Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

[Autodidact]

Because it makes perfect sense . .?

It may or may not make sense, but it's not science.

 

[Autodidact]

the appearence of modern man a mere 700,000 years after homo-erectus and some 200,000 years before neanderthal man is absolutely implausible. professor theodosius dobzhansky, writer of mankind evolving, was puzzled by the fact that this development took place during a period when the earth was going through an ice age, a most unpropitiuos time for evolutionary advance. his conclusion was, "modern man has many fossil collateral realitives but no progenitors; the derivation of homosapiens then becomes a puzzle." how then did modern man appear some 300,000 years ago instead of 2 or 3 million years in the future, following further evolutionary development. advanced australopithecus was found 2 million years ago and was considered to be the first truely man like ape, and it took another 1 million years for evolution to produce homo-erectus. it seems the most important evolutionary step should have taken longer than the rest, but the evidence shows it was shorter, 300,000 years shorter. if you follow the chain neanderthal should have come before cromagnon, but evidence proves otherwise.

Theodosius Dobzhansky, the same man who said, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"? and "It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology" and
"I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way." That Theodosius Dobzhansky?


In any case, the evidence shows what it shows, not what you think it "should" have shown.


Oh, and we've had an awful lot of development in the area of hominid evolution since 1964. You might want to brush up.

 

[Dan4reason]

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?

What would falsify evolution? Finding rabbits in the precambrian would. If you found fossils in the wrong strata, that would be good evidence against it.

 

[Christian Doc]

Autodidact,

"The chance of something happening which has in fact happened is exactly 100%."

What a pointless statement.

All species have come from animals that were present on the ark. The chance of this happening is 100% because it has in fact happened.

Do you agree with this? No, then why do you think that the above sentence is going to convince me,

You might as well just say - "I know it is very very very unlikely but I believe it happened, therefore it happened." That is actually what you mean by that sentence.

"One is scientific, the other religious. btw, these two statements do not contradict each other."

I think you should read the sentence again. They were not supposed to contradict each other. I was highlighting that actually you were using religious terminology and that you are elevating naturalistic forces to the position that I only attribute to God.

"And you're in favor of science, correct?"

Indeed, I am in favour of science. If it is done properly - without conjecture. I find too many ideas are put across as science but actually lack credibility. In order to accept them you must accept the assumptions that are being made.

As a medic, I am cynical about a lot claims. So many claims are made in the realms of medicine are based on assumptions and faulty logic and faulty methodology. There is nothing "wrong" with their data, merely their interpretation.

"I challenge you to find a single pro-science post here that claims that ToE explains the origin of life."

Not on here, but I have in my discussions with friends about the origin of life. They are typically atheists who realise that the origin of life is an issue that they can not resolve with known science so they extend the theory of evolution to include the origin of life.

"If you cannot, I see you are the kind of decent person who will retract your inaccurate claim."

Thank you for the compliment. I would retract the comment if it had been about people on this forum. I have only been on this forum for 2 weeks.



LuisDantas

"Truth be told, many evolutionists do indeed believe that the origin of life is a minor mistery once the ToE is in place, and therefore tend to speak of the matter as solved already, or close enough for most purposes anyway."

Or they just accept that they have no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and accept that the probability of life coming into existance on its own is unrealistic.


David M

"Except the examples of the beneficial humans mutations in humans that I linked to o course. Oh and all that antibiotic resistance that you have to deal with in your job."

The number of beneficial mutations are very small in comparison to harmful mutations. Incredibly small. They are all variations of proteins already present in the population. From a Creationist point of view, some are more in keeping with our ancestors within the human line.

They are not developing brand new proteins. They are certainly not leading to speciation.

Antibiotic resistance is not a problem at all. In order to be resistant to the antibiotics, they have lost functional proteins and are less fit than sensitive bacteria. These are deleterious mutations and fit into my understanding of evolution within kinds.



Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304


I do not have access to the full journal but the methodology does seem to be merely comparing chimpanzee and human DNA - but I do not accept that we have a common ancestor so I find this a bit of a leap.

Do they carry out observational studies with human genetics?

Perhaps the number of mutations that occur in families that have had genetic studies done?

But, even with this -

"Using conservative calculations of the proportion of the genome subject to purifying selection, we estimate that the genomic deleterious mutation rate (U) is at least 3. This high rate is difficult to reconcile with multiplicative fitness effects of individual mutations and suggests that synergistic epistasis among harmful mutations may be common."

So they are acknowledging that there is a higher than expected deleterious mutation rate.



Evolved yet

"Not necessarily, if you are past reproductive age and you are parenting and you die then you will have an effect on your fitness by effecting your child's fitness."

Agree.

However, minor deleterious mutations will be passed on. This is how we have the polymorphisms that afflict families and give rise to increased rates of diabetes and heart disease. They have passed on minor deleterious mutations that would otherwise not caused problems. However, entire families end up having T2DM and heart attacks in their 50s.

Hence, we have to take extensive family histories because we acknowledge that we pass on faulty genes, often without knowing.



Linwood

Originally Posted by Christian Doc
“Yet most experiments looking at multicellular organisms have so far failed to produce any information on such mutations.”

I can`t believe you`re a doctor.

It`s like a bus driver who doesn`t believe in the combustion engine.

Unreal...

What you actually quoted is not my writing. That is a direct quote from the paper that I was referring to. Thank you for your contribution, if I can call it that.


Dan4Reason

"What would falsify evolution? Finding rabbits in the precambrian would. If you found fossils in the wrong strata, that would be good evidence against it"

Nope, it wouldn't. It would just mean that the evolutionary tree would be re-drafted. That is what is continously happening with evolutionary theory. What ever is found is just put into the evolutionary tree.



I think that this thread has served its purpose. It has shown that evolution has a few things that could potentially falsify it.

As far as I can see the one that interests me the most is that of the age of the earth.

Hardline Evolutionists here have said that even if the world was proven to be 10,000 years old that they would still believe that the ToE was the explanation for life.

However, I think that the majority of Evolutionists would recognise that life could not have evolved into its diversity that we see if all kinds of animals were descended from one common ancestor.

I have been accused before of merely throwing out many branches of science but I have just never been convinced of the dating methods - hence I do not accept millions of years. I used to be an OEC who accepted millions of years. I no longer do because I have not been satisfied with the evidence.

This is a different thread. Unless there are any issues related to this thread I am not sure I need to post here any more. I have enjoyed the discussion and I hope others have too. Onwards to other threads.....

 

[Dan4reason]

Autodidact,


What a pointless statement.

All species have come from animals that were present on the ark. The chance of this happening is 100% because it has in fact happened.

Do you agree with this? No, then why do you think that the above sentence is going to convince me,

You might as well just say - "I know it is very very very unlikely but I believe it happened, therefore it happened." That is actually what you mean by that sentence.



I think you should read the sentence again. They were not supposed to contradict each other. I was highlighting that actually you were using religious terminology and that you are elevating naturalistic forces to the position that I only attribute to God.




Indeed, I am in favour of science. If it is done properly - without conjecture. I find too many ideas are put across as science but actually lack credibility. In order to accept them you must accept the assumptions that are being made.

As a medic, I am cynical about a lot claims. So many claims are made in the realms of medicine are based on assumptions and faulty logic and faulty methodology. There is nothing "wrong" with their data, merely their interpretation.





Not on here, but I have in my discussions with friends about the origin of life. They are typically atheists who realise that the origin of life is an issue that they can not resolve with known science so they extend the theory of evolution to include the origin of life.





Thank you for the compliment. I would retract the comment if it had been about people on this forum. I have only been on this forum for 2 weeks.



LuisDantas




Or they just accept that they have no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and accept that the probability of life coming into existance on its own is unrealistic.


