Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

What do you think endangered species are?I think they say something like us mean ole humans have led to the near extinction of 25% of all the known vetebrate species.You guys are usually sympathetic to this data. But isn't that survival of the fittest? What's the big deal if we (the fittest) cause extinctions of others. Isn't that the way of nature? Remember, there is no absolute right or wrong here.And why can't they adapt. I mean we've supposedly been thru all kinds of extinction events. So what's the big deal. Man wasn't around for any of those. Mean ole nature did it.But the fact remains that many species are going extinct. I rest that there is ample evidence of genetic entropy on this earth. And it is clearly evident in the small endangered populations. They are full of negative mutations, and have very low fertility rates.

Hi Granny,Why are you gobsmacked? Yes, I agree! But aren't we just an evolved species? Humans that is? Aren't we just a natural out come of millions years of natural processes and our ape friends are the same? Many of them made the list by the way. We would have been on it till we got the heck out of Africa! Aren't humans 100% natural? But doesn't this happen from other species as well? Don't other species destroy habitats all the time. Have you ever heard of locusts? And I remember just recently we had a problem with a certain moth/caterpillar that stripped all the oak trees in a multi-state region. Isn't this all just part of nature. Sure species get knocked out of where they live, but this is not just our species that causes such events. It's just part of nature. Yes, and we are winning! Oh? is that bad? Sorry. Isn't there competition amongst all species for resources? That's what natural selection is. Do you not like your own theory? I agree, I don't like it either. But don't other species do this also? Have you ever wondered how fish get into man made lakes? Miracles or Nature? And what about all that natural plate techtonics which disperses species? And climate change and migrations? And fury animals that carry parasites and bugs and the like? Isn't this just a part of nature? Oh yes, we do have a lot of technology that produces carbon emissions. But let's not forget about the cows and wildabeasts to. Don't they fart alot? Maybe we can use science to capture that and run our cars! Don't other species contribute to the 1.5 degrees increase in 100 years. I have seen so many species just dropping over dead due to those 1.5 degrees. But isn't this just natural? Yes, sometimes we like money. And we fish too much, and hunt too much. And sometimes those poor unevolved critters just don't survive. But don't other species do this? Don't sometimes they kill more than they can eat? And doesn't our overexploited waste produce a great ecosystem for many species to thrive? Isn't this just nature at work? Yes, we do inadvertantly kill some critters with pollution. Isn't BP a UK company? Oh my, those poor pelicans and dolphins and other birds covered with oil. All that Dawn dish washing soap! I should have bought stock! But didn't I read about some microbes thriving on eating the oil? And don't those microbes get eaten by other species? And don't those species get eaten by other species? And doesn't oil leak all over the world into the oceans? And other chemicals as well? And please don't forget all those fishies that crap in the oceans and use it as a sewer! Shame! You don't drink that water do you? It's polluted! But isn't this just nature in action? Some die, some thrive! Yes, our diseases do sometimes kill other critters. Especially those in our ape family. But don't forget about all those people killed by pig pathogens. And all those humans killed by bird pathogens. If we hadn't evolved such superior brains to fight these pathogens, then we would probably be on the list. But isn't this natural? It's not? Oh let me inform you....It most definitely is! Genetic resource impacts of habitat loss and degradation; reconciling empirical evidence and predicted theory for neotropical treesGenetics and conservation biologyGenetic adaptation to captivity in species conservation
programsNow there is no question that genetic entropy happens and it plays an important part in extinction. And you know what Granny? Humans don't create any genetic entropy. All we are doing is trying to help the poor critters.So you have a catch 22. High levels of natural selection (inhospitality) cause reduction in population size, which can lead to extinction. Right? However, if we relax natural selection (for Percy) in captive environments, then we allow deleterious mutations and genetic entropy to be propogated into the population which leads to extinction. You can't win. So the evidence is right before you. Species are going extinct , and we may not be able to do anything about it.Now my question to you is why can't they adapt? That's your belief about neo-Darwinian Theory in the past. Through evo history we have multiple extinction events which lead to new species. Each speciation event being a small population with inbreeding inevitable. Why did they survive and thrive in the imagined past, when animals can't survive and thrive with these downturns today? And isn't the great KT extinction which led to the evolution of all the mammal species we see today? So isn't extinction a good thing? Why are you trying to stop it? Let it happen, and maybe we will evolve into superior beings. And we'll have lots of new species running around.I don't think 1.5 degrees reaches the level of a great asteroid striking the earth does it? So go ahead an kill the whales! Stop relaxing natural selection (for Percy). Go ahead an make fur coats! Kill those polar bears and warm the oceans! Let humans die! We have to many of them any way! It's the natural way! It is the way of nature in the supposed past, and it needs to be the way of nature today! Or could it be the Christians that are telling you the truth about genetic entropy, which the evidence clearly suggests! Extinctions are in our past. They will be in our future! It is the Christian principle of stewardship that seeks to preserve these species even though we may not be capable. The evolutionist principle is in direct opposition to preservation. It is altrusitic! And it is contradictory for the origin of species.....Here, read your just so story of history and tell me if man cause the 99% of extinct species to become extinct. He didn't. And what led to the great bio diversity.....EXTINCTIONS! So praise the nature god and let those extinctions happen so we can all get back to evolving!

