Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 21 of 968 (51584)
08-21-2003 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by Adminnemooseus
08-21-2003 1:37 PM


Gosh, I miss Brad.
I think that in the same way that molecular/ genetic data provides some of the best evidence for evolution so it should be a fertile area to look for falsifications. If two closely related species were found to have radically different mechanisms of development for example, as opposed to the highly conserved developmental systems we see between highly divergent species, i.e. fly and mouse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by Adminnemooseus, posted 08-21-2003 1:37 PM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 89 of 968 (589425)
11-02-2010 12:31 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Larni
11-02-2010 10:47 AM


Research track record
When you read as many substandard peices of research as I have to you understand that a lot of what gets published is awful research
To be fair to Sanford I don't think there is any reason to think his research papers were bad, but they weren't to do with population genetics. He is best known for his work in the field of Biolistics and the development of 'gene gun' technology.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Larni, posted 11-02-2010 10:47 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Larni, posted 11-02-2010 1:38 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 95 of 968 (589437)
11-02-2010 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid
11-02-2010 1:45 PM


Commmon descent
No one is trying to falsify "the common descent of organisms".
Of course they are. You may not be, Sanford and Behe may not be (although in Sanford's case there is good reason to be believe this isn't true), but plenty of creationists are, including many of those under the ID big tent and some on this site.
If you are just using your own unique interpretation of common descent of course that is another matter.
TTFN,
WK
Edited by Wounded King, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-02-2010 1:45 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 103 of 968 (589523)
11-03-2010 6:10 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by dwise1
11-02-2010 4:41 PM


ID science or evangelical proselytising? False Dichotomy?
I found the program on SourceForge, but there is no source code available -- the Windows versions are only executables and even the "Linux source" is nothing but an executable, HTML files, and a JavaScript file. This makes verification of his code impossible.
I don't think that is true, in the linux download there is Fortran and C code that can be compiled in folders within the cgi-bin folder.
Interestingly the readme file for the source code is bookended by 2 quotes.
"But this man, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. Wherefore he is able also to save them to the uttermost that come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them. For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens."
- Hebrews 7:24-26
"For all flesh is as grass, and all the glory of man as the flower of grass. The grass withereth, and the flower thereof falleth away: But the word of the Lord endureth for ever."
-1 Peter 1:24-25
Way to show this isn't about religion guys!
Also, synergistic epistasis!
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by dwise1, posted 11-02-2010 4:41 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 8:53 AM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 127 by dwise1, posted 11-03-2010 2:56 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 116 of 968 (589566)
11-03-2010 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coyote
11-03-2010 11:48 AM


Re: Genetic entropy and other nonsense
Sanford himself is on the record as believing the Earth is between 5 and 10 thousand years old.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 11:48 AM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 12:19 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 121 of 968 (589604)
11-03-2010 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by Coyote
11-03-2010 1:19 PM


Re: Genetic entropy by any other name.
I don't know if Sanford coined the term 'genetic entropy' but Walter ReMine has been grinding the same axe in terms of Haldane's dilemma and genetic degradation from created baramins for at least the last 20 years.
Interestingly Remine is also an author on the Mendel's accountant paper.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 11-03-2010 1:19 PM Coyote has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 130 of 968 (589622)
11-03-2010 3:20 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by dwise1
11-03-2010 2:56 PM


