What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

Because that is the demonstrated mechanism of evolution.
And that mechanism results in specific patterns in DNA, anatomy, fossil records, etc.
This mechanism is gradual in nature and it can only result in rather specific patterns.

These patterns are found in species, anatomy, DNA, specific parts of DNA, specific parts of anatomy, geographic distribution of species, etc etc etc.

Your (willful) ignorance is not an argument against any of this.

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

Because that's how the demonstrable biological mechanism works.

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

[/quote]

@Polymath257 already addressed this mistake of yours.
You're simply going to keep repeating it, aren't you?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.""

It would.
There would no "earlier species".

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.)

Mutation + selection are demonstrated mechanisms of the theory, along with drift etc.
If you wish to include others into it, like for example "non-random mutation" (whatever that means), then you are going to have to demonstrate that such happens and what role it plays in the larger process.

But you can't, can you?

But sure, "perhaps" other things were at play.
"perhaps" aliens came down genetically manipulated our ancestors to set us on a path with eyes. "who knows" right?

But if I were to state such, you would ask me for evidence of such before accepting such, right? RIGHT?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Can you quote any paper that concludes 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.

The scientific position is that there is no reason to assume that nature could not generate an eye without intelligent oversight. If you can rebut that, please do. If not, what's the problem?

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

I don't recall my exact words, but my claim is that I believe that that is what probably happened. It's also science's best supported hypothesis.

perhaps mutations are not random

Perhaps they are.

do we have any point of disagreement?

I don't know. Do you accept the definition of evolution I provided? Do you agree that irreducible complexity would falsify evolution as the sole explanation for the tree of life and demonstrate intelligent design if identified? Do you accept that that hasn't been done? Do you accept that science has no duty to prove that no intelligence was involved? Do you agree that there is no evidence that the scientific theory is incorrect? Do you accept that the eye could have evolved through the application of natural selection to random genetic variation? If so, we're probably pretty much in agreement.

We've drifted, and I'm not sure why we're here. You asked for falsifying finds and I named the failed search for irreducible complexity, which included four examples of biological systems originally called irreducibly complex by the ID people and later shown not to be so. Now you want to discuss the specific pathway involved, which is not a part of the theory, nor of its falsification, unless you or somebody else can demonstrate that it couldn't possibly have occurred through the mechanism Darwin proposed. I really don't want to spend any more time on the evolution of the eye. You can find whatever I could provide you on the Internet.

How about some kind of feedback on my post, the one following your OP? That's what I entered this thread to discuss. Did you see it? I've discussed this with you before. What are you thinking when you start a thread, get a specific answer, ignore it, and then drift to a tangential topic that might interest you but nobody else? Nobody else in this thread seems to need or want a primer in eye evolution.

Do you remember my admonition to consider what's in it for the other guy? You've made this discussion useless and uninteresting to me by changing it from what would falsify evolution to how the eye evolved. I've indulged you for a post or two, but once again, what are you giving back to justify the effort? Doing that casts a pall on that effort for me, which affects my attitude, as you can see. So why do you keep doing it even after having had it pointed out to you several times? Do you not care about others? That's the vibe I keep getting.

 

[leroy]

Mutation + selection are demonstrated mechanisms of the theory, along with drift etc.
If you wish to include others into it, like for example "non-random mutation" (whatever that means), then you are going to have to demonstrate that such happens and what role it plays in the larger process.

But you can't, can you?

But sure, "perhaps" other things were at play.
"perhaps" aliens came down genetically manipulated our ancestors to set us on a path with eyes. "who knows" right?

But if I were to state such, you would ask me for evidence of such before accepting such, right? RIGHT?

This are things that are being discusseed in the literature.

1We know that “non random” mutations occur

2 We know that random mutations occur

3 We don’t know which of them (if any or both) played an important role in the evolution of the eye

whcih of these 3 points woudl you deny

(whatever that means)

Random in this context simply means that the probability of a mutation is not affected by the necessity” of that having that mutation …… non random would simply mean the opposite.

