What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[Subduction Zone]

Evolution of the eye - Wikipedia

I should have linked the video of young Dawkins explaining eye evolution. That always drives the creationists nuts. Is it him or his shirt? Probably the shirt.

 

[Polymath257]

That is nonsense,

Nobody knows how the eye evolved, nobody knows what genetics changes (mutations) are required to evolve say “a bunch of skin” in to an eye, ……….which means that nobody knows if there is a step by step path

Not all of the molecular steps are known. But that is not required.

1 first you need to determine what mutations are required to change "skin" in to an eye

2 then you have to show that each(or most) mutation has a selective advantage

We are hundredths of years away from discovering point 1 and point 2 seems much more difficult to ever achieve.

While both would be nice to know, they are not required to know that the eye evolved or even what the major steps were in its evolution.

We can tell whether the *macroscopic* changes have selective advantage without knowing the genetic changes that produced those macroscopic results. We can describe those macroscopic changes, showing that the species changed over generations, producing new capabilities. While the detailed genetics would be nice, those details are not required to know the overall story of evolution.

In my opinion both ID people and their “refuters” are speculating way too much to make their case….we simply don’t know if the eye is irreducibly complex, and we won’t know within the next 100 years (I would guess)

On the contrary, we do know of the various steps in the evolution of eyes (of the various types that exist). We know each of those steps is possible because we have actual animals alive today that have 'eyes' at each of the steps. We can see that there are selective advantages at each step. That is enough to refute irreducible complexity.

So while the genetics would be very nice to know in detail, it is far from being necessary to say we know how and why the eye evolved.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay, I can't help myself. Watch out for the shirt!

 

[leroy]

1) The standard usage, which I suppose could be summarised as the development of species from earlier ones by natural processes.





2) Rabbits in the Cambrian, or something equivalent, i.e. a prediction of the theory of evolution that was grossly and unambiguously falsified.

3) See (2).

A rabbit in the Precambrian would not falsify what you call evolution, the fact that organisms develop from earlier organisms, would still be true, even if we find a rabbit in the Cambrian

 

[leroy]

Not all of the molecular steps are known. But that is not required.



While both would be nice to know, they are not required to know that the eye evolved or even what the major steps were in its evolution.

We can tell whether the *macroscopic* changes have selective advantage without knowing the genetic changes that produced those macroscopic results. We can describe those macroscopic changes, showing that the species changed over generations, producing new capabilities. While the detailed genetics would be nice, those details are not required to know the overall story of evolution.


On the contrary, we do know of the various steps in the evolution of eyes (of the various types that exist). We know each of those steps is possible because we have actual animals alive today that have 'eyes' at each of the steps. We can see that there are selective advantages at each step. That is enough to refute irreducible complexity.

So while the genetics would be very nice to know in detail, it is far from being necessary to say we know how and why the eye evolved.

Yes you do need the individual microscopic steps in order to establish if the eye evolved through random mutations and natural selection or not

And you do need the microscopic steps if you want to know if the eye is irreducibly complex or not.

In summery and considering the macroscopic steps

1 we know that a bunch of skin “evolved” in to skin with light sensitive cells

2 we know that this might represent a benefit

3 we don’t know which mutations are needed to evolve a bunch of skin in to light sensitive cells

4 we don’t know if each of these individual mutations was selectively benefitial

If you don’t know 3 and 4, then you can establish that the eve evolved through random mutations and natural selection , for all we know, the eye could have evolved by Lamarckism, Neutralism, or through Alien engendering

 

[Subduction Zone]

A rabbit in the Precambrian would not falsify what you call evolution, the fact that organisms develop from earlier organisms, would still be true, even if we find a rabbit in the Cambrian

No. It takes populations for evolution to occur. Though one single individual will almost never leave evidence the countless generations needed to evolve a rabbit would leave massive evidence. This is a case of a lack of evidence for an idea is evidence against that idea.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes you do need the individual microscopic steps in order to establish if the eye evolved through random mutations and natural selection or not

And you do need the microscopic steps if you want to know if the eye is irreducibly complex or not.

In summery and considering the macroscopic steps

1 we know that a bunch of skin “evolved” in to skin with light sensitive cells

2 we know that this might represent a benefit

3 we don’t know which mutations are needed to evolve a bunch of skin in to light sensitive cells

4 we don’t know if each of these individual mutations was selectively benefitial

If you don’t know 3 and 4, then you can establish that the eve evolved through random mutations and natural selection , for all we know, the eye could have evolved by Lamarckism, Neutralism, or through Alien engendering

All of the evidence supports the evolution of the eye. We can still see many of the small steps.

