Can Evolution Theory Be Falsified?

[PIT2]

Exactly how can evolution theory be falsified?

 

[arildno]

What particular aspect are you asking about?

 

[russ_watters]

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.

 

[PIT2]

I mean NS + random mutation as the mechanism that causes the evolution of species.

 

[PIT2]

Discovery of a fossil of a modern human who lived 3 billion years ago (etc.) would falsify the theory of evolution.

Would that falsify the idea that that being came about through NS + random mutations, or would it just screw up the evolutionary timeline that we've reconstructed?

 

[arildno]

As for NS working, that's just AS working in the absence of selective factors introduced by humans. (alternatively, AS is NS with a few human-introduced selection factors thrown in)

 

[NateTG]

Well, for humans at least, there are definitely non-genetic methods for evolution - for example, cultural ones. Of course, that sort of evolution is not likely to be expressed as species variety.

Notably, because gestation enviorments have a very strong invfluence on development, there could also be self-selecting behavioral evolution for non-human creatures. It's unclear to me whether this would qualify for species distinction.

Regarding 'super-ancient' human corpses:
The theory of random mutation + natural selection makes some fairily strong predictions about the rate of genetic variation. The existence of a billion-year old human corpse is, at best, problematic in light of those predictions. You might find the following entertaining:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

 

[kmarinas86]

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.

I don't see how a 30 billion year old fossil with all the features of a modern human found "somewhere" would falsify evolution any more than the discovery of a "fossil of an alien species" that "appears to be 30 billion years old" found in the "same place".

In the mean time, if you allow manipulation by an advanced extraterrestial race, you pretty much can't prove the past worth a damn. By considering such manipulation, you must divorce history from science completely and absolutely, and as a result, the slightest historical fact would become 100% philosophy. For example, just ask any Moon Hoax or WTC/Pentagon conspiracy theorist.

 

[selfAdjoint]

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]

...I mean NS + random mutation as the mechanism that causes the evolution of species...

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]

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.

Why couldn't that have arisen by random mutations + ns?
Especially since there were billions of years of time for it to have happened...

Also, isn't this the same argument as the one creationists use:

"it looks designed, so it couldn't have evolved he way evolution theory claims it did"

 

[PIT2]

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]

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?

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]

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

 

[PIT2]

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.

Ok, so the evolution of species through random mutations and NS has been falsified, and now properly informed evolutionists have put neutral evolution into the equation aswell.

Is there any way to falsify this new equation?

 

[PIT2]

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

Alright post the link, but failing to alter mice doesn't sound like something that falsifies what this topic is about.

 

[arildno]

No, read SA's post again. That is not at all what he means!

 

[PIT2]

No, read SA's post again. That is not at all what he means!

Oops i read over a section.

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.

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

 

[scott_alexsk]

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

 

[iansmith]

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

True origin is a creationism website and a rebuttal for the arguments made in the direct page(s) was made.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/camp.html

 

[Danniel]

Exactly how can evolution theory be falsified?

By the known organisms around the world not being fit with what is known of the possibilities of modification in descent.

Rather than all the taxonomic groups we got, that are possible of being orgainzed in a phylogenetic "tree of life", we could be in a scenario where no one could possibly defend, based on evidence, that a certain hypothetical phylogeny is significantly better than any other one.*

More or less like how you prove that a jigsaw puzzle of a specific picture is in fact a jigsaw puzzle of this picture, or a jigsaw puzzle at all, you got to eventually assemble it, and even if you do not got the whole picture with all the pieces in the right place, at some point of assemblage would be unlikely that what is showing is just by a coincidence something that looks a lot like a very specific picture cut into pieces. In the other hand, if you do not got a real jigsaw puzzle, you could indefinitely try many assemblages but none would be significantly better than any other.

