Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,246 Year: 5,503/9,624 Month: 528/323 Week: 25/143 Day: 15/10 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 968 (342228)
08-22-2006 1:09 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by Ephraim7
08-19-2006 8:38 PM


Re: Evolution vs. the Observations of Moses
You are reaching that conclusion because you have not found
human remains yet. Both are circumstantial evidence, and not
a certainty.
But don't you see that you can say that of anything? No-one has seen any flying pigs yet. This is circumstantial evidence, but, if we're going to get all philosophical about it, it doesn't provide us with certainty that they never fly.
This is the very reason that the concept of falsification is so important. The statement "Pigs don't fly", being supported by a great mass of observations, must stand as true until falsified by a flying pig.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Ephraim7, posted 08-19-2006 8:38 PM Ephraim7 has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 145 of 968 (589744)
11-04-2010 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by AlphaOmegakid
11-04-2010 7:51 AM


Re: Common Descent explained
However, there is more evidence for biogenesis which TOE needs, yet scientists still hope and pray for abiogenesis.
That was a strange sentence in many ways.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-04-2010 7:51 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 148 of 968 (589747)
11-04-2010 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by AlphaOmegakid
11-04-2010 8:48 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Nope. What I labeled TOE was the part that Darwin was wrong about. Darwin had no clue of genes and alleles.
But knew about inheritance and variation. Geneticists merely filled in the details, on which, as Darwin was not dogmatic, he could not be wrong as such, any more than Kepler could be wrong about the inverse square law.
Gene frequencies in populations can change and lead the future populations to higher levels of relative fitness, or they can change and lead to lower levels of relative fitness. I believe the evidence is showing the latter.
And yet direct observation shows the former.
The only way anyone has found to produce genetic meltdown is to force populations through artificially small bottlenecks. Without them doing that, we see adaptive evolution increasing fitness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-04-2010 8:48 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 152 of 968 (589978)
11-05-2010 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 10:40 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Great! Then if you are familiar with these theories, then you are aware that Ohta's refinements in the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution are well accepted by today's population genetisists.
Great! Then if you are familiar with these theories, then you are aware that today's population geneticists think that creationists are talking crap?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 10:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 11:39 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 153 of 968 (589980)
11-05-2010 11:06 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 10:40 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
You even brought your own rope.
You actually quoted and highlighted your source saying: "When populations are very small, drift will predominate".
This is just embarrassing. It's like watching someone hang himself in public.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 10:40 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 11:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 159 of 968 (590004)
11-05-2010 12:25 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 11:49 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Actually this supports my position. Please explain why you think the contrary.
The fact that someone more knowledgeable than you finds your gibberish downright embarrassing to read ... supports your position?
Perhaps you could explain why. Or perhaps you could post more gibberish. Only time will tell, although I believe that I can guess.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 11:49 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:12 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 160 of 968 (590006)
11-05-2010 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 11:39 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
Dr. Sanford is an accomplished modern population geneticist.
You are, of course, wrong.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 11:39 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:14 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 163 of 968 (590013)
11-05-2010 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:06 PM


Re: Population genetics?
Im not sure of your reasoniing here. Dr. Sanford is a Biologist in the field of genetics who specializes in agriculture. Everything in agriculture is realted to populations.
Ah, yes. So if Jimmy cracks corn, he's an expert on the subject of evolution.
Instead of blathering about how creationists have found one guy with equivocal qualifications who after "finding Jesus" started talking garbage --- why don't you put his garbage up for discussion?
In suggesting this, I am not seeking an unfair advantage, because goodness only knows how many genuinely eminent scientists I could quote saying that Sandford is talking crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:22 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 165 of 968 (590016)
11-05-2010 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:12 PM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
This fish don't bite on that bait. This fish bites on intelligent arguments. I doubt there will be any forthcoming from the Doc.
So you are unable or unwilling to produce any argument that might even appear to support your gibberish.
Yeah, well, you are a creationist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:12 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 968 (590017)
11-05-2010 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:14 PM


Claims made without evidence may be dismissed with the same.
Quite so. And until you support your claim that "Dr. Sanford is an accomplished modern population geneticist", we may presume that you are talking crap.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 164 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:14 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 170 of 968 (590022)
11-05-2010 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 1:22 PM


Re: Population genetics?
I note your stupid lies and cowardly evasion.
Let me know when you have an argument.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:22 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 172 of 968 (590029)
11-05-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid
11-03-2010 11:27 AM


Kimura
Slightly deleterious mutations were recognized first by Kimura in his neutral theory of molecular evolution ...
Although much progress has been made in biology since Darwin's time, his theory of natural selection still remains as the only scientifically acceptable theory to explain why organisms are so well adapted to their environments. (Kimura, The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Chapter 6)
We cherish Darwin for we owe to him our enlightened view of the nature of living things, including ourselves; our civilization would be pitifully immature without the intellectual revolution led by Darwin. (Kimura, The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Chapter 1)
Emphasis mine.
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-03-2010 11:27 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 194 of 968 (590467)
11-08-2010 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by AlphaOmegakid
11-08-2010 11:09 AM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
That depends on....
The effective population size
The mutation rate
the ratio of beneficial mutations to non beneficial
The genome size
The number of linkage units
The strength of natural selection
And one of the most important is the number of offspring per generation
And there are other variables as well such as heritability, ratio of recessives, etc.
Let me know the variables and I can give you an answer.
Um ... but in the real world genetic meltdown doesn't actually happen. You can't expect us to make up the numbers that support your fantasy. Being wrong about genetics is your job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-08-2010 11:09 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 223 of 968 (590970)
11-11-2010 12:52 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid
11-10-2010 6:32 PM


Re: Has any evidence been found yet?
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?
So is tooth decay, that doesn't mean that I want my teeth to decay or stop brushing my teeth.
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.
I think that this has been mocked sufficiently already without me chipping in.
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.
And when you force a population through a small bottneck, that is exactly when real science tells us that you get genetic meltdown. Score another point for the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-10-2010 6:32 PM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:29 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 400 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 232 of 968 (591142)
11-12-2010 1:10 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by AlphaOmegakid
11-11-2010 10:29 AM


Your Further Blunders In Genetics
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.
When a small group founds a colony it expands. To induce genetic meltdown you have to keep the population small. If two individuals colonized an island which only had resources for an breeding population of ten, then you would get a genetic meltdown. If two individuals colonized an island with resources for a thousand, then you wouldn't. Because in a few years there would be a thousand (if the founding family escaped non-genetic environmental hazards).
Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-11-2010 10:29 AM AlphaOmegakid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-12-2010 9:13 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024