What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[exchemist]

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?

For the umpteenth time, nothing is ever "proven" in theories of science. Why do you still make this mistake?

 

[leroy]

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.

Ok and how do you know that the modern version of that gene evovled through randm mutation and natural selection?

1 how do you know that the mutations where random (maybe there was a bias (or tendency) towards following that direction)

2 how do you know that each mutation had a selective benefit (maybe the mutations where random and selected by genetic drift)

 

[leroy]

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.

Again finding a rabbit in the cambrian woudl not make this wrong

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

 

[leroy]

For the umpteenth time, nothing is ever "proven" in theories of science. Why do you still make this mistake?

That is why I said “proven beyond reasonable doubt”

What other word do you think I should have used instead?

 

[Heyo]

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

Is that your answer to your question?
Finding a step in the evolution of the eye that couldn't have been due to known mechanisms of evolution would disprove the ToE?

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

We are trying to have a scientific discussion here. The proper terminology is "evidence". And you cannot even ask question until you give everyone that participated here an apology.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is why I said “proven beyond reasonable doubt”

What other word do you think I should have used instead?

Evidence is a better term. Yes, all of it has been "proven beyond a reasonable doubt'. You also need to admit that you have not been reasonable.

 

[leroy]

We are trying to have a scientific discussion here. The proper terminology is "evidence". And you cannot even ask question until you give everyone that participated here an apology.

ok
I apologize for not using the correct terminology

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

2 there is not good enough evidence to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that the eye evolved mainly through random mutations + natural selection (perhaps other mechanism played an important role, )


Any disagreement form your part?

care to answer my question?

 

[Subduction Zone]

ok
I apologize for not using the correct terminology

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

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


Any disagreement form your part?

care to answer my question?

That is not what I meant. It looks as if your whole approach was disingenuous here. You started off very well. Which is a rarity for you. You asked a reasonable question and you got tons of reasonable answers. Then you started the evolution of the eye nonsense. Something that you have to know has been well supported by evidence.

There is no evidence for creationism. You should have taken the lessons learned here and seen if you could craft a proper test for creationism. If you ever managed to do that then you could claim to have evidence for creationism. It appears that you know that your beliefs are wrong and only want to gum up the works.

Are you going to apologize for ruining your own thread?

 

[exchemist]

Ok and how do you know that the modern version of that gene evovled through randm mutation and natural selection?

1 how do you know that the mutations where random (maybe there was a bias (or tendency) towards following that direction)

2 how do you know that each mutation had a selective benefit (maybe the mutations where random and selected by genetic drift)

Why are you asking me about the benefits or otherwise of mutations? I haven't said anything about that anywhere in this thread. Are you confusing me with someone else, perhaps?

 

[leroy]

That is not what I meant. It looks as if your whole approach was disingenuous here. You started off very well. Which is a rarity for you. You asked a reasonable question and you got tons of reasonable answers. Then you started the evolution of the eye nonsense. Something that you have to know has been well supported by evidence.

I simply said that we don’t know how the eye evolved, and that there are many possible mechanisms being discussed in the literature, what is disingenuous about that?

There is no evidence for creationism. You should have taken the lessons learned here and seen if you could craft a proper test for creationism. If you ever managed to do that then you could claim to have evidence for creationism. It appears that you know that your beliefs are wrong and only want to gum up the works.

Why is that even relevant? The post is not about creationism, I am not defending creationism, I never claimed that creationists are correct……….so why mention it?...

Ohhh “change the topic arbitrarily “it´s a debate tactic to avoid answering questions.

Are you going to apologize for ruining your own thread?

no

 

[Subduction Zone]

I simply said that we don’t know how the eye evolved, and that there are many possible mechanisms being discussed in the literature, what is disingenuous about that?


Why is that even relevant? The post is not about creationism, I am not defending creationism, I never claimed that creationists are correct……….so why mention it?...

Ohhh “change the topic arbitrarily “it´s a debate tactic to avoid answering questions.


no

You tried to derail your thread. You could see that the evolution side was being extremely reasonable and you had nothing. You were correct on this matter. You should have accepted it and moved on.

An apology is needed.

 

[leroy]

Why are you asking me about the benefits or otherwise of mutations? I haven't said anything about that anywhere in this thread. Are you confusing me with someone else, perhaps?

Well given that you jumped to the discussion I assumed you were aware of the topic.


"
The standard scientific definition - the stepwise change from a last universal common ancestor to the tree of life we find today by the action of natural selection on random genetic variation."


My claim is that using that definition as a basis, we don’t know if the eye evolved, because we don’t know if random genetic variation and selection played an important role or not (perhaps there where other mechanisms, perhaps mutations where not random , perhaps mutations where selected by genetic drift, etc.)

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Finding a MAMMAL in strata when land animals didn't even exist, would be a serious problem for evolution.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No.

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

no.

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

No.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Except that it would and it is explained in the very post you are replying to, why it would.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

And it would be nothing but semantic drivel.

I could "define" man as an extra-terrestial invader and i would have accomplished the same.
But neither would be "adequate".

Contrary to what certain theists believe, merely "defining" things as real, doesn't make them real.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Here's the equivalent of that nonsense:

You need to show me a picture of your face of EVERY SECOND since you were born, to prove to me that you are in fact "aging".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

No.

From that definition, flows the prediction he mentioned.
Predictions flow from theories. The theories are not "the predictions".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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?

It's the demonstrated mechanism by which things evolve.