Putting the analogy in the real world, the organism's traits would not be distributed according with a phylogeny, but randomly with respect with that. Could be totally random, or in another pattern, anyway, such as teleological, i.e., structure following function, then you could have both bats and birds with bird wings and feathers, for example. The same applies to many other traits, from morphology to more basic biochemistry.




That is the falsification for universal common descent (independently of specific mechanisms of evolution, the only assumption is that evolution is descent with modification more or less like the one that took place with dog breeds in the possibilities, ie, what is known and witnessed in the matter of biological descent, rather than supposing that is possible to suddenly a dog born with bird wings in his back or something), which is what I thought that was being asked at the beginning. There's no such thing as a single falsification for everything that is accepted in the field of evolution, the same way that there´s no "falsification for ecology", or a "falsification for cardiology", etc.


_________________
*actually, this happens sometimes, but with more specific groups, rather than in general; for example, is pretty hard to know the exact phylogeny of dog breeds, but there's no doubt that they descend from a common ancestor. The things get better with the more data is used to trace the phylogeny. But with more scarce data (such as, only morphology from fossils), there are cases in which there are many equally evidenced relationships. But again, that occurs with relationships within, for example, dromaeusarids (Velociraptor & kin), rather than mess with higher taxonomic groups, such as platypus being equally evidenced as closely related with ducks and monotremes...

 

[scott_alexsk]

I forgot to mention that but if you look, the rebuttal only refers to the first five points, of which none concern plastic theory. Anyways if you refer to the link and point 28, I am concerned whether or not you think this former evolutionist has a legit arguement.
-scott

 

[arildno]

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

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!

It does not at all follow from this that rm+ns is falsified as an evolutionary mechanism, it is even perfectly consistent with the statement that rm+ns remains the DOMINANT evolutionary mechanism.

 

[Rade]

...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:

p^2(A1A1)+2pg(A1A2)+q^2(A2A2)=1​

where 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

 

[PIT2]

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!

Thats what meant said with "1. rm + ns (falsified)".
The + stands for the necessary linkage between the two.

 

[PIT2]

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).

Interesting law, i hadnt seen it before.
Just a question: does neutral evolution falsify the hardy-weinberg law?

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)=1​

where 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

I don't fully understand the hardy-weinberg law yet, but let me give a simplified version of what (i think) they stated:

1+2+3+4+5 = no evolution
(1,2,3,etc. are the assumptions of how the population behaves, taken from the introduction paragraph of the first link in ur post. Also see the list below).

In other words, this law states that if we do not have the neodarwinist mechanisms(the assumptions) and do get evolution of species, then neodarwinism is falsified. Now if this happened and 1+2+3+4+5 did result in evolution, how would we know one of the assumption hasnt been violated and that one or more of the mechanisms are actually at work?

Specifically, how can we test by experiment that:
1) a population is large (i.e., there is no genetic drift)
2) there is no gene flow between populations, from migration or transfer of gametes
3) a populations mutations are negligible
4) a populations individuals are mating randomly
5) natural selection is not operating on the population

Some of these could be a bit impossible to show to be happening, couldn't they?
(for example: nr.3 and 5)

 

[selfAdjoint]

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).

Reread this and see that it is no criticism of Darwinian evolution at all. If you POSIT no selection in a population then of COURSE you get no evolution, Rather the population settles down to an equilibrium state, the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium. Darwinian evolution is variation with natural selection; variation without selection is just not a case of Darwinian evolution.

"Neutral" evolution may obey the Hardy-Weinberg law, indeed that regualarity could underlie the "genetic clock". But I don't really know.

 

[Danniel]

about the point 28 of the creationist site, the limitations of change.

They do exist, but still is not the creationist "kind" limit way, like fixed boundaries of possible change. Think instead of small boundaries of possible change that move along with the populations as they change, but that at the same time, vary in radius and even shape, as more variables are taken into account.