For example a bacterium might “need” a specific mutation to become immune to an antibiotic, … but this “need” for the mutation does not increases the probability of getting such mutation, (a bacterium that doesn’t need the mutation is equally likely to get it).... this is what is meant by "random"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

This are things that are being discusseed in the literature.

1We know that “non random” mutations occur

2 We know that random mutations occur

3 We don’t know which of them (if any or both) played an important role in the evolution of the eye

whcih of these 3 points woudl you deny

We've been over all of these ad nauseum on this very forum. Several people, among them even geneticists, have been explaining to you your misunderstandings.

Yet here we are again.

Sorry, but I'm not about to waste my time again.

Random in this context simply means that the probability of a mutation is not affected by the necessity” of that having that mutation …… non random would simply mean the opposite.

For example a bacterium might “need” a specific mutation to become immune to an antibiotic, … but this “need” for the mutation does not increases the probability of getting such mutation, (a bacterium that doesn’t need the mutation is equally likely to get it).... this is what is meant by "random"

Or you could just say it like anyone with a basic understanding of the theory would say it: random with respect to fitness.

 

[John53]

A sharknado implies a weakening of gravity and/or much denser air. Are you saying that at some time in Earth's history that gravity became weak enough to allow sharknadoes? There remain questions, such as what gives the water its cohesion. I posit that it must be some sort of slime, perhaps sharky skin slime.

I'll have to watch the 6 part documentary and get back to you.

 

[leroy]

The scientific position is that there is no reason to assume that nature could not generate an eye without intelligent oversight. If you can rebut that, please do. If not, what's the problem?



I don't recall my exact words, but my claim is that I believe that that is what probably happened. It's also science's best supported hypothesis.



Perhaps they are.



I don't know. Do you accept the definition of evolution I provided? Do you agree that irreducible complexity would falsify evolution as the sole explanation for the tree of life and demonstrate intelligent design if identified? Do you accept that that hasn't been done? Do you accept that science has no duty to prove that no intelligence was involved? Do you agree that there is no evidence that the scientific theory is incorrect? Do you accept that the eye could have evolved through the application of natural selection to random genetic variation? If so, we're probably pretty much in agreement.

We've drifted, and I'm not sure why we're here. You asked for falsifying finds and I named the failed search for irreducible complexity, which included four examples of biological systems originally called irreducibly complex by the ID people and later shown not to be so. Now you want to discuss the specific pathway involved, which is not a part of the theory, nor of its falsification, unless you or somebody else can demonstrate that it couldn't possibly have occurred through the mechanism Darwin proposed. I really don't want to spend any more time on the evolution of the eye. You can find whatever I could provide you on the Internet.

How about some kind of feedback on my post, the one following your OP? That's what I entered this thread to discuss. Did you see it? I've discussed this with you before. What are you thinking when you start a thread, get a specific answer, ignore it, and then drift to a tangential topic that might interest you but nobody else? Nobody else in this thread seems to need or want a primer in eye evolution.

Do you remember my admonition to consider what's in it for the other guy? You've made this discussion useless and uninteresting to me by changing it from what would falsify evolution to how the eye evolved. I've indulged you for a post or two, but once again, what are you giving back to justify the effort? Doing that casts a pall on that effort for me, which affects my attitude, as you can see. So why do you keep doing it even after having had it pointed out to you several times? Do you not care about others? That's the vibe I keep getting.

How about some kind of feedback on my post, the one following your OP? That's what I entered this thread to discuss. Did you see it? I've discussed this with you before. What are you thinking when you start a thread, get a specific answer, ignore it, and then drift to a tangential topic that might interest you but nobody else? Nobody else in this thread seems to need or want a primer in eye evolution.

