Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,247 Year: 5,504/9,624 Month: 529/323 Week: 26/143 Day: 16/10 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 368 of 968 (599979)
01-11-2011 7:59 PM
Reply to: Message 367 by arachnophilia
01-11-2011 7:02 PM


Re: Bump for ICANT
second, what you're talking about is still not an actual biological concept. evolution is the change in the frequency of alleles from one generation to the next. there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution -- everything actually happens on the species level. most biological sources that use the word "macroevolution" are referring to speciation -- change that happens above the species level, ie: by introducing a new species.
this is, however, what creationists refer to as "microevolution".
What do you base the statement that there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution"?
Douglas Theobald a biochemist at Brandeis Univ. writes:
"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constitutencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the 'grand scale' resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
29+Evidences for Macroevolution, Douglas Theobald June, 2007
This expert states that there is a very big difference between micro and macor evolution. Do you disagree with him, and if so on what Basis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2011 7:02 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by arachnophilia, posted 01-11-2011 8:05 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 370 by jar, posted 01-11-2011 8:12 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 371 by Meddle, posted 01-11-2011 8:54 PM shadow71 has not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 428 of 968 (600257)
01-13-2011 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 2827
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Registered: 11-10-2001
Member Rating: 4.2
Send Private Message
Minnemooseus Posts Only
Rate this message:
1
2
3
4
5
Message 1 of 427 (331485)
02-12-2002 10:41 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This little packet appears all over the place, as the qualities that a valid theory should have.
It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications
I would be interested in exploring the potential falsifications part of this trio. Since I can honestly disavow having previously posted same trio, I leave it to one of the others of the evolution side, to supply some potential falsifications.
Moose
I have just finished a paper entitled "The origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" by Eugene V. Konnin chief investigator NCBI, NLM, NIH.
I quote from page 1:
"The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, appparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution."
His reasoning is that molecular, microbiological and genomic "revolutions" have destroyed the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
The molecular revolution concluding that the majority of mutations fixed during evolution are neutal and thus purifying selection is more common than positive selection.
The microbiological revolution explored prokaryotes, which were not explored by Darwin or the Modern Synthesis architects. The prokaryotes do not engage in regular sex, but exchange genes as he states
"promiscuously, so species cannot be meaningfully defined, and the concept of the species was at the center of both the first, Darwinian, and the second, modern, synthesis of evolutionary biology.
The genomic revolution which investigates the evolutionary relationships of hundreds of complete genomes has revealed a biological universe:
"...a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by "primitive' life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology."
He discusses HGT not being a rarity, and mobile genetic elements are everywhere. He states:, the entire world of prokarykotes is a single large network of interconnected gene pools.
He states the Tree of Life concept has been destroyed and a central tenet of Darwin, and the Modern Synthesis "gradualism" has been destroyed.
"Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection."
"...all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone."
Seem like he is pretty definite in his opinions, any thoughts by our Evolution experts?
http:http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/
Edited by shadow71, : added link

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 429 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 4:20 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 431 by Percy, posted 01-13-2011 4:49 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 430 of 968 (600260)
01-13-2011 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by Taq
01-13-2011 4:20 PM


tag writes,
Sometimes experts can not see the forest for the trees. There is also the mindset of being sensational in order to make a rather mundane point.
Are you farmilar with him or his reputation?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 4:20 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by Taq, posted 01-13-2011 5:02 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 436 of 968 (600293)
01-13-2011 7:21 PM
Reply to: Message 431 by Percy
01-13-2011 4:49 PM


So it would be okay with you if the theory of evolution were replaced with a theory that emphasized purifying selection over positive selection, but where pretty much everything else remained the same? This new theory would still would still accept a natural origin for life around 4 billion years ago, and a tree of life where all existing life is descended from one or a few forms through evolutionary processes of descent with modification filtered by natural selection, which was Darwin's original formulation.
I don't know why Koonin chose to be so dramatic about so mundane a fact that evolution is far more complex than Darwin ever dreamed, but very few biologists would agree that the modern synthesis is crumbling.
I have already stated my belief that Evolution has and continues to happen. To me the interesting part is that the experts in the field are now questioning the apparatus for this phenomen.
I don't see in the paper the author's acceptance of a natural origin of life.
As a matter of fact I don't see any fromidable hypothesis as to the origin of life.
I read the paper as saying the author does not agree with a tree of life, but rather a forest of life, ie. we can't tell after these last 50 years of new discovery , what is actually going on.
I am not sure the author is so sure of natural selection as per the Darwin or neo-Darwinian theory.
I find it very interesting that the theories are so much more complicated or complex than has been expounded by the evolutionist such as Jerry Coyne, Dawkins et al. Who arrogantly state Evolution is a fact. Perhaps there is more to evolution than what these guys are stating.
That is why I find Koonin's paper so interesting. Koonin is not a creationist.
There may be more to this theory than we realize.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 431 by Percy, posted 01-13-2011 4:49 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 437 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 7:32 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 439 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2011 8:08 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 442 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2011 8:51 PM shadow71 has not replied
 Message 450 by Percy, posted 01-14-2011 8:15 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 453 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 11:20 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 460 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 11:55 AM shadow71 has replied
 Message 518 by bluegenes, posted 01-18-2011 8:51 AM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 438 of 968 (600298)
01-13-2011 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 437 by Panda
01-13-2011 7:32 PM