David M



The number of beneficial mutations are very small in comparison to harmful mutations. Incredibly small. They are all variations of proteins already present in the population. From a Creationist point of view, some are more in keeping with our ancestors within the human line.

They are not developing brand new proteins. They are certainly not leading to speciation.

Antibiotic resistance is not a problem at all. In order to be resistant to the antibiotics, they have lost functional proteins and are less fit than sensitive bacteria. These are deleterious mutations and fit into my understanding of evolution within kinds.



Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304


I do not have access to the full journal but the methodology does seem to be merely comparing chimpanzee and human DNA - but I do not accept that we have a common ancestor so I find this a bit of a leap.

Do they carry out observational studies with human genetics?

Perhaps the number of mutations that occur in families that have had genetic studies done?

But, even with this -


So they are acknowledging that there is a higher than expected deleterious mutation rate.



Evolved yet



Agree.

However, minor deleterious mutations will be passed on. This is how we have the polymorphisms that afflict families and give rise to increased rates of diabetes and heart disease. They have passed on minor deleterious mutations that would otherwise not caused problems. However, entire families end up having T2DM and heart attacks in their 50s.

Hence, we have to take extensive family histories because we acknowledge that we pass on faulty genes, often without knowing.



Linwood



What you actually quoted is not my writing. That is a direct quote from the paper that I was referring to. Thank you for your contribution, if I can call it that.


Dan4Reason



Nope, it wouldn't. It would just mean that the evolutionary tree would be re-drafted. That is what is continously happening with evolutionary theory. What ever is found is just put into the evolutionary tree.



I think that this thread has served its purpose. It has shown that evolution has a few things that could potentially falsify it.

As far as I can see the one that interests me the most is that of the age of the earth.

Hardline Evolutionists here have said that even if the world was proven to be 10,000 years old that they would still believe that the ToE was the explanation for life.

However, I think that the majority of Evolutionists would recognise that life could not have evolved into its diversity that we see if all kinds of animals were descended from one common ancestor.

I have been accused before of merely throwing out many branches of science but I have just never been convinced of the dating methods - hence I do not accept millions of years. I used to be an OEC who accepted millions of years. I no longer do because I have not been satisfied with the evidence.

This is a different thread. Unless there are any issues related to this thread I am not sure I need to post here any more. I have enjoyed the discussion and I hope others have too. Onwards to other threads.....

If all animals came from the ark and the ark was in the old world, then how come there are many animals in Australia and the New World? The ocean barriers would have made it impossible for many animals to get to these places from Mr. Ararat.

Here is a quote from Richard Dawkins.

Think what the geographical distribution of animals should look like if they'd all dispersed from Noah's Ark. Shouldn't there be some sort of law of decreasing species diversity as we move away from an epicentre – perhaps Mount Ararat? I don't need to tell you that this is not what we see.

Take Australia's marsupials, for example.

Why would all those marsupials, but no placentals at all, have migrated en masse from Mount Ararat to Australia? Which route did they take? And why did not a single member of their straggling caravan pause on the way and settle – in India perhaps or China or some haven along the Great Silk Road?

 

[camanintx]

The number of beneficial mutations are very small in comparison to harmful mutations. Incredibly small.

And the number of both are insignificant in comparison to the number of neutral mutations. Otherwise with an average of 175 mutations per individual, nobody would live long enough to reproduce.

Evolution is not concerned with rates of deleterious mutations so long as enough individuals survive to propagate the species.

They are not developing brand new proteins. They are certainly not leading to speciation.

Except when they do.

Evolving protein functional diversity in new genes of Drosophila

Cases of Speciation

 

[Autodidact]

Autodidact,


What a pointless statement.

All species have come from animals that were present on the ark. The chance of this happening is 100% because it has in fact happened.

But you have failed to show that it in fact happened.

O.K. let me put it differently. Please show your math.