Re: ID science or evangelical proselytising? False Dichotomy?
I don't know what to tell you, I downloaded it from Sourceforge this morning and the sources were there.
$ ls cgi-bin/*
cgi-bin/Makefile cgi-bin/monitor.cgi
cgi-bin/cmendel.exe cgi-bin/more.cgi
cgi-bin/config.inc cgi-bin/output.cgi
cgi-bin/delete.cgi cgi-bin/parse.inc
cgi-bin/diff.cgi cgi-bin/plot_modify.cgi
cgi-bin/fmendel.exe cgi-bin/plot_recipes.cgi
cgi-bin/input_file_parser.inc cgi-bin/plots.cgi
cgi-bin/input_file_reader.inc cgi-bin/plots_combine.cgi
cgi-bin/input_file_writer.pl cgi-bin/qdel.cgi
cgi-bin/label_form.cgi cgi-bin/qmpd.cgi
cgi-bin/label_post.pl cgi-bin/qstat.cgi
cgi-bin/list_cases.cgi cgi-bin/qstat_main.cgi
cgi-bin/list_cases_win.cgi cgi-bin/qsub.pl
cgi-bin/list_files.cgi cgi-bin/readme
cgi-bin/memory.inc cgi-bin/rename.cgi
cgi-bin/mendel.in cgi-bin/start.cgi
cgi-bin/mendel.in.yeast cgi-bin/with_selected.cgi
cgi-bin/monitor.ajax
cgi-bin/cmendel:
CVS debug.c init.c mendel.h offspring.c readme
Makefile diagnostics.c mem.c mendel.in ranlib.c selection.c
config.h fileio.c mendel.c mpi.c ranlib.h sort.c
cgi-bin/fmendel:
CVS common.h mendel.in mpi_mendel_seq.f random_pkg.f90
Makefile mendel.f mpi_mendel.f pbs.script sort.f90
TTFN,
WK
P.S. Nerdiest derail evaah!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by dwise1, posted 11-03-2010 2:56 PM dwise1 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 135 by dwise1, posted 11-03-2010 7:32 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 178 by dwise1, posted 11-05-2010 10:54 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 137 of 968 (589682)
11-03-2010 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 136 by Percy
11-03-2010 7:39 PM


Re: Getting Mendel's Accountant Source
Boo I say! Pipe the output to tar?
Why not just ...
tar -xfz name-of-gziped-tarball
?
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 7:39 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by Percy, posted 11-03-2010 8:04 PM Wounded King has not replied
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 11-03-2010 11:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 158 of 968 (590003)
11-05-2010 12:23 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by AlphaOmegakid
11-05-2010 11:39 AM


Population genetics?
Dr. Sanford is an accomplished modern population geneticist. He proves your claim wrong. False.
Care to tell us what pop. gen. work he has published in the last 20 years? The only thing I can find that comes close, and not very close at that, is a comparison of different Raspberry cultivars.
Bear in mind that molecular genetics, i.e. the biolistic method of introducing genetic material, is not the same as population genetics.
I'm also not sure that what everyone else in this thread is talking about a lot is population genetics, in terms of long term patterns of ancestry it is mostly comparative genetics that is more relevant, although I understand that as sequencing technologies improve the 2 fields are converging to some extent.
TTFN,
WK

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 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:06 PM Wounded King has replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 167 of 968 (590018)
11-05-2010 1:19 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.
My point is that population genetics has a specific meaning and is a specific field of study, and it isn't the field that Dr. Sanford practices, so your calling him an accomplished population geneticist seems to be based on you liking the guy rather than him actually having any accomplishments or track record in the field of population genetics.
Well that's what MA is. It is a forward population accounting program.
That bears no resemblance to what I was talking about, which is the study of real genetic sequences in real populations. Mathematical models and simulations certainly have a place in population genetics, but only to the extent that they allow us to accurately model and make predictions about reality. So far there is little evidence that Mendel's Accountant does either reliably for anything other than very small populations, if that. It certainly doesn't support Sanford and ReMine's claims that population genetics makes an earth less than 10,00 years old and a literal genesis with created kinds more plausible than evolution.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-05-2010 1:06 PM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by jar, posted 11-05-2010 1:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 192 of 968 (590458)
11-08-2010 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid
11-08-2010 9:57 AM


