Falsification and History of Evolution Theory

I do think that answering any potential fasifications isn't the point of this thread and would result in long complex digressions.Your expansion of what Robert is pointing to is, I think, on topic.

quote:

---

Your expansion of what Robert is pointing to is, I think, on topic.

---

That is what I was striving for. Instead of focusing on evidence I hope that this thread can lay down true potential falsifications for current theories in evolution. I am not trying to drag other threads in, but supposed "problems" such as living fossils do not qualify as they do not conflict with the theory as written nor the evidence on hand. I am hoping that by defining possible falsifications people here (mainly creationists) will better understand what qualifies as supporting evidence as well. This thread should not be about the validity of evolution but rather about the testability of evolution.

Ok I read carefully what you said.
I'm not sure if I even disagree with anything you said.
You stressed FINDING or HOW TO FIND over paying attention to assumptions.
BUT if the desired falsifying item is for a biological subject then it seems to me this takes place with introducing the Geologic assumption.
You seem to be saying I must first falsify the geologic stuff before using it to falsify the biological theory.
It seems to me because the biological matter is based on a geologic premise one can attempt to falsify the Biologic presuming the geologic is wrong. Or just presuming a creationist geolog ideas are right.
Otherwise the great premise behind evolution of geology would be out of bounds until the geology thing is settled first. Which seems unreasonable to me. Evolution insists on a accurate interpretation of geology to its favour.However perhaps I'm wrong.
Yet it seems your saying first things first.
And so evolution can not be falsyified by its geology premise.
(also therefore the boss of the forumn would be wrong who told me it could)
Rob

As was pointed out to you, geology is just one line of evidence supporting the ToE - so no, even if the consistant explanation for the collective accumulation of every bit of geology by the scientific community for the past 3 centuries is incorrect for some unexplained reason, the ToE still remains quite strong due to the other lines of evidence.Furthermore, there is an entire forum here devoted to geology. In that forum, there are a number of subthreads. Have at them. We'll meet you there.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

quote:

---

You stressed FINDING or HOW TO FIND over paying attention to assumptions.
BUT if the desired falsifying item is for a biological subject then it seems to me this takes place with introducing the Geologic assumption.

---

If the falsification has to do with biology, then you must falsify it through biology. This could be several things:1. Showing that natural selection does not affect the genetic makeup of a population.2. Mutations are not random with regards to fitness.3. DNA is not the source of heredity.These are three possible falsifications of observed biological evolution hapenning right now. This is then applied to fossils found in the fossil record. For this to be applicable, we have to be certain that the order of the fossils is consistent with chronology. That is, when we find a fossil below another we infer that the lower fossil is older. If this is not true, then evolution is in trouble. There is evidenciary support for the layering of fossils, so I wouldn't call it an assumption. An assumption is usually an idea that is not testable or has not been tested. The layering of fossils has been tested, and has yet to be falsified by those tests. What you need to falsify the geology that agrees with evolution you have to show how current theories in geology are wrong. You have to show us data that is inconsistent with current interpretations.

quote:

---

And so evolution can not be falsyified by its geology premise.

---

It can be. Taxonomy is able to arrange fossil species in a certain order due to their shape (morphology). If that taxonomic tree does not match up with the order of fossils in the ground, then evolution is dealt a great blow. Specifically, if you are able to find a buffalo below a dinosaur, you have a very strong candidate for falsifying evolution. Geology can falsify evolution. However, not being able to prove geologic theories 100% does not make them unreliable nor unwarranted assumptions.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 09-14-2004 04:19 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but at the fundamental level, is not the ToE today wholly reliant on genetic mutations (copying mistakes, etc.) explaining deviation and speciation, progressing through the ages to the current state of affairs? Is that more or less a true statement?-Justin, the new guyThis message has been edited by creationistal, 09-28-2004 04:16 PM

Well, the only change that can be inherited is genetic/chromosome change, right? Not all genetic change is the result of copying errors, but it's probably safe to say it's the source of most of them.Mutation alone doesn't cause speciation, however. speciation is the result of mutations accumulating in a situation of reproductive isolation. When gene flow is interrupted between two subpopulations, eventually they accumulate so many mutations that no cross-fertilization is possible.I think "wholy reliant" is overreaching. If there's anything that we're learning in biology, it's how influences we thought were negligible can have, in fact, profound effect on species.

So in essence what I said is true, I think. (Bear with me, I'm new at this.)How do you know that the mutations we see today, and different populations becoming non-reproductive, etc., are evidence that we all (grass, birds, elephants, humans) came from the same original amino acids?-JustinThis message has been edited by creationistal, 09-28-2004 04:31 PM

Actually this does raise an interesting question - what do you consider a "mistake" in this context, and why ?On another front you are badly wrong. Mutation only represents the source of variation. Selection is an essential part of evolution, and almost certainly the main driving force behind the evolution of adaptions, and hence a very large part of the diversity we see today.

So describe for me the variation, selection, and adaptation that (assuming Earth is already here in this scenario) formed life where there was none.-Justin

Firstly, I'm not sure what you mean by "the same original amino acids." All known living things use the same amino acids, but they're synthesized to varying degrees in every organism. (For instance, your body is capable of synthesizing many of the aminos, but a few have to come from the diet.)The only fundamental difference between grass, birds, elephants, and humans is that they're different species - different reproductive communities. On a fundamental level, all living things operate the exact same way - protien synthesis catalyzed by genetic molecules.That right there is a powerful indicator that all living things are related, somehow.But specifically, the genetic evidence that leads us to conclude common ancestry and not common design is the existence of inherited errors in non-active genetic sequences. These inherited errors, which have no purpose and would not be selected for or against in any way, would only be shared between two groups of organisms in two ways - random coincidence, or heredity. And we find way, way more of them than can be accounted for by coincidence. Better yet, we find way, way more of them the more the two species appear to be related by taxonomy.It's this convergence of taxonomy (how organisms appear to be related by form) and cladistics (how they appear to be related by genetics) that is an almost unassailable mountain of evidence for common descent.

I'm sorry, we were talking about biology. For this question, you want chemistry. Down the hall, second door on your left.

My last question got to the heart of what I was asking better I think. I don't know enough about the subject yet to really get at what I'm getting at on the first try, know what I mean? I just have a basic understanding of things so far.-Justin

quote:

---

So describe for me the variation, selection, and adaptation that (assuming Earth is already here in this scenario) formed life where there was none.

---

These mechanisms don't describe the origin of life, just the origin of biodiversity. The origins of life is handled by a different theory called abiogenesis.

Why are you trying to change the subject ? You were talking about genes and evolution, not the origin of life. The origin of life, BTW is outside the scope of evolutionary theory and therefore off-topic in this thread.
I suggest that you go back to my previous post and actually answer it instead of trying to go off on a tangent.