Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

[linwood]

Um, no, that wouldn't do it. That would only necessitate a revisiting of prior evidence, and further investigation.

Don`t josh me!

 

[Skwim]

Looks like Christian doc has quit the thread.

Yeah. I'm amazed at the number who continue to take his bait.

 

[Willamena]

Falsifiability doesn't make a theory false, it makes it better.

 

[Atomist]

I think I understand what the question is asking. The current model of evolution can be falsified through a number of observations, but evolution can't be really be falsified since it has been established as fact through the mountains of evidence and observations for it. So all finding any observation to falsify it won't really falsify evolution but change how we thing evolution works.

But I could just be pulling it out of my ***.

 

[linwood]

Falsifiability doesn't make a theory false, it makes it better.

Your joshin` me again!!

 

[Biblestudent_007]

What in the world are you talking about???

Atheism

 

[Alceste]

BTW, to answer the question posed earlier "what if the world is only a few thousand years old":

If this were true, we would already have discovered this using the same experiments that have determined the world is billions of years old. Radiometric dating using a dozen different isotopes with various half-lifes, dendrochronology, ice core sampling, sea bed sampling, sedimentary layering in areas with a predictable annual flood, the list is endless. If all of these fields of study had found that the geological, arboreal, arctic, oceanic, etc record only goes back a few thousand years, THAT would be our current understanding.

That's not the case though - the record in dendrochronology (the study of tree rings) and marine sediment alone goes back uninterrupted (and without any evidence of a world-wide flood, FYI) for 26,000 years.

 

[Autodidact]

I think Atheism is falsifiable.

Interesting. I think this is right. If there were evidence of a God, that would tend to falsify atheism.

 

[LuisDantas]

Come to think of it, you're right. Atheism IS falsifiable, at least for some (very usual) understandings of what a God would be like. And because it is falsifiable yet not proven untrue, it is also respectable.

 

[Autodidact]

It can be used as a philosophy in all sorts of ways ~ in science and explaining origins.

There is faith & reason.

Exactly. The former gives you religion; the latter, atheism.

 

[Christian Doc]

Wow, a lot of posts have accumulated whilst I've been away from the site. I had been tied up with work and having a slow internet connection deterred me from making a quick visit.



I am sorry to see that the attitude of some posters on this thread is so angry, I really do not know what I have said to make people so angry that they can not be civil.

I have been civil and polite throughout all of my posts - I ask people to do the same. There have been many attacks on my degree qualifications and training. I have already said what I want to say somewhere else. Summary - I do have a BSc and MBBS (the standard degree in medicine in UK) from King's College London.


Would you be so rude if you were debating over a coffee (face to face)? I seriously doubt it. All I ask is that you are civil and do not keep on bringing up my qualifications. Note that I have never claimed a degree in geology or palaentology.


With that said I shall try over the next few posts to address some of the points that have come up. There is a lot of material and so I may not be able to reply to all of it here in the space of a morning (the only time free this week).

 

[Christian Doc]

I'm going to not reply to the atheism sub-thread if thats ok.

Gunfinger

He did, he said AronRa is mean.

Who is AronRa? Did they make the video?

I didn't see what I needed to reply to in that video that was not being addressed in the rest of this thread. I noted the few examples of mutations that are under investigation. I thanked you for that because one will probably come up in academic discussions in my work, osteoporosis is a specialist interest. (Or will be the speciality that I am training in) I think it would be misleading to say that the majority of mutations are neutral- that is incredibly mis-representative of what we actually see in genetic clinics.

Pretty much 100% of all mutations I ever had to learn about were harmful - this is obviously due to selection bias. (Doctors only need to learn about the mutations that we will encounter, namely those that will have clinical significance. The classic example being cystic fibrosis, although of course there are countless others).

There is another group that can often be forgotten, which is the vast majority of miscarriages that occur are (when analysed) due to major genetic mutations - most commonly are the chromosome number errors (the trisomy mutations).


So if you were to look at the mutations that actually have an effect on the function of people - you will see that the vast majority are harmful. There were 2 that stood out in that video (bone strength, which would be harmful if he had to swim; the Spanish family who can smoke and drink etc and still live to 100) where there was some benefit.

Neither would lead to genetic isolation. They could conceivably lead to selection although I think that modern medicine has taken us beyond the realm of natural selection. I have heard it being argued that human evolution has stopped due to the development of human technology and the ability to change his environment.


The alternative solution is that humans are a completely separate "kind" and so there is only scope for evolution within that kind. So the reason we do not see evolution working in humans is because it does not happen in humans nor has ever happened in humans. (My understanding of the word "kind" will be fleshed out in a later post)



But ultimately that video didn't offer much more to discuss. Is there anything you had in mind for me to counter?

 

[Christian Doc]

Painted wolf

The young Earth creationist model requires MORE evolution than any other.

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.

I agree with the above statement. Does your second statement not support the possibility of the first?


After this post came a lot of vicious nonsense, which I have replied to in a previous post. I only have one more question to ask though -


Angellous - you say in your profile that you are a Christian. Is this true? If so, is that really how to treat a brother in Christ?