I agree. Remember, I believe that evolution is a fact. The TOE is a fact. But neo-Darwinianian theory is false. The evidence clearly shows that these bottlenecks or founder situations that genetic meltdown can occur. But not in all. Many do just fine. Why is that?And what about the gazillian speciation events in all of evo history. Aren't these bottlenecks and founder situations? Why didn't they genetically meltdown? So you are incorrect in saying that that is exactly what science tells us.

Yes, you are correct if it doesn't have inbreeding depression. If it does have inbreeding depression it may not expand significantly. But any small group inbreeds.Well I don't know who "you" is in your comments. But you are correct, that nature ( through natural selection) may keep the population small. And this most likely will lead to genetic (mutational) meltdown and extinction. Now here is where you are beginning to make your mistake. You are asumming that the genetic (mutational) meltdown comes from the environmental constraints. It doesn't at all. It comes from the genetic constraints. That is why it is called mutational meltdown. In other words, the small population in this scenario is experienceing inbreeding depression which causes the population to stay small. Again, genetic meltdown is not caused by environmental resourses, it is caused by inbreeding depression which is genetic issues that severely effect the fitness of the population.Now you clearly realize that small populations can inbreed, yet still grow/expand an survive quite well. The only question then is why some can, and some cannot. Why do some small populations experience inbreeding depression, and why do some not? Then why would they call it mutational (genetic) meltdown if the meltdown is coming from environmental constraints?Let me help you here: Now let me use an example. We have three equal islands with two dogs each on them. Male and female. All one species. All chosen from an effective population of about 10000 dogs. ( a healthy population).Island A has two golden retrievers on it.
Island B has one golden retriever on it and one mongrel.
Island C has two very different mongrels on it.Now assuming the environment is the same on each island, then which island dogs have the greatest probability of sustaining a future healthy population? And which island has the greatest probability fo the dogs going extinct relatively soon?Now any "uneducated", "ignorant", ole farmer, anywhere in the world can answer this question accurately. They don't need a scientific study. So what is your answer. And why?