So, you agree with 'arrogant' evolutionists.
Good for you.
Coyne and Dawkins are "money guys", they will not accept any suggestions that evolution is in any way different than what they say it is.
By money guys I mean they write their books and collect their royalties and really are not interested in any opinions that do not agree with theirs.
They are not molecular or microbiologists and I am sure they would reject Koonin's paper out of hand.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 7:32 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 8:15 PM shadow71 has replied
 Message 452 by Blue Jay, posted 01-14-2011 10:39 AM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 441 of 968 (600305)
01-13-2011 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 439 by RAZD
01-13-2011 8:08 PM


Theories are never fact. Evidence is fact. The process of evolution has been observed and is indeed a fact. The theory of evolution has been validated (and it has not been invalidated), but it is not fact.
I never stated the theory of evolution was invalidated. Eugene Koonin the chief investigator of the National Center for Biotechnology, Natonal library of medicine, national institute of health stated that opinion.
What I find interesting is his ideas for a new synthesis.
"I will mention two candidates. The first one is the population-genetic theory of the evolution of genomic architecture according to which evolving complexity is a side product of non-adapataive evolutionalry processes occurring in small populations where the constraints of purifying selection are weak.
The second area with a potential for major unification could be the study of universal patterns of evolultion such as the distribution of evolutionary rates of orthologous genes which is nearly the same in organisms from bacteria to mammals or the equally universal anticorrelatiion between the rate of evolution and the expression level of a gene."
This suggest to me that his work and the work of people such as Giuseppe Damiani and his work in Natural Genetic Engineering Systems are the future to find the nature of evolution.
Damiani wrote:
"The discoveries of many natural genetic engineering systems, the ability to choose the most effective solution, and the emergence of complex forms of consciousness at different levels confirm the importance of mind-action directed processss in biological evolution, as suggested by Alfred Russel Wallace. Although the main Darwinian principles will remain a crucial component of our understanding of evolution, a radical rethinking of the conceptual structure of the neo-Darwinian theory is needed."
"Corrections to chance fluctuations: Quantum mind in biological evolution?"
This natural genetic engineering systems information is very interesting stuff.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2011 8:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by RAZD, posted 01-14-2011 8:32 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 443 of 968 (600309)
01-13-2011 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Panda
01-13-2011 8:15 PM


I also see you are ignoring the many thousands of scientists that agree with them.
But I expect you to think that all those molecular biologists and microbiologists don't know what they are talking about.
The only criticism you have is based on an unfounded guess as to what their opinion would be.
Unfounded guesses are pretty worthless.
I merely stated the findings in a paper written by Eugene V. Koonin, chief investigator NCBI,NLM,NIH.
Please don't blame me for Mr. Koonin's findings and opinions.
Also there are many new papers that are also sounding the end of the Darwin, Neo-Darwinian theories as they are elucidated today.
You really should have an open mind to scientific criticisms of the theories when they are written by evolutionist scientists in the field.
Too many people on this site get nasty when the theories are challenged.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 8:15 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 444 by Coyote, posted 01-13-2011 8:58 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 445 by Panda, posted 01-13-2011 9:29 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 446 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 12:05 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 456 of 968 (600405)
01-14-2011 11:31 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by RAZD
01-13-2011 8:08 PM


There have been a number of molecular biologists that have voiced similar opinions. See "Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz for another example of someone claiming that the ToE is in need of massive revision .... one can hardly wait for the creationist quote miners to have a field day, as this is the kind of "controversy" they like to feed on and regurgitate.
Enjoy.
If the theory needs revision it should be revised. One cannot worry about what someone else is going to say. I think it was pretty brave of Koonin to set forth his findings and opinions. You all know that Lynn Margulis and Barbara McClintok were attacked and ridiculed by many of the leaders of the neo-Darwinism group, and now they are for the most part accepted theories..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by RAZD, posted 01-13-2011 8:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 11:49 AM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 457 of 968 (600406)
01-14-2011 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 452 by Blue Jay
01-14-2011 10:39 AM