Watch the video. There is no evidence for irreducible complexity. If you want to claim IR you need to find evidence for it. But you do not appear to understand the concept which means that you will not be able to find any evidence for your beliefs.

 

[leroy]

No. It takes populations for evolution to occur. Though one single individual will almost never leave evidence the countless generations needed to evolve a rabbit would leave massive evidence. This is a case of a lack of evidence for an idea is evidence against that idea.

It might be evidence against the concept of evolution that you have in mind…………..but a rabbit in the Cambrian would not falsify the original defitnion that was provided.

 

[loverofhumanity]

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”

I believe that when humanity defines a human being as a spiritual being then we will have adequately distinguished man from the other kingdoms.

 

[Polymath257]

It might be evidence against the concept of evolution that you have in mind…………..but a rabbit in the Cambrian would not falsify the original defitnion that was provided.

Yes, it would *in the context* of the rest of the evidence for mammalian evolution. A rabbit to be in Cambrian rocks would falsify evolution unless there are other mammalian precursors, or even vertebrate precursors.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

you do need the individual microscopic steps in order to establish if the eye evolved through random mutations and natural selection or not

Maybe you do, but the scientific community apparently does not. How do you account for that difference, and why should any relatively uninformed lay opinion supplant theirs in their field of expertise?

Incidentally, the claim is not that the eye definitely evolved naturalistically, but that it was possible, and in the absence of a better hypothesis than that of biological evolution, it is the preferred one. It's the apologist that must demonstrate that it could not have happened naturalistically if he expects empiricists to abandon the hypothesis, and he cannot.

And you do need the microscopic steps if you want to know if the eye is irreducibly complex or not.

Nope. One only need show a possible path that evolution might have taken. Remember, the scientist only needs for naturalistic evolution of the eye to be possible, and he doesn't need others to see what he sees. Nor does he care what their criteria are such as yours above. You probably would do well to understand that they don't care what the unevidenced objections of lay people are. Creationists call various issues debatable and unresolved that are neither in the scientific community.

But don't feel picked on. They also don't care that some lay people agree with them. Their atta-boy means nothing to these scientists.

we don’t know which mutations are needed to evolve a bunch of skin in to light sensitive cells

Maybe you should stop using the word "we" unless you mean creationists and others with little interest in science.

we don’t know if each of these individual mutations was selectively benefitial

Sure we do. That's why they were preserved by evolution. Any improvement in visual acuity is an automatic survival advantage.

If you don’t know 3 and 4, then you can establish that the eve evolved through random mutations and natural selection

That's incorrect, but even if we stipulate to it, once again, that's not necessary. It's possible, and that is enough. The creationists task is to demonstrate that it is impossible, but he can't.

 

[Polymath257]

Yes you do need the individual microscopic steps in order to establish if the eye evolved through random mutations and natural selection or not

And you do need the microscopic steps if you want to know if the eye is irreducibly complex or not.

In summery and considering the macroscopic steps

1 we know that a bunch of skin “evolved” in to skin with light sensitive cells

2 we know that this might represent a benefit

3 we don’t know which mutations are needed to evolve a bunch of skin in to light sensitive cells

4 we don’t know if each of these individual mutations was selectively benefitial

If you don’t know 3 and 4, then you can establish that the eve evolved through random mutations and natural selection , for all we know, the eye could have evolved by Lamarckism, Neutralism, or through Alien engendering

But we would still know that the eye evolved. And we would know several of the steps. We could then consider the differences between Lamarckianism and Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis.

And, again, the fact that each macroscopic step is beneficial is sufficient for the current theory.

Whether or not each microscopic mutation needs to be beneficial is far from clear since we can have neutral drift. If anything, the evidence is against the necessity of each and every genetic mutation being beneficial (as opposed to the morphological changes being so). That is not an issue with the current theory (although it may be an issue with your misunderstanding of it).

 

[leroy]

All of the evidence supports the evolution of the eye. We can still see many of the small steps.

Watch the video. There is no evidence for irreducible complexity. If you want to claim IR you need to find evidence for it. But you do not appear to understand the concept which means that you will not be able to find any evidence for your beliefs.