C'mon Percy, this is a complete strawman. You cannot cite anywhere that I have claimed anything close to this.What I have said is a couple of things in regards to large mammals.1. They have high mutation rates which clearly are vastly more deleterious than advantageous. Most mammals have this.2. Large mammals have low fecundity. Meaning they usually produce 1-2 offspring at a time, and the have realtively long generational times. Therefore, each individual in these generations receives their load of mutations. But we know, that they cannot afford a very high cost of selection and still maintain the population size. So most of the survivors do not have their negative mutations selected out. They are still the fittest in their generation, but they have a higher load of negative mutations relative to their predacessors. And this continues generation after generation.3. If these large mammals have increased selection to remove the mutations, then the population size becomes smaller, and yes, there are plenty of species in this category. They are endangered.4. Humans may be responsible for some of the increased natural selection that has caused population decreases with these species. Humans are also responsible for the relaxed natural selection with some of these species. Either way, we are loosing. Smaller populations are bad, because of inbreeding depression (genetic entropy) is happening with the relaxed natural selection. If we allow more natural selction, they can't afford the cost, because that's what gave the smaller populations in the first place. Much evidence has already been provided here.So your rebuttal is a meaningless strawman rebuttal. This claim is closer, but not exact. It doesn't matter is the mutations are fixed or not. It just matters that their frequency is increasing over time. That alone cause a decrease in overall population fitness. So let me correct you slightly here:Claim: Slightly deleterious mutations spread, and accumulate in populations, and increase in frequency, causing a steady decline in fitness. This claim is made only for sexually producing creatures, it does not appy to non Mendelian organisms.The first and primary evidence of this is Mendel's accountant. Which models sexually producing populations according to the laws of Mendelian genetics, and the theory of evolution. Whether you like it or not, it is evidence.Secondly, I think endangered species is also clear evidence of this.Thirdly, the most genetically studied species (humans) offers clear evidence of this.Haldane was the first to realize this when he discovered that there is a cost of natural selection. That cost limits the powers of natural selection. Natural selection is not powerful enough to remove all the negative mutations and leave the good ones.Kimura realized this also. Therefore He postulated the neutral theory of evolution to explain all the changes that really are in our genome. They couldn't have come from natural selection alone. They must have drifted.Muller of Muller's ratchet realized this. In Our load of Mutations he writes: We have big problems if our mutation rate is anything like as high as 0.5. Wow, wait till he finds our our real mutation rate! Neel also realized this. His calculation of our muation rate was 30! This is what he said about it... He realized this is way too high for geological time and natural selection to deal with.Then in 1995 Kondrashov realized this;
Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over?Just look at the title of his paper! His conclusions are obvious. We should be extinct 100 times over is the mutation rate is this high!Then later Kondraskov calculated the human mutation rate at about 100 per person per generation. That's way too high to not avoid problems. He said: Then Nachman and Crowell did the same: So there ya go Percy. What do you want to beleive? Could it be possible that humans have 40 zygotes to compensate for our high load of mutations with most of them being selected out? Or could the geological time table of the evos be incorrect?And I could cite other papers as well. We clearly have a high mutation rate and that rate is paradoxical to us having diverged some millions of years ago. Those mutations are accumulating. Genetic diseases are becoming well known, and our natural selection is truly reduced.Now how about you responding with something more than your words and claims, and citing some evidence in your posts for a change.

The answer is rather obvious isn't it. Do they have high fecundity or low fecundity? Can they afford for alot of the lice to die, or not?

LOL. The confusion is not mine, it is the great doctor'sLet me put the two definition side by side: Inbreeding depression is what you get if you have a breeding population of close relatives. Being closely related, they are more likely to share alleles. This, of course, includes alleles which are harmful in a double dose. This means that their children are statistically likely to be less healthy than if they had outbred.Genetic meltdown is the progressive accumulation and fixation of harmful genes in a population.And you say: So what happens in small populations? Inbreeding and Inbreeding depression. That is what is leading to the genetic (mutational) meltdown. duh That's exactly what I said.You are proving my point and you are so confused that you think the two are totally diassociated. Dr. of what? Confusion?Edited by AlphaOmegakid, : No reason given.