9-10ths Penguin

I think the confusion might be coming from the fact that there are two separate issues here:

- evolution
- common descent

Regardless of how long the Earth has existed, the mechanisms of evolution are testable and supported by evidence. If you were to somehow show that the Earth is actually very young, this would speak against the idea of common descent, but it wouldn't necessarily speak against the idea of evolution.

I think that these two separate ideas sometimes become conflated when creationists try to attack common descent by attacking evolution.

Thank you very much for this post. I think you are completely correct in highlighting this as an area causing confusion in this debate.

I think there has been some confusion as a result of me not clarifying the distinction clearly enough - I apologise for this.

I certainly am not arguing against variation within a kind.
I am arguing against common descent.

This you correctly point out as the main issue. I am often shown evidence for variation within a kind - I don't contest it. But it doesn't show common descent.

The last point is an interpretation of the evidence. I interpret the evidence differently.

As pointed out before, I would need very rapid variation within kinds to produce the variety of species seen around the world. I think the selection of dog breeds has shown it can be done very quickly if selected by people.

Also, a lot of the effort to prevent climate change is about protecting whole ecosystems. An ecosystem may not be an evolutionary unit, but it's still an existent thing that we can value. Even if all the species in a given area successfully adapt to some dramatic change in climate, the ecosystem there will still have been destroyed and replaced with something else.

I think it is an interesting area to discuss so may well start another thread to discuss it - I would interested to hear what other people say.

Autodidact

1. Why restrict your inquiry to humans?
2. You wouldn't consider the ability to digest milk to be an improvement?

1 - I was doing a medical degree. That is why I focussed on human genetics. I did look at other species and had some discussions with my flat mate who was a biologist. We had discussions about it, can't remember all the details I'm afraid.

2 - not sure you're going with that one. I would consider the ability to digest milk an improvement compared to not being able to digest milk - of course!

Actually, the overwhelming majority of mutations are neutral.

As noted before, actually I would say there are significant number of harmful mutations that we never see but because they are so harmful they result in miscarriages.




Well, I think that has replied to the majority of the posts on this thread. I have stayed clear of the atheism one - perhaps a different thread?

I have also chosen to refrain from posting in response to the personal abuse posts, of which there were too many. Can people please stop bringing this up in an abusive manner? Thank you.

 

[David M]

Pretty much 100% of all mutations I ever had to learn about were harmful - this is obviously due to selection bias. (Doctors only need to learn about the mutations that we will encounter, namely those that will have clinical significance. The classic example being cystic fibrosis, although of course there are countless others).

And you don't think that the fact that you were training to treat illnesses would have meant that they concentrated on teaching you about mutations that do cause illness?

Do you think that would have something to do with what they taught you?

Its a fact that you have an average of just over 100 mutations in your genes that are not possessed by your parents.

Examples of Beneficial Mutations in Humans

There you are, examples of beneficial mutations in humans, and as these don't cause diseases people are certainly not looking for beneficial mutations as often as they are looking for deleterious ones as the source of illness.

There is another group that can often be forgotten, which is the vast majority of miscarriages that occur are (when analysed) due to major genetic mutations - most commonly are the chromosome number errors (the trisomy mutations).

Yes, of the small percentage of mutations that are deleterious a lot of the highly deleterious ones never make it into the gene pool due to failures in embryonic development. That is natural selection in action - something you seem to think isnt happening in humans any more.

So if you were to look at the mutations that actually have an effect on the function of people - you will see that the vast majority are harmful. There were 2 that stood out in that video (bone strength, which would be harmful if he had to swim; the Spanish family who can smoke and drink etc and still live to 100) where there was some benefit.

No, the majority of mutations are neutral. As a Doctor you are concerned with harmful mutations that make people sick, thats why your training concentrated on them.

Neither would lead to genetic isolation. They could conceivably lead to selection although I think that modern medicine has taken us beyond the realm of natural selection. I have heard it being argued that human evolution has stopped due to the development of human technology and the ability to change his environment.

We are still evolving, its just that certain aspects of natural selection on certain mutations have been lessened by medical advances.

The alternative solution is that humans are a completely separate "kind" and so there is only scope for evolution within that kind. So the reason we do not see evolution working in humans is because it does not happen in humans nor has ever happened in humans. (My understanding of the word "kind" will be fleshed out in a later post)

But we do see evolution working in humans, so your premise is completely wrong.

Angellous - you say in your profile that you are a Christian. Is this true? If so, is that really how to treat a brother in Christ?

If you are wrong, you are wrong. If you are saying something stupid you are saying something stupid. The fact that you are a christian does not give you immunity to being corrected by other christians when you are wrong.

 

[Gunfingers]

Who is AronRa? Did they make the video?

AronRa is a man. He's a graduate student of biology, i believe, but i don't know the specifics of his credentials. Near as i can tell he is a pagan. He became active in EvC about 10 years ago when a comic published by AiG claimed that Hindus (and all non-christians) actually worship the christian devil. Since then he has put together the Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism videos (the one i showed you was #8, and i definitely recommend watching them all) and has been in hundreds of debates with creationists.