There is no evidence for irreducible complexity

Didn’t you read my comment? That is exactly what I said

As I said, we have no idea if the eye is IC because we don’t know what mutations had to occur nor if the mutations where selectively positive And we won’t know in the near future,

But the burden proof is on the “neodarwinist” side …….. you are the one who has to show that that there is a step by step path (each step is one mutation) and that the mutations are selectively positive in most of the cases.

At this point all we can do is say that “we don’t know”…we don’t know if the eye is IC or not

 

[exchemist]

That is nonsense,

Nobody knows how the eye evolved, nobody knows what genetics changes (mutations) are required to evolve say “a bunch of skin” in to an eye, ……….which means that nobody knows if there is a step by step path

1 first you need to determine what mutations are required to change "skin" in to an eye

2 then you have to show that each(or most) mutation has a selective advantage

We are hundredths of years away from discovering point 1 and point 2 seems much more difficult to ever achieve.

In my opinion both ID people and their “refuters” are speculating way too much to make their case….we simply don’t know if the eye is irreducibly complex, and we won’t know within the next 100 years (I would guess)

Google the pax 6 gene, one of the hox genes. This gene is present in a wide variety of animals and there is evidence it has been involved in development of the eye in worms, arthropods, molluscs and vertebrates.

 

[exchemist]

A rabbit in the Precambrian would not falsify what you call evolution, the fact that organisms develop from earlier organisms, would still be true, even if we find a rabbit in the Cambrian

No, it would falsify a prediction of the theory of evolution, according to which air-breathing tetrapods arose from creatures like Tiktaalik in the Devonian and mammals not until much later than that, so we will not find rabbits in the Cambrian.

 

[leroy]

Maybe you do, but the scientific community apparently does not

Can you quote any paper that cocnludes that the eye (or any other complex organ) evolved through the process of random mutations and natural selection ?.,….. NO, why?
Because no respectable scientists will ever make such conclusion with the lack of evidence that we have to date.

Just to be clear my claim (that happens to correspond to the scientific consensuss) is:

1 we know that the eye evolved from simpler organs

2 we don’t know how it happens (we don’t know if it happened trough random mutations + natural selection or by some other mechanism )

If you agree with this2 points, then we have no points of disagreement.,

Incidentally, the claim is not that the eye definitely evolved naturalistically,

You changed your original claim…. Your original claim was that it evolved through random mutations and natural selection

“naturalistically” is too broad and might include many other mechanisms apart from random mutations and natural selection……. For example perhaps mutations are not random


And , I apologize if you feel that I am ignoring your comments, but at this point I don’t know if we have any points of disagreement.

I agree that the eye evolved naturally (this is what the evidence seems to suggest) …… but we don’t know if it evovled through random mutations + natural selection…….. perhaps mutations where mainly neutral, perhaps mutations where not random, there are many possibilities that are currently being discussed in the literature

So do we have any point of disagreement?




xyz

 

[Subduction Zone]

Didn’t you read my comment? That is exactly what I said

As I said, we have no idea if the eye is IC because we don’t know what mutations had to occur nor if the mutations where selectively positive And we won’t know in the near future,

But the burden proof is on the “neodarwinist” side …….. you are the one who has to show that that there is a step by step path (each step is one mutation) and that the mutations are selectively positive in most of the cases.

At this point all we can do is say that “we don’t know”…we don’t know if the eye is IC or not

No, the burden of proof has been met by the evolution side.

Why on Earth do you think that you do not need any evidence for your false ideas?

 

[leroy]

No, it would falsify a prediction of the theory of evolution, according to which air-breathing tetrapods arose from creatures like Tiktaalik in the Devonian and mammals not until much later than that, so we will not find rabbits in the Cambrian.

ok

but it woundt falsify what you origianlly defined as "evolution"
"1) The standard usage, which I suppose could be summarised as the development of species from earlier ones by natural processes."


You simply changed the defintion

 

[leroy]

No, the burden of proof has been met by the evolution side.

Why on Earth do you think that you do not need any evidence for your false ideas?

1 It has been proven beyond reasonable doubt that the eye “evovled” form simpler organs.

2 It has never been proven that the eye evovled mainly through random mutations + natural selection (perhaps other mechanism played an important role, )


Any disagreement form your part?

 

[exchemist]

ok

but it woundt falsify what you origianlly defined as "evolution"
"1) The standard usage, which I suppose could be summarised as the development of species from earlier ones by natural processes."


You simply changed the defintion

Eh? A rabbit in the Cambrian would throw a huge spanner in the works. The theory lays out the order in which species developed from which types of earlier ones. That would be wrecked if we found mammals in the Cambrian.