Because I agree with your post, except for the one point that I mentioned (that is why I am only focusing on that point)

1 I accept that your original definition is accurate

2 I accept that IC would falsify evolution

3 I agree with the motives that you give.

My only point of disagreement (wich is tangential to the OP) is that I don’t agree on that it has been shown that the eye (and other organs) are not Irreducibly Complex…………..as I said before, the answer is “we don’t know” there if not enough evidence to conclude on either side.


That seems to be our only point of disagreement, because you seem to be affirming that “it has been shown” that the eye is not IC, so unless you want to discuss on that topic, I don’t think there is anything else to discuss, (we agree on most point)

I don't recall my exact words, but my claim is that I believe that that is what probably happened. It's also science's best supported hypothesis.

Well I would suggest that things probably evolved mainly through nonrandom mutations.

Would you like a conversation over that? where we both provide arguments in support of our claims?

1 you say random mutation + natural selection

2 I say non random mutations + natural selection

Do you accept that the eye could have evolved through the application of natural selection to random genetic variation?

well it “could have” it´s a reasonable hypothesis, just not the best in my opinion, …. But my overall view is that we don’t have enough evidence to make any conclusions.


We know that there are many mechanisms that cause hereditable changes in the genotype (ad phenotype)


We know that some of these changes are not random


So to assume that some of these non random mechanisms played an important role in the evolution of the eye (while random changes played a minor role) doesn’t seem to be a wild assumption but rather seems much more reasonable that the alternative that you propose.

 

[Jose Fly]

We've been over all of these ad nauseum on this very forum. Several people, among them even geneticists, have been explaining to you your misunderstandings.

Yet here we are again.

Sorry, but I'm not about to waste my time again.

I've said it for years now....they really don't have any new arguments. So apparently the best they can do is just rehash old (at times very old) failed arguments and see who's willing to engage.

Creationism is dead...has been for a while.

 

[sayak83]

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

You mean this?
Light and the evolution of vision.

Unicellular organisms already had light sensitive photoreceptor proteins that they used as "eyes" before they clumped together to form multicellular organism colonies. So it is more of a case that within such multicellular colonies, some cells continued to express these proteins to become specialized eyes while others switched them off.

 

[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

No at all. The theory consists not only of the mechanism but also the structure that results from applying it, just as the Periodic Table results from the Aufbauprinzip.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well I would suggest that things probably evolved mainly through nonrandom mutations. Would you like a conversation over that? where we both provide arguments in support of our claims? [snip] We know that some of these changes are not random. So to assume that some of these non random mechanisms played an important role in the evolution of the eye (while random changes played a minor role) doesn’t seem to be a wild assumption but rather seems much more reasonable that the alternative that you propose.

Sure. Make your argument. What's your evidence?

But first, directed and undirected are the words I would use rather than random and nonrandom. Is that what you mean by nonrandom? If so, what mutations were nonrandom or directed? What is directing them? I sense that this is motivated by a desire to add to the mechanism a means for God to make man in His image, which I mentioned in post #2 would falsify Darwin's theory at least regarding human evolution.

 

[blü 2]

Yeah, you just used one of the non extremal ones. And assumed the other one.

I'm the one who has a little clarity about what I assume, not you.

 

[leroy]

Sure. Make your argument. What's your evidence?

But first, directed and undirected are the words I would use rather than random and nonrandom. Is that what you mean by nonrandom? If so, what mutations were nonrandom or directed? What is directing them? I sense that this is motivated by a desire to add to the mechanism a means for God to make man in His image, which I mentioned in post #2 would falsify Darwin's theory at least regarding human evolution.

Well random in this context means that mutations are equally likely to occur regardless if the organisms needs them or not………. For example a bacterium that needs a mutation to become immune to antibiotics is equally likely to get that mutationthan a bacteria that doesn’t need the mutation

Non random simply means the opposite, that there is a bias (or tendency) towards getting a mutation that would produce a beneficial result.

For example there is a mechanism known as natural genetic engeneering, where under selective pressure the genome changes (like Lego-like blocks) and produces new hereditable genes/proteins in order to overcome that thread. .. (necessity caused genetic variation) this would be an example of non random mutation.