I think you should read the sentence again. They were not supposed to contradict each other. I was highlighting that actually you were using religious terminology and that you are elevating naturalistic forces to the position that I only attribute to God.

Or you are attributing to God events which can be explained naturally.

Indeed, I am in favour of science. If it is done properly - without conjecture. I find too many ideas are put across as science but actually lack credibility. In order to accept them you must accept the assumptions that are being made.

You're against Biology, Geology, Archeology, Paleontology, Anthropology, Astronomy, Cosmology and most of physics, but you're in favor of science? What are you in favor of, Chemistry?

Science, all science, is based on certain assumptions. If you do not share those assumptions, you are not in favor of science, you are against it.

I am not talking about "ideas put across as science." I am talking about mainstream, consensus, core theories in the sciences, such as evolution, plate tectonics, age of the geologic column, and so forth.

Not on here, but I have in my discussions with friends about the origin of life. They are typically atheists who realise that the origin of life is an issue that they can not resolve with known science so they extend the theory of evolution to include the origin of life.

Second time don't believe you. I have never, once, in all my years of debating the topic, ever heard anyone other than a creationist expect ToE to explain abiogenesis. As I type, there is a thread in which I am typing as hard as I can to persuade a YEC (Pegg) of just that.

Thank you for the compliment. I would retract the comment if it had been about people on this forum. I have only been on this forum for 2 weeks.

In any case, I suggest you debate with people here, not people none of us have access to.

Or they just accept that they have no naturalistic explanation for the origin of life and accept that the probability of life coming into existance on its own is unrealistic.

We have no naturalistic explanation--yet. It's always a mistake to bet against science; we usually figure it out--eventually.

They are not developing brand new proteins. They are certainly not leading to speciation.

Cite?

Antibiotic resistance is not a problem at all. In order to be resistant to the antibiotics, they have lost functional proteins and are less fit than sensitive bacteria. These are deleterious mutations and fit into my understanding of evolution within kinds.

Now look at what you are saying. Here is a mutation that allows an organism to survive and reproduce (the definition of beneficial) and you have re-defined it to mean deleterious. Apparently for you up means down and black means white? When a mutation enables an organism to increase its odds of surviving and reproducing, that, by definition, is beneficial.

Nope, it wouldn't. It would just mean that the evolutionary tree would be re-drafted. That is what is continously happening with evolutionary theory. What ever is found is just put into the evolutionary tree.

Wrong.

I think that this thread has served its purpose. It has shown that evolution has a few things that could potentially falsify it.

In fact it has literally millions of things. And none of them turn out to be the case, thereby strengthening the support for the theory. Good job.

As far as I can see the one that interests me the most is that of the age of the earth.

Hardline Evolutionists here have said that even if the world was proven to be 10,000 years old that they would still believe that the ToE was the explanation for life.

This is another falsehood. Again, I challenge you to find such a post.

On the contrary, had it turned out that the earth was 10,000 years old, it would have falsified ToE. When physicists and geologists realized the earth is about 4.56 billion years old, one of the first predictions of ToE was fulfilled.

However, I think that the majority of Evolutionists would recognise that life could not have evolved into its diversity that we see if all kinds of animals were descended from one common ancestor.

Not in 10,000 years, no way. Nor could 600 species have evolved from a single "kind" in that time.

I have been accused before of merely throwing out many branches of science but I have just never been convinced of the dating methods - hence I do not accept millions of years. I used to be an OEC who accepted millions of years. I no longer do because I have not been satisfied with the evidence.

And again I don't believe you. In any case, if you wish to discuss dating methods, that would need another thread. I'll just mention that you are opposing another foundational, consensus theory in another entire field of science.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

All species have come from animals that were present on the ark. The chance of this happening is 100% because it has in fact happened.

As a medic, I am cynical about a lot claims.

:biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I have been accused before of merely throwing out many branches of science but I have just never been convinced of the dating methods - hence I do not accept millions of years. I used to be an OEC who accepted millions of years.