I didn't see what I needed to reply to in that video that was not being addressed in the rest of this thread.

You claimed that there have never been beneficial mutations. The video clearly shows that while there is little objective measure of beneficial there have been plenty of mutations that would fit into what we would consider "beneficial".

I think it would be misleading to say that the majority of mutations are neutral- that is incredibly mis-representative of what we actually see in genetic clinics.

Pretty much 100% of all mutations I ever had to learn about were harmful - this is obviously due to selection bias. (Doctors only need to learn about the mutations that we will encounter, namely those that will have clinical significance. The classic example being cystic fibrosis, although of course there are countless others).

You remember the part where he said that every person is born with about 100 genetic mutations? 100 mutations per person, most of which you'll never know you have. Your admitted selection bias, however, means you only see mutations that cause significant enough detrimental effects to see a doctor for.

There were 2 that stood out in that video (bone strength, which would be harmful if he had to swim; the Spanish family who can smoke and drink etc and still live to 100) where there was some benefit.

The part where 20% of white people are immune to AIDS didn't stand out? But anyway, you raise a very good and very important point that there is no objective measure to "beneficial". In biology they use reproduction, but if you've ever seen "Idiocracy" you know that doesn't necessarily hold true by human ideas of "beneficial". So that kid's mutation is extremely beneficial in certain ways, but detrimental in others. If he were an aquatic mammal, for example, it would not be lauded as beneficial. That was another major point in the video.

Neither would lead to genetic isolation. They could conceivably lead to selection although I think that modern medicine has taken us beyond the realm of natural selection. I have heard it being argued that human evolution has stopped due to the development of human technology and the ability to change his environment.

Mutations don't lead to isolation, they simply cause isolated populations to become genetically dissimilar. It's true that natural selection is no longer a serious issue for humanity, but that simply means that it is no longer the primary motivator behind evolution, not that evolution will cease.

The alternative solution is that humans are a completely separate "kind" and so there is only scope for evolution within that kind. So the reason we do not see evolution working in humans is because it does not happen in humans nor has ever happened in humans. (My understanding of the word "kind" will be fleshed out in a later post)

Did you see the Antonio Banderas movie from a few years ago? "The Thirteenth Warrior"? It was based on a book called "Eaters of the Dead" which was based (albeit very loosely) on an actual Arab scholar who really did travel with the vikings about a thousand years ago.

Ibn Fadlan (the Arab scholar, played by the very NOT Arabic Antonio Banderas) remarked in the book, and i looked this up, it's not just something Michael Crichton made up, that the vikings were huge, a head taller than him.

However, if you look up the height of the vikings based on unearthed skeletons, they were about 5'5" tall on average. So yes, human beings ARE evolving.

 

[Autodidact]

2 - not sure you're going with that one. I would consider the ability to digest milk an improvement compared to not being able to digest milk - of course!

Congratulations, you have just discovered your first of many beneficial human mutations.

As noted before, actually I would say there are significant number of harmful mutations that we never see but because they are so harmful they result in miscarriages.

Yes, there are, and, as ToE explains, as a result they die out and do not spread throughout the population. The fact that you don't already know this is the sort of thing that is causing us to doubt that you ever actually studied ToE.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I do have a BSc and MBBS (the standard degree in medicine in UK) from King's College London.

... and a basic understanding of the human body was not required?

I find this rather odd, considering you are a medical doctor.

Over here in the states, most college profs won't send a letter of recommendation to med school if one cannnot defend the theory of evolution. All of my MD friends had to do this... A clear working knowedge of it is essential to understanding the human body and its reactions to various medications and therapies.

Yes, if we were having coffee I would express my shock and question you until I was satisfied that you were telling the truth.

I just can't believe it.

 

[Alceste]

... and a basic understanding of the human body was not required?

I find this rather odd, considering you are a medical doctor.

Over here in the states, most college profs won't send a letter of recommendation to med school if one cannnot defend the theory of evolution. All of my MD friends had to do this... A clear working knowedge of it is essential to understanding the human body and its reactions to various medications and therapies.

Yes, if we were having coffee I would express my shock and question you until I was satisfied that you were telling the truth.

I just can't believe it.

I can't either, but on the million to one chance Doc is genuine, I'd like to point out that fundamentalists are notorious liars when it comes to their own credentials, and this feeds into my disbelief at least as much as the unlikelihood of a YEC MD.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Angellous - you say in your profile that you are a Christian. Is this true? If so, is that really how to treat a brother in Christ?

I've read all my posts on this thread and I'm truly at a loss as to why you would write such a thing.

 

[painted wolf]

I agree with the above statement. Does your second statement not support the possibility of the first?

Decades is longer than the creationist model would require... Rodents and bats for example would have to evolve new species every two years or less.

Not to mention how fast insects would need.

The fact that we don't see this happening is a problem for YEC.
wa:do