Is this what you mean with directed and non directed?....... note that non random “directed” doesn’t imply any designer,

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Well random in this context means that mutations are equally likely to occur regardless if the organisms needs them or not………. For example a bacterium that needs a mutation to become immune to antibiotics is equally likely to get that mutationthan a bacteria that doesn’t need the mutation

Non random simply means the opposite, that there is a bias (or tendency) towards getting a mutation that would produce a beneficial result.

For example there is a mechanism known as natural genetic engeneering, where under selective pressure the genome changes (like Lego-like blocks) and produces new hereditable genes/proteins in order to overcome that thread. .. (necessity caused genetic variation) this would be an example of non random mutation.


Is this what you mean with directed and non directed?....... note that non random “directed” doesn’t imply any designer,

OK, so what's your point. Please make your main point clearly here. Suppose you are correct. What do you think that does to the theory other than add another means for genetic variation? Why do you think this is interesting if it is correct?

 

[loverofhumanity]

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.

This assumption is only made on the basis one disbelieves in God. Would the judgement of an atheist be accepted with regards to spiritual matters when he has no knowledge whatsoever of such matters even denying God exists?

That billions of people follow a spiritual path is sufficient proof to the unbiased person that man is inherently a spiritual being. That you deny it you are saying your knowledge and judgement is superior to billions of people? To deny man’s spirituality or that it is an essential part of his being is to deny the experiences of humanity itself.

 

[leroy]

OK, so what's your point. Please make your main point clearly here. Suppose you are correct. What do you think that does to the theory other than add another means for genetic variation? Why do you think this is interesting if it is correct?

Well from a philosophical point of view If I am correct One would wonder “where do these mechanisms come from “how do genomes know how to evolve” ? and I guess theists could recover some of the points that where lost because of Darwin.

But it shouldn’t be relevant, all I what to know if we are in agreement with the meaning of words, so that we can both make our arguments,

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Rapid speciation is proved/observed. "Macro" evolution is already falsified, neither seen in nature nor observed in a lab environment nor the fossil record.

What is "rapid speciation"? Do you mean magic?

Speciation is macroevolution. The fossil record, which is part of nature is evidence for macroevolution.

It has not been falsified.

 

[Alien826]

Evolution not true for biology.

Mass as mass once burning evolved into cooled as mass by spinning.

Law space infinities stretch.

O spinning men claim is time movements around in an alight counted position.

As O earth spins around but also moves around O as a circuit by two variables.

Why year was 12 but an experience of a human on the planet.
Why time was 12 just an experience of a human also.

Biology changed by huge reactive causes is why I say biology never evolved.

Has anyone ever made any sense out of this stuff? I tried this time because it was relatively short. No luck.

 

[rational experiences]

If you remove the human out of the scenario as all humans die.

Stating as all humans die my life pretending I'm the creator is..... by my words human .....my thesis human.... my intention to impose numbering myself...for my understanding.

As I know it all yet experiment change to know it all.

No natural law exists for changing says the advice.

Man says himself but man's god is destructive. His confessions.

Secondly we'd all have to be the same.

As science says if I apply a reaction it's constant exact and the same.

Then we'd all have to die at the same time. Pretty obvious.

So babies that the God ego man human says evolves from microbes human types is all his adult God categories.

Self idolator in person expressing all their human ideas. Baby self evolution man self the God.

The baby human evolved but you thesis a law as adult....so we all die. We dont evolve as adults as we die...then you'd kill everything off. Beginning by sex.

Acting on behalf of your god of science.

The theme I want carbon.

You can create new carbon yourself in destroying says the theist.

Men say you evolve your single human cell body into new cells. Owning law of the body achievement a human god.

Men said I'll copy so plays around with mass not in bio bodies. But proves cells self develop.

Now we have dust minerals involved bio chemistry that proves cells can reproduce as a God inside it's owned body.

A human being a God is a human.

No human no theist no human imposing changes by human choice either.