So, Christian doc, you were once an OEC who accepted millions of years, but you never were convinced of the dating methods?

 

[RedOne77]

Originally Posted by Christian Doc
All species have come from animals that were present on the ark. The chance of this happening is 100% because it has in fact happened.

As a medic, I am cynical about a lot claims.

:biglaugh:

I'll second that! :biglaugh:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I'll second that! :biglaugh:

:drunk:

 

[jarofthoughts]

Let me take care of this right away...

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.

You are right about that. As of now ID doesn't even have a hypothesis, let alone any evidence to back it up.

But, is evolution falsifiable?

Absolutely.

What does it predict?

That would take a medium sized library to cover fully but here are a couple of examples of predictions that has confirmed Evolution:

- Tiktaalik: The transitional fossil between fish and some early tetrapods was predicted beforehand, as estimated by palaeontologists, to be about 360-380 million years old. As it turns out it has been dated to be 375 million years old. Oh, and the estimated site where it would be found was also spot on.

- Chimpanzees: Our closest living relatives should, if they really are our closest relatives, show this in their genes. But chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas and bonobos all have 48 chromosomes while we have only 46, which poses a problem. The only solution would be if one pair of chromosomes had been fused over time, and this should also show up in our DNA. As it turns out it is chromosome 2, which has all the features we would expect, including redundant telomeres and a deactivated centromere.

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.

Almost right. We find that new species can, if the conditions are right, evolve in a lot shorter time than that, depending on the lifespan of the species in question. Speciation has been directly observed multiple times. Note that the working definition of a species is if it can consistently mate and produce fertile offspring. That makes all breeds of dogs members of the same species but not horses and donkeys.

What do we find?
There are few if not no intermediate species in the fossil record.

This is a lie that is often propagated by creationists, and, as I'm about to show you, it is indeed a lie.
First off though, since every species is constantly evolving (yes, even humans), in theory, every fossil is an intermediate fossil, but I realize that is not what you mean. So here are some examples of obviously intermediate fossils:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guiyu_(fish)
Cyclobatis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Panderichthys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Tiktaalik - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Odontochelys - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Eupodophis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pedopenna - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archaeopteryx - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ichthyornis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dimetrodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thrinaxodon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Ardipithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Australopithecus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It should be noted that fossils are FAR from the strongest evidence of evolution. In addition to fossils we have, among others, Evolution reproduced in the lab or documented in nature, Genetic evidence, Molecular evidence, Vestigial and atavistic organs, Embryology, Biogeography and Migration patterns and Homology.

The Cambrian explosion.

The Cambrian "explosion" took place over millions of years and while not as plentiful as the later periods we do indeed have pre-Cambrian fossils to show the development of the creatures that led up to those found in the Cambrian period: Precambrian Fossils

So, is evolution shown to be false?

Nope. It's alive and well and is perhaps the most solid scientific theory we have today.

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

You are, of course, referring to Gould's Punctuated Equilibrium, which is a debated theory but nonetheless one that might be shown to be correct. And yes, the Theory "evolves", that is, it changes in the face of new evidence, just like every other scientific theory we have. That is, after all, one of the biggest strengths of science. Science isn't dogmatic and unchanging (like religions?), nor does it rely on the infallibility of it's prophets (it doesn't have prophets). When a part of science is shown to be wrong, that is a positive thing because that means that we will have learned something new that we didn't know before. And scientific theories always represent the best interpretation of the EVIDENCE that we have.

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

That is easy actually.

Just present the fossil of a modern animal, say a rabbit, in verifiably pre-Cambrian stone.

Hope that clears a few things up for you and feel free to PM me if you need advice on books to enlighten you on the Theory of Evolution. Sound to me like you could use some.

 

[painted wolf]

not to toot my own horn....

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...ajor-transitions-evolution-3.html#post2052479

wa:do