Ok. I did re-read it. And I understand it well. You are sadly confused. Yes you gave very good definitions which clearly show that genetic meltdown happens in small populations, which have inbreeding, which results in inbreeding depression. And inbreeding depression is genetic deterioration, which if it contines will spiral downward towards extinction in meltdown. They are different things, but one thing requires the other thing. And that is the obvious source of your confusion. No, it isn't. And I am praying that someday you will acheive the level of the average adult so that you may grasp it. No thanks. (that's a polite statement) I will let you continue your explanations for your peers. Those below the average grasping level that is. Well I don't want this, ... I do it! You mean you have grasped that? Could you be an evolutionist? Well, I guess I would rather be a rude, stupid jerk, who understands that genetic meltdown requires inbreeding depression than an ungrasping below average adult.

Yes. Go ahead if you like. I have already established they are two different things. This is irrelevant. Mutational meltdown is a genomic process. Inbreeding depression is a result of a genetic process like genetic meltdown. Well you haven't explained a thing, yet you have confused things.
Here let me explain it to you. Now do you see the part in yellow. It is what I have been trying to explain to you, and you are thoroughly confused about. Now in Mendelian populations which have a high mutational load, and are small, you will experience inbreeding depression. In non-Medelian populations not.My claims about MA are centered about Mendelian populations. Genetic Meltdown is not a "cause". It is the result of mutations (a cause), natural selection, and genetic drift. Inbreeding depression is also not a "cause". It is the result of mutations (a cause), natural selection, and genetic drift.You may want to keep in mind that inbreeding is something that happens in every population. We, as humans, are all related. The only question is how related? This is just a matter of allele frequency.You didn't answer my dog on the island question. Why is that? It addresses this whole concept. Well for starters, such a population without harmful recessive genes doesn't exist today. So your claim is false. Just more confusion. The way you tell they are different, is by imaginary claims which are false. Ahhh...You have this partially right! Asexual, haploid, non-Mendelian organisms can go through mutational meltdown, and not have inbreeding depression. But Mendelian populations which can also reproduce clonally, and are experiencing genetic meltdown will have inbreeding depression.

And you are neglecting one important imaginary factor, namely magic. Prominent evomagicologists have determined that in the imaginary presence of large quantities of magic, such as are imagined to have been present during the imaginary magic evoflood, everything magically works out so that evolutionists are magically right ... or so they imagine.Now you do realize that evos have a global flood also, don't you?

I'll try. No, not at all. My claim is that genetic entropy is real, and it can be modelled using MA. Through this modeling, it is apparent that using real world values for the variables only fitness declines relative to ancestral populations are possible. This effectively falsifies neo-Darwinian evolution. Well actually just the opposite. Sanford has data on humans anyway, that the human bottleneck is modeled extremely well using the flood story. It is not modelled well using the theistic evolutionist model or the neoDarwinian model. The problem is not the environment. Humans live and have lived in many environments. So have most other animals. The problems are the mutations and mutational load that doesn't allow for adaptation. This is an argument from incredulity. Well no one knows what you mean by "macro-evolution". Individuals being driven to extinction is also not a problem for the creation model.

Oh definitely yes! On earth. Huge global flooding. Oh about 4bya in evo time

No, I wasn't referring to that. A much bigger global flood. The one where it rained for forty days....Sorry 1000's of years and covered most of the earth.

It's really not nice to call someone a liar when they are only referring to the science in which you believe. When this earth was evo formed,not matter how it was evo formed, there were no oceans. Now there are!Do you realize that there really is land under the oceans? And that that land is flooded? So is much of the land on the continents in what we cal lakes.The evo magic made it rain a lot longer than forty days for all this flooding to take place.I can provide citations if you want, but only you will be embarrassed to find out that I am not lying.

Why yes, of course! Your flood rained for thousands of years over the entire earth which had to have flooded everywhere, which left the end result of 3/4's of the earth still flooded today.In comparison, Noah's flood only rained for 40 days and 40 nights, and covered a mere 1/4 of the earth's surface for less than a year and then it all ran off into the flooded areas of the oceans. I'm certain you couldn't possibly be referring to yourself. You haven't demonstrated your ability of adulthood graspability of some simple genetic concepts.