Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Falsifying evolution theory

  1. Jun 26, 2006 #1
    Exactly how can evolution theory be falsified?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 26, 2006 #2

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    What particular aspect are you asking about?
     
  4. Jun 26, 2006 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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.
     
  5. Jun 26, 2006 #4
    I mean NS + random mutation as the mechanism that causes the evolution of species.
     
  6. Jun 26, 2006 #5
    Would that falsify the idea that that being came about through NS + random mutations, or would it just screw up the evolutionary timeline that weve reconstructed?
     
  7. Jun 26, 2006 #6

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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)
     
  8. Jun 26, 2006 #7

    NateTG

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    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 existance 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
     
  9. Jun 26, 2006 #8
    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.
     
    Last edited: Jun 26, 2006
  10. Jun 26, 2006 #9

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  11. Jun 26, 2006 #10
    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 any one 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.
     
  12. Jun 28, 2006 #11
    Why couldnt that have arisen by random mutations + ns?
    Especially since there were billions of years of time for it to have happened...

    Also, isnt this the same argument as the one creationists use:

    "it looks designed, so it couldnt have evolved he way evolution theory claims it did"
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  13. Jun 28, 2006 #12
    Could u give an example of how it has been falsified?
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  14. Jun 28, 2006 #13

    selfAdjoint

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    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.
     
  15. Jun 28, 2006 #14
    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
     
  16. Jun 28, 2006 #15
    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?
     
  17. Jun 28, 2006 #16
    Alright post the link, but failing to alter mice doesnt sound like something that falsifies what this topic is about.
     
  18. Jun 28, 2006 #17

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    No, read SA's post again. That is not at all what he means!
     
  19. Jun 28, 2006 #18
    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 im 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
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  20. Jun 28, 2006 #19
    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
     
    Last edited: Jun 28, 2006
  21. Jun 28, 2006 #20

    iansmith

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member


    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
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Falsifying evolution theory
  1. The theory is evolution? (Replies: 14)

Loading...