Not totally independent at all.
Fitness is not dependant on natural selection. In fact, it must be totally independant.
This simply makes no sense., in the first place both fitness and natural selection are heavily determined by the environmental context of an organism to consider them totally independent is to ignore reality.
Since we accept that drift can change fitness contrary to the tendencies of natural selection we can acknowledge that NS does not directly dictate changes in fitness in every instance so that fitness is not strictly dependent on NS, but to suggest they are totally independent is simply wrong. You seem to be claiming that NS has no influence on fitness, how can you possibly make a case for this, rather than just claiming it with no justification.
I'm also not sure what you think your experiment demonstrates, that adaptation to a permissive environment does not well adapt you for a restrictive environment? Well, gosh, I'm totally shocked by your radical new idea. It certainly doesn't demonstrate that the more recent population is absolutely less fit than the ancestral one, just that it is less fit in the environment the ancestor was already adapted to.
The real way to test the comparative fitness would be a cross evnvironmental comparison of the derived and ancestral strains in the permissive and restrictive environments. If the ancestral strain was fitter in both environments then you could make your case, on the other hand if the derived line was fitter in the permisive environment all you would have shown is adaptation in action.
You need to bear in mind that your idea of totally removing NS is simply impossible unless you artificially enforce your organisms to all have the same number of offspring, and even then you can't get around selection against totally lethal mutations.
The only fitness that seems to be declining in your example is their fitness for an environment they are no longer in. Many mutations deleterious in a restrictive environment may be beneficial in the permissive environment, as is seen when bacteria in a permissive environments lose unnecessary biosynthesis pathways, or in the case of antibiotic resistant strains that are less fit than the wild type in the absence of antibiotic.
Conversely in some antibiotic selection experiments resistant mutations can be identified which are fitter than the Wild Type even in a permissive environment (Kassen and Bataillon, 2006).
I suggest that rather than the deleterious mutation rate the true key element is the overall distribution of fitness effects, you can't debate this meaningfully while simply pretending that advantageous and indeed slightly advantageous mutations don't exist which can counteract the fitness effects of deleterious mutations.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by AlphaOmegakid, posted 11-08-2010 9:57 AM AlphaOmegakid has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 207 of 968 (590833)
11-10-2010 3:00 AM
Reply to: Message 206 by crashfrog
11-09-2010 7:13 PM


No competition with ancestral lines.
See? Competing genotypes. Individuals don't compete with their distant ancestors because the distant ancestors are all long dead, and the dead don't win any fitness competitions
Technically this isn't true. Many evolutionary experiments using 'simpler' organisms such as fungi, bacteria and nematodes can actually freeze down stocks from populations at various times allowing them to be subsequently revived mixed with derived lines from later generations and competition to be observed.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 206 by crashfrog, posted 11-09-2010 7:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 228 of 968 (591030)
11-11-2010 12:18 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by Panda
11-11-2010 10:54 AM


Genetic Entropy == Mutational Meltdown
As far as I can see 'Genetic Entropy' is just the creationist term for mutational meltdown, and presumably one chosen because it dovetails so neatly with their incredibly poor understanding of how thermodynamics relates to biology.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Panda, posted 11-11-2010 10:54 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 284 of 968 (592202)
11-19-2010 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Minnemooseus
11-18-2010 8:29 PM


Re: Potential falsifications
I find it totally absurd to ask the creation side for real (not hypothetical) falsifications. Why continuously badger someone for something you know doesn't exist?
Well to be fair, creationists do keep insisting that they do exist, and simply leaving that sort of claim unchallenged can give it at least a spurious credence.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Minnemooseus, posted 11-18-2010 8:29 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Wounded King
Member (Idle past 148 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 287 of 968 (593432)
11-27-2010 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 286 by Kaichos Man
11-27-2010 3:17 AM


Re: Potential falsifications
Now that you have finished crying into your whine maybe you can provide us with a real (major) falsification of evolution since you seem so convinced they exist?
You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that evolutionary theory has already been falsified, otherwise all your bitching at Minnemooseus would just look like paranoid crazy talk, so perhaps you can provide us with the requisite evidence for this falsification?
Even better you could go to this thread, Does ID follow the scientific method?, and be the first to offer any potential way of falsifying the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Which might be a small step to making it seem like a genuine scientific hypothesis and not creationism with a fake beard.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 3:17 AM Kaichos Man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by Kaichos Man, posted 11-27-2010 4:23 AM Wounded King has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024