As all the changes will occur within a boundary of possibilities, all immediately possible next changes will not be much further beyond what whatever the population already was at first, most of the possible change is still coincident with the earlier possible change. More or less like, if you take the King in a chessboard, you move it one square at some direction, then in the next movement you can take it back where it was, or in four squares to which it was adjacent before, or remain in the same place in this move, totalizing 6 possibilities where the king would not move beyond squares that were at its reach at the earlier turn, and only 3 possible movements that would place the king further than that. And yet, not that further. But, at the same time, it may even not be possible to move the king at all as it would be in check, which could be considered weakly analogous to what natural selection does with the "wrong" change.

There is some other stuff that looks a bit more like permanent boundaries of possible change. Some organisms are constructed in a certain way that simply permit more drastic degrees of morphologic change, and would yet be functional, or could be at least mildly malfunctional to non-harmful unuseful and later be made functional or trimmed by natural selection acting on variations. Other organisms develop in a way that equivalent degrees of change would more likely be totally unfit. Arthropods are more or less in the first group, and terrestrial vertebrates more to the second.

Think of an extra pair of legs growing in a arthropod. Is possible that it would not be fit at all, but could as well be something just like spider's palps; a fifth pair of legs that are used more or less as hands or lips, that take the food to their mouths. I'm not very sure, but I think that spider's palps are anatomically dwarfed legs; perhaps, even their chelicera (more or less analogous with mandibles) is something like just the later segments of legs, but more modified, more or less like with big "nails" forming their fangs. At the same time, something like an extra pair of legs growing into any terrestrial vertebrate, specially in its head, seems much more unlikely to succeed.

And similar things that did go right in both in "lower" and in "higher" animals usually have more drastic effects on lower ones. Neoteny and paedomorphosis, for example. In salamanders (which I'm considering here somewhat in a middle point between "lower" and "higher" animals), evolved some species that achieve sexual maturity retaining their larval form, so they're permanently aquatic, rather than becoming amphibious; humans are thought to be somewhat pedomorphic, retaining some patterns of primate infant development for more time. Look for baby chimp´s head shape, and you'll see that they're more or less of the same shape and proportions of human babies, and also, like humans, are not prognathic as older primates are. This happens to be somewhat of a great change, since permitted bigger brains and etc, but still, some creationists (oddly, coming from them) consider humans and apes creatures yet of the same "kind". But now think of a butterfly and a catterpillar. If someone does not know that these are developmental stages of the same animal, hardly they would classify them in the same "kind". And at the same time, would be theoreticaly possible to evolve a neotenic/paedomorphic caterpillar, that never develops into a butterfly (I might be wrong, but I think that there's one species where only the male becomes a butterfly, but I'm not sure at all). ertebrates themselves, are thought to have evolved from paedomorphic forms of tunicates.

Another chess analogy would be that some gruops of living organisms are more like queens, rooks and bishops, while others are like kings, pawns and knighs (which is somewhat a bad analogy if taken too literaly, since a queen will always be a queen, and only pawns are promoted, "evolve" to whatever else, but I think that everyone can get the idea). Other analogy could be that some organisms are more like "lego" in which you can nearly free assembly many things, and others more like those realistic miniatures of cars or motorcycles that you got to assemble in a very specific way.

 

[GiZeHy]

hi folks
concerning the 'theory' of evolution check this site out and collect ideas.
some are pretty interesting...
Moderator edit: link deleted; site contains numerous false statements that have been fully discussed and debunked in prior threads.[/color]

have fun ;)

 

[Another God]

hi folks
concerning the 'theory' of evolution check this site out and collect ideas.
some are pretty interesting...
Moderator edit: link deleted.[/color]

have fun ;)

LOL. I haven't been around for over a year now... but nothing has changed.

Where do you start with a website like this?

For a start, it is trying to play scientific enquiry down as "Materialistic philosophy" as if that is an inherently and ungodly (ie: Bad) thing.

