in humans, and explains that in most cases they are completely neutral. I would actually recommend watching the entire series, it contains a lot of good information.

Frubals, I'm surprised that christian doc hasn't tried to counter this yet.

 

[Skwim]

Hi All,

I have not been ignoring this thread as people might think. I have been busy this weekend as moving into a new flat. Also my internet connection is very slow and makes posting here rather frustrating at the moment - I have lost a number of posts due to my internet connection.

Then someone has been making a slew of posts in the "Question for Creationists" thread under your name. Might want to check that out.

 

[Gunfingers]

Frubals, I'm surprised that christian doc hasn't tried to counter this yet.

He did, he said AronRa is mean.

 

[evolved yet?]

Ooops, didn't see that, what a pathetic excuse.

 

[logician]

I have read with interest that people here dismiss Intelligent Design as unscientific because it can not predict anything, therefore it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.


But, is evolution falsifiable?

What does it predict?


My understanding was that it initially was thought to give rise to millions of intermediate species, which should be found in the fossil record. So Darwin died in the hope that the fossil record would show that there are millions of intermediates. Species would take millions of years to develop.

What do we find?

There are few if not no intermediate species in the fossil record.
The Cambrian explosion.

So, is evolution shown to be false?

Nope, the theory just evolves! Evolution now happens very quickly when it needs to.


So - what evidence would need to be uncovered to disprove/falsify evolution?

You are going on a false premise.

Evolution is FACT, just like the study of Physics or Astronomy.

There are various Theories in the study of evolution, as in physics or astronomy, such as the one of punctuated equilibria by Gould and Eldridge, that atttempt to explain the mechanics of evolution, but that evolution has occurred is not questioned.

 

[camanintx]

If the age of the earth was shown to not be millions of years but thousands of years then the theory of evolution would not be able to account for the diversity of species.

And yet you have no problem with the millions of species existing today all being descended from the handful of animals which survived a flood just 4,500 years ago.

 

[Biblestudent_007]

He did, he said AronRa is mean.

I had a debate with him! . .

 

[Gunfingers]

With Christian Doc or AronRa?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Well, where did I throw the "entire science of biology" out?
I worked very hard for my degree in medicine.

You're not an MD, are you?

Perhaps an undergrad degree in pre-med?

Did you get your "degree in medicine" online?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Then I go to medical school. We had lectures on genetics, with particular attention to mutations - particularly relevant to medicine of course.

It seems to me that critical thinking skills would be required for admission into a repudable school.

IMHO, medical doctors and researchers who refuse to assent to a theory of evolution can do great harm, failing to recognize the growing or lessening of the natures of the causes of illness and etc.

Would you mind telling us which school you attended so we can make sense out of your claims? That is to say, we can understand why you ignore basic science and completed med school if you went to AiG School of Medicine in Dreamland, Kansas. Or perhaps did your residency at Cracker Jack Hospital.

 

[Krok]

I have read with interest that people here dismiss Intelligent Design as unscientific because it can not predict anything, therefore it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.?

Not only that. It’s not scientific because it doesn’t even have one little piece of evidence for it. I hope you know that “evidence” is the first bit of information you need to follow the scientific method?

But, is evolution falsifiable?

Yes, for example, the theory was proposed before anyone knew about DNA. DNA could have falsified the ToE in one go. It didn’t. In fact, it just confirms ToE. Now you only need DNA to confirm evolution. Nothing else. DNA is enough.

What does it predict?

Evolve yet? has given you a very good answer.

My understanding was that it initially was thought to give rise to millions of intermediate species,.....

Well, there’s a few million intermediate insect species around and your understanding was flawed, anyway....

.... which should be found in the fossil record.

No, it should actually not be found. Do you know how difficult it is for anything to fossilize?

So Darwin died in the hope that the fossil record would show that there are millions of intermediates......

Why do creationists always have to twist the truth? He never expected “millions” of “intermediates”. He didn’t expect any. He was not anticipating any at all.

Species would take millions of years to develop.

We develop species in a few months in the lab. In nature it takes a few generations. Look at those Nylon-eating bacteria. Look at ring-species.

What do we find?

Exactly what Darwin predicted.

There are few if not no intermediate species in the fossil record.

We’ve found quite a lot. The fact that you've got neither the education nor the intelligence to recognize what a transitional fossil is, won’t change reality.

The Cambrian explosion.

We know exactly how long the Cambrian Explosion lasted. We also know that not even one example of modern organisms can be found in any Cambrian rock. Everything we know developed later. So much for creation in six days.

So, is evolution shown to be false?

You can do it Doc! Start digging! Get some Precambrian rocks and start digging! In my country, there’s lots of Precambrian rocks where you could start digging! I’ll give you a hint: thousands of qualified scientists have tried. No one has found even one little bone of any modern vertebrate in all those rocks. If you’ve got a point to prove, then start digging.

Nope, the theory just evolves! Evolution now happens very quickly when it needs to.

All scientific theories evolve. Even Newton’s theories have evolved. Einstein did it better! It doesn’t mean that Newton was wrong, though. Einstein had more information to his disposal.

So - what evidence would need to be uncovered to disprove/falsify evolution?

One little Precambrian bunny. Or a cheetah. Or a human. Or an elephant. Name it. Start digging and you can do it!
(I still doubt that you’re a doctor.)

 

[angellous_evangellous]

(I still doubt that you’re a doctor.)

If it's true, it's terrifying.