- #1
PIT2
- 897
- 2
Exactly how can evolution theory be falsified?
russ_watters said:Discovery of a fossil of a modern human who lived 3 billion years ago (etc.) would falsify the theory of evolution.
russ_watters said:Discovery of a fossil of a modern human who lived 3 billion years ago (etc.) would falsify the theory of evolution.
At this point, though, the evidence is so complete that such a thing would not fit with the evidence we have. There isn't really any room left for any new evidence to completely falsify it, beyond God himself announcing he's been screwing with us.
The word "evolution" in a biological context refers to changes in gene frequencies (e.g., the gene pool) over time. Evolution is a process, not a thing. [Natural selection + random mutation] is but one of many ways gene frequencies within a gene pool can change over time. To understand this you must learn the assumptions of the Hardy-Weinberg Law--there are ten of them, violation of anyone of which will result in "evolution". So, if you limit your concept of "evolution" to [NS + mutation] your concept of evolution can be, and has been, falsified.PIT2 said:...I mean NS + random mutation as the mechanism that causes the evolution of species...
selfAdjoint said:As I've said before, finding that our DNA encodes a message like "Reg. U.S. Pat. Off. (R) Pat. Applied For" would do it.
Rade said:So, if you limit your concept of "evolution" to [NS + mutation] your concept of evolution can be, and has been, falsified.
PIT2 said:Rade said:So, if you limit your concept of "evolution" to [NS + mutation] your concept of evolution can be, and has been, falsified.
Could u give an example of how it has been falsified?
selfAdjoint said:Neutral evolution - which does happen - is mutation without NS. And some NS affects the expression of genes rather than new genes (those industrial landscape birds in England). So the necessary linkage of NS and mutation in a naive view of evolution has been falsified. Therefore no properly informed evolutionist holds that view any more. Neutral evolution was a BIG innovation when it came out.
scott_alexsk said:Plastic Theory states that species are essentially like plastic in that they are only able to change slightly, but not significantly (as in devolping new appendages). This theory also seems to have the backing of several former evolutionists who say that significant changes to alter mice in a meaningful way have failed repeatedly in labs. I have seen this theory in only one place and if you wish to see the link I can post it.
-scott
arildno said:No, read SA's post again. That is not at all what he means!
Neutral evolution - which does happen - is mutation without NS. And some NS affects the expression of genes rather than new genes (those industrial landscape birds in England). So the necessary linkage of NS and mutation in a naive view of evolution has been falsified. Therefore no properly informed evolutionist holds that view any more. Neutral evolution was a BIG innovation when it came out.
scott_alexsk said:I would like to first state that the paper in question is a rebuttal to another paper concerning marco-evolution. The author does not challenge mirco-evolution but focuses solely on marco-evolution. I first noticed this paper on this site when someone (I believe a few weeks ago) posted it.
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1f.asp"
Here is the link. Most of the stuff concerning plastic theory is in the rebuttal for point 28, but there is also additional material in several other points on that page. Much of this paper is too deep for me, but this still seems like one of the more convincing arguements.
-scott
PIT2 said:Exactly how can evolution theory be falsified?
Again, INCORRECT!PIT2 said:Oops i read over a section.
So (i read it again), and now we have:
1. rm + ns (falsified)
2. rm (falsified)
3. ns acting on gene expression (falsified)
1,2,3 together (not falsified)
So how can 1,2,3 together be falsified?
Btw i have a feeling that this list is going to get longer and longer, so i will just describe what I am getting at: i want to know how all of evolution theory's known mechanisms combined can be falsified. To be more specific, i mean the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as neodarwinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
Dear PIT2. The answer to your question is the equation known as the Hardy-Weinberg Equation (many have elevated this to a Law). From ~ 1903 to 1935 the study of evolution fell into decline. Hardy (a mathematician) and Weinberg (a physician) asked this question--what would theory of evolution predict of a population (a large population) where there was "random" mating with 0.0 % "natural selection" ? What they concluded was that the gene frequencies in such a population would "not" change over time (e.g., no evolution--what you search for--the case showing how all of evolution theory known mechanisms can be falsified). This equation became the cornerstone of neodarwinism. Here is the equation fyi--you cannot understand "theory of evolution" unless you understand the implications of this equation:PIT2 said:...i want to know how all of evolution theory's known mechanisms combined can be falsified. To be more specific, i mean the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as neodarwinism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
arildno said:Again, INCORRECT!
What has been falsified, is the NECESSARY linkage between rm and ns, that is the idea that it is impossible to have the one without the other!
Rade said:what would theory of evolution predict of a population (a large population) where there was "random" mating with 0.0 % "natural selection" ? What they concluded was that the gene frequencies in such a population would "not" change over time (e.g., no evolution--what you search for--the case showing how all of evolution theory known mechanisms can be falsified).
This equation became the cornerstone of neodarwinism. Here is the equation fyi--you cannot understand "theory of evolution" unless you understand the implications of this equation:
p^2(A1A1)+2pg(A1A2)+q^2(A2A2)=1where A1 & A2 are two alleles at a single gene locus, p & q represent the frequencies of A1 and A2 alleles in the population. Here are some links for you to study to help you see how biologists attempt to answer your question:
http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~gross/bioed/bealsmodules/hardy-weinberg.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardy-Weinberg_principle
Rade said:what would theory of evolution predict of a population (a large population) where there was "random" mating with 0.0 % "natural selection" ? What they concluded was that the gene frequencies in such a population would "not" change over time (e.g., no evolution--what you search for--the case showing how all of evolution theory known mechanisms can be falsified).
LOL. I haven't been around for over a year now... but nothing has changed.GiZeHy said:hi folks
concerning the 'theory' of evolution check this site out and collect ideas.
some are pretty interesting...
Moderator edit: link deleted.
have fun ;)