One section of it actually bothers to criticize charles darwin for his views on racial differences in humans: As if historic figures acting in their own time can be judged by modern standards. Sorry guys, but Darwin doesn't live in our time, its not-practical to apply our beliefs/morals/judgements upon him.

...and that's just a start. I'm sure I could happily pick apart every essay written on this website. There is too much to take in though.

Shane

 

[Moonbear]

Hi Another God, wow, haven't seen you around here in ages! One thing has changed...we no longer allow links to sites like that (I'm not sure yet if GiZeHy was serious with that post or trying to be humorous, so didn't delete the post and your reply entirely, but removed the link. It may have been intended as a joke.). There's no need to help advertise sites with no scientific validity whatsoever. Most of those topics have already been "picked apart" ad nauseum around here.

 

[Another God]

Wow. Well that IS a change isn't it? I'm sure met with some cynicism from the creationists, but then its quite clear that they are never intent on engaging in rational discussion of topics anyway. I still remember that LOL.

I figured it was time I came back and started participating again. I have been so Forum active lately that it seemed wrong that I didn't come back to my first forum. I would be like a traitor!

SHane

 

[Evo]

Welcome back !

 

[loseyourname]

Wow, this was your first forum? It took many years before I graduated from the old AOL member boards to web-based discussion.

 

[Another God]

I was a moderator of this and the philosophy forums a couple of years ago now. I am sad that I stopped coming by and lost the privledge and responsibility, but sometimes we have to move on.

These sorts of forums seem to be a large dominating force online now. Its amazing how many websitea are just forum now.

 

[Moonbear]

I was a moderator of this and the philosophy forums a couple of years ago now. I am sad that I stopped coming by and lost the privledge and responsibility, but sometimes we have to move on.

Greg has done some remodelling since you left, and that seems to include stronger locks on the chains keeping us mentors from straying so far.

 

[Another God]

LOL yeah...4,482 posts... you haven't strayed far have you? :D

Is Zero stil around? He should be on about 20,000 posts by now.

 

[Evo]

LOL yeah...4,482 posts... you haven't strayed far have you? :D

Is Zero stil around? He should be on about 20,000 posts by now.

Zero disappeared , that's when I took over GD.

 

[Danniel]

For scott_alexsk

I tryed to answer the PM, but the board said that you disable the option of accepting these, so I will answer it here anyway, since it's nothing really private

I appreciate your response on the evolution thread. What you say makes sense but I am still not sure about either arguement. What keeps me agnostic(sp) is the supposed failed tests to replicate any sort of change in mice. Even if no single test is definitive the author implied that a dramatic change was suspected in 60 generations of mice (according to the theory at that time, or else they would not have been trying it ). But they ended up just killing all of the mice. So perhaps a result like this is less definitive with the current theory, but more definitive with the past theory (before the experiments). But this is most likely just an incorrect assumption of mine. If you are interested I can dredge up the passage.

Thanks,
-scott

Glad you appreciated it.

Well, I'm not very aware of studies with mice, really. I find however a bit strange the idea of expecting to see "dramatic" (which is not a very meaningful, precise term) change in a given number of generations... I just can't think of how they would come up with such number, and also is vague what they mean by "dramatic".

But it all make it seems like some relatively old stuff from when they focused much in the effects of eventual mutation alone, induced by radiation or something (since the many deaths you mentioned hardly would result from attemtps to induce change with artificial selection). Which usually ended out with a bunch of frankensteinian flies among a lot of dead ones.

More (but not so much) recently they've been making more specific studies on developmental biology and studying evolution in the context of development. So rather than aimlessly shooting radiation until pops some interesting mutation, they actually study genes linked with the development and compare it with related genes in closely related species, and with not so closely related too, there's surprisingly much in common with animals as distant as far as insects and vertebrates; for example, with these two, along with all animals that have eyes, it was found that the same gene play an important role triggering the development of eyes, even though they have different sort of eyes. The same gene, however, still exists in animals from lineages that split before the common ancestor of all animals with eyes, like sea urchin.