Re: Aside: Jerry Coyne
What upset me was his introduction to the whole thing, in which he engaged in several logical/philosophical faux pas that we routinely rebuke here on EvC. For example, he actually said (word for word) that theories grow up to become facts, and (not word-for-word) that all scientists recognize a progression from speculation, to hypothesis, to theory, to fact.
You professionals in the field are much more familar with the progression from idea to hypothesis to theory than I am as you can see by my posts.
I have been reading Coyne's "evolution is a fact" blog and I an not really impressed by his self love, and almost child like writings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 452 by Blue Jay, posted 01-14-2011 10:39 AM Blue Jay has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 459 of 968 (600412)
01-14-2011 11:53 AM
Reply to: Message 453 by Taq
01-14-2011 11:20 AM


Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Perhaps Stephen Jay Gould can help to clear this up:
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money
I have no problem with Gould's statement. I believe what Koonin and many micolecular, micro, and genetic biologists are now finding is that the mode of the fact of evolution may be different than what the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory state. That perhaps natural selection and random mutation are not as important as now stated. That the cells are restructuring their genome at rapid rather than gradual alterations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 453 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 11:20 AM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 11:57 AM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 469 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 1:20 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 462 of 968 (600417)
01-14-2011 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2011 11:49 AM


Their ideas were questioned, yes, if that's what you mean. That's how science works. And then once their ideas had passed scrutiny, "the leaders of the neo-Darwinism group" (or "biologists" as they are more commonly known) gave 'em Nobel Prizes.
However, this does not presage that every idea that is questioned will turn out to be right.
I agree, but you must admit, when a new idea is championed it very often meets challenges that often result in ridicule and chastisement. So my point is that I admire someone who is qualified, when they dare state an idea or hypothesis that is significantly different from the present state of the established theory in the field.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 458 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 11:49 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 12:15 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 464 of 968 (600423)
01-14-2011 12:26 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by Percy
01-14-2011 8:15 AM


Oh. I assumed you were a creationist who rejected evolution as the explanation for species change over time, and that you thought Koonin was advocating something that would help falsify evolution, since potential falsifications of evolution are the topic of this thread.
I do read Koonin's paper as falsifying parts of the Darwin and neo-Darwinian as he himself says when he states:
"...in the postgenomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparaably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution."
So I think my message was on topic. Perhaps a new topic is needed about the new findings in Molecualr, Micro, and genetic findings since the 1950's.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by Percy, posted 01-14-2011 8:15 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 467 by Percy, posted 01-14-2011 1:04 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 465 of 968 (600425)
01-14-2011 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 460 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2011 11:55 AM


I read the paper as saying the author does not agree with a tree of life, but rather a forest of life, ie. we can't tell after these last 50 years of new discovery , what is actually going on.
Wrong.
BAsis?
I am not sure the author is so sure of natural selection as per the Darwin or neo-Darwinian theory
Wrong.
Basis?
I don't see in the paper the author's acceptance of a natural origin of life.
Did you see in the paper his acceptance of wingless pigs?
Did you see in the paper any reason why he should mention it one way or the other?
I was responding to Percy's message here he mentioned natural origin of life.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 460 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 11:55 AM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 470 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 2:19 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 466 of 968 (600427)
01-14-2011 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 463 by Dr Adequate
01-14-2011 12:15 PM


But he isn't. No-one denies the existence of lateral gene transfer, nor has since it was discovered in (if memory serves) 1928.
He might as well go around telling astronomers about his radical new idea of heliocentrism.
You read his paper as not challenging the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory?
He writes:
"...in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspect of evolution."
I read that as challenging the theories. He is talking about alot more than just lateral gene transfers.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.
Edited by shadow71, : spelling

This message is a reply to:
 Message 463 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 12:15 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 468 by Taq, posted 01-14-2011 1:12 PM shadow71 has seen this message but not replied
 Message 471 by Dr Adequate, posted 01-14-2011 2:31 PM shadow71 has replied

shadow71
Member (Idle past 3050 days)
Posts: 706
From: Joliet, il, USA
Joined: 08-31-2010


Message 472 of 968 (600473)
01-14-2011 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 467 by Percy
01-14-2011 1:04 PM


P.S. - I've noticed occasional typos in your excerpts. Are you actually typing them in instead of just cut-n-pasting?
Thanks for your interpretation of the paper. I read more into it than you do.
I download alot of the papers I post from so I do type in quite a bit of the quotes myself. I'll try to be more careful.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 467 by Percy, posted 01-14-2011 1:04 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by Percy, posted 01-14-2011 4:25 PM shadow71 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