You might find some interesting stuff on what I maybe would call "dramatic" changes googling for evo-devo, developmental biology, or evolutionary developmental biology. But there's some interesting "dramatic" stuff with the "old fashined" natural selection too, and however, even the more drastic changes understood by evo-devo should be seen somewhat in the context of natural selection.

I think that many interesting stuff are yet to come, since just last week I saw in the news about the finding of a whole new code in the DNA, related with gene expression.

 

[Danniel]

One section of it actually bothers to criticize charles darwin for his views on racial differences in humans: As if historic figures acting in their own time can be judged by modern standards. Sorry guys, but Darwin doesn't live in our time, its not-practical to apply our beliefs/morals/judgements upon him.

I haven't seen the link, though I've seen this sort of "argument", like "Darwin was a pre-nazi bastard that hatred god, stole candy from smaller kids when he was in school, and he peed on his own pants up to when he was 12 years old".

It is interesting to note, in this thing of racial issues, that although Darwin had views of racial differences that do not stood up with further evidence (or that wouldn't stand even with a bit more of logical analysis, with the current evidence of his time), he didn't supported ideas of racism, like slavery. In fact, in some of his writings, he expressed his abhor for slavery, when he witnessed the conditions of slaves in Brazil.

Also, parts in which he says things like "the savage cultures/peoples will eventually be eliminated by the civilized peoples", do not include any judgement of moral on the event, approving it, but he says that just as they are the previsible course of events, which turned out to not be wrong in great extent.

Even some social darwinists, like Herbert Spencer himself, did not approved genocide and such things, but actually said things in the sense of substitution of a culture by another improved one, where peoples on the "less evolved" cultures would simply adhere the new one. The whole thing actually is something a bit in the sense of some mid-far right politics of being opposite to social assistence and such things. At least as far as I recall, the things are more or less in this sense, but I haven't read really much, and these things I've said can be a bit more "light" than reality anyway.

(BTW, "social darwinism" came before darwinism; it was a popular set of ideas of that time and place, that more likely influenced Darwin than vice-versa, even though could be a bit of vice-versa anyway, since OTOOS and other writings of him were very influential. The "social darwinsm" term was coined in the 1940's I guess)

However, more importantly, even if Darwin and all the "eevilutionists" where in fact the evil incarnated, that doesn't make any theory less valid. Moral implications means nothing in science, only evidence really matters, which doesn't mean that we should not care for morality... interestingly evolution is the more victimized area of science of this sort of confusion. I don´t recall people complaining that Newton was a freak virgin that believed astrology and occultism, and led some people for execution, or even saying that his theory of gravity supported executions by hanging and made possible to people be suicide jumpers, or is to blame for traffic accidents and such

(but actually I've recently read of a far-right christian fundamentalist (and astrologist ) self-proclaimed phylosopher, that he finds many of his ideas on physics simply imbecile and he is to blame for the rise of atheism, which is actually the most evil thing, all so-called religious wars where in fact of atheists killing people, and atheism leads to communism, abortion, darwinism, anti-smoking and leftism in general)

 

[loseyourname]

You know, there is a terrific listing of different observations that might falsify the theory of common descent in that talk.origins FAQ that Ian posted. It's long and involved, but a heck of a read.

 

[scott_alexsk]

Thanks Danniel,

I appreciate your time and the information also. I'll check it out.

-scott

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

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.

As a matter of interest The God of the Abrahimic Faiths: Islam/Christian/Jew at least is incapable of lying, it's an overarching rule of Allah/God/Yahewa, so if he is screwing with us he's also lying about not being able to lie,

Creationism and ID wise Why anyone would spend there whole career trying and failing to falsify evolution is beyond me? So much learning wasted on trying to disprove a theory from a religous perspective
any chance that philosophy belongs in a scientific framework? Nope although I will grant that scientificly picking holes in the theory is eminently scientific, at least if you can find any.

 

[Another God]

There is so much room to falsify evolution. Sooooo much room. There are like millions and millions of species and varieties out there. MILLIONS. And every single one of those varieties, species, clades is an opportunity to falsify evolution.

All it takes is something truley unique. All it would take is for you to find an organism with bird like skeletal structure, and mamallian like intestinal structure. There are millions of organisms around, surely one of them can show its intelligently designed system to not obey the obvious predictions of evolutionary theory!

 

[Evo]

There is so much room to falsify evolution. Sooooo much room. There are like millions and millions of species and varieties out there. MILLIONS. And every single one of those varieties, species, clades is an opportunity to falsify evolution.

All it takes is something truley unique. All it would take is for you to find an organism with bird like skeletal structure, and mamallian like intestinal structure. There are millions of organisms around, surely one of them can show its intelligently designed system to not obey the obvious predictions of evolutionary theory!

It wouldn't have to be intelligently designed in order to be something that changes our view on evolution. There have been a number of finds that have put into question the progression of some species. The problem is, did that particular line evolve or die out? Just because some freak of nature is found doesn't mean it had offspring, or that any offspring continued. The best we can do is to look at the examples where we can see that a certain species has survived for a period of time and then examples which show modifications of that species.

 

[Oceanborn]

Well...there was the Piltown hoax and Nebraska Man and other hoax' among other misinterpretation of evidence. I mentioned this in my first post of this forum about how I don't understand why biogenesis constitutes life arising from non-life? And the probability chemical evolution by chance? There are not enough stars in the observable universe to calculate these odds.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It would take a very brave man to assert that there are not enough stars in the universe to calculate those odds, as far as I'm aware their are is not enough data or understanding of the Earth 3.5 billion years ago to calculate what the real chances were, in fact we know little about a lot of the conditions on early Earth not suprisingly. Just saying in a lab it can't happen or we can't do it, or it's possible because of A is just not going to cut it, you need to know precisely what the conditions were over the first billion or so years of Earths history, without it your just guessing really.

For all we know aliens came down and accidently left some bacteria from their home world that became us, it's just as far fetched as saying God did it if you think logically, do you want to work backwards and ask how alien life evolved on the alien planet, this is akin to working with God as the intiator, absolute suposition based on suposition. And people wonder why science doesn't bother? Becasue it can't answer that question, all it can do is look at what we do know and make educated guesses, wrong or right that's the best you can expect from any theory.

It seems to me most people who want to combine religion with science either come to a happy medium or compromise or simply do not bother trying to combine them. To me the later makes the most sense, although not to some Christians obviously, but I do wonder about their ability for scientific rationality, basically if you don't want to believe the science, don't that's your prerogative, if you do then you'll have to do better than using God to discuss the subject or just claiming life is impossible after all their are a little over 6 billion people that would beg to differ.

 

[Phobos]

Well...there was the Piltown hoax

...a hoax played ON the scientific community which was later identified and rejected BY the scientific community

and Nebraska Man

...not a hoax (rather, it was an over-hype of a fossil by the popular media and not by scientists)

and other hoax'...

such as? relevance? (hoaxes happen in every walk of life...the scientific method has the benefit of systematically weeding them out)

And the probability chemical evolution by chance? There are not enough stars in the observable universe to calculate these odds.

Note that the laws of physics and chemistry are non-random. You can point to aspects of randomness in whatever process, but that's very different than characterizing something as pure chance. Also, theories on biogenesis and evolution do not invoke pure chance in the first place. The "calculation of odds" typically cited, refers to a pure chance process (false model) that leads to what we have today (false premise that today's conditions are the only possible outcome). And as previously noted, there's not a strong theory for biogenesis available (much is unknown), as opposed to evolution, which has a very strong/robust theory. So one must wonder how the "odds" are being calculated at all.

 

[Oceanborn]

Note that the laws of physics and chemistry are non-random. You can point to aspects of randomness in whatever process, but that's very different than characterizing something as pure chance. Also, theories on biogenesis and evolution do not invoke pure chance in the first place. The "calculation of odds" typically cited, refers to a pure chance process (false model) that leads to what we have today (false premise that today's conditions are the only possible outcome). And as previously noted, there's not a strong theory for biogenesis available (much is unknown), as opposed to evolution, which has a very strong/robust theory. So one must wonder how the "odds" are being calculated at all.

To may understanding biogenesis has been proven through observation and reliable has an established scientific fact. However, there is this assumption that life is an accident, a theory I was tought in school has evolution. All this seems interesting when we look at all the movies that have catered to the theories imagination--good movies! I was always a dinosaur fan, who, has a child, loved to play with my toy dinosaurs and read up on their mysterious existence and extinction. However, has the years progressed, I've learned new information that lead me to the question has to just how the dinosaurs died? Such a mass fossil record must have a logical explanation that goes beyond guess-work. I do not believe that an asteroid impact killed them simply because the evolution timeline should logically decline, or devolve--indeed, crocodiles should not exist if such a theory is true! The timeline should not continue to upscale into more complex forms of life! And did you know that linguistically speaking that the term "dinosaur" was not coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owens? This may seem funny but the dinosaurs were ancient legends known has "dragons" and other titles known to the ancients by legend. Such legends found in the Bible and Sumerian literature like the Gilgamesh Epic describe such beast has we know them today has dinos. So the question lingers: What happened to the dinosaurs?

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[KnightTemplar]

Can the asteroid extinction theory explain the dinosaur fossil record better than the flood (which was accepted has fact before the Darwinian invasion on the scientific community)? The Flood was written in all ancient rap songs and there have been marine fossils found at the peaks of every mountain top, including the ones in my hallucinations! Yeah I know, evolutionist's have made up assumptions that attempt to use grammar properly and explain-away the evidence with theories that are mere theories at best.

The asteroid theory does a terrible job explaining the dream I had last night. The continual upscale of the evolutionary timeline is totally unscientific; only a child would fall for that one and I'm pretty sure that none of you will be there to catch me! Opps, children are taught this in school! I must have been sick that day. No wonder they believe this lie, they're taught it at a young age on days when they're not sick. I was taught this lie too and believed it until I realized that I didn't understand it. Like was said earlier, crocodiles etc. would not have survived the calamity because they cannot survive the steady stream of nonsense spewing from my keyboard, or the intense cold I feel when I forget to pay my electricity bill! All plant-life is dead. The entire world of nature is disrupted by the amount of nonsense I produce. Hence the evolution of life would have to rebegin with simple living organisms, much like myself.

And no, Dan Brown knows nothing about the "Knights Templar." My many personalities are all oblivious to one another! His Marxist scheme is well known and his factions refuted! Duh Da Vinchi Code is how my 13-year-old cousin refers to a popular movie. He has my blood, he should be flunked! I'm a (fruity) Knight Templar, but I don't carry a steel sword; my sword is not long enough. The Knights Templar never hid any secrets like the Dan the clown Brown falsely assumes. All Christian Knights reveal everything out in the open, especially to young boys. There are no secrets among us.

The word SUBTLE: The "b" in Subtle is so silent you have to pay attention! Reading is hard.

Do any of you have the constitutional right to believe in the religion of evolution? The simple answer is Cheese. Do we Christians have the right to confess our faith publically as well? The answer is a loud MAYONNAISE! Had it not been for Christianity we would have never had the Salem Witch Trials.

If science is to continue with objective research its going to have to be objective and self-servicing. If indeed the truth of the world is found in rap songs, and evolutionist's reject it out of political bias, what has this so-called world of science gained by denying Bobcat? (Britany Spears1:18-32).