Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

First of all, when I posted Koonin's paper, I did not mention the creationist argument.I would ask that you not arrive at the conclusion that because I post something that challenges Darwin or neo-Darwinian theory, that I am a creationist attempting to discredit the theories.I am, as stated earlier in many posts, open to all theories. I do believe, as I have stated, that there is a creator.
But for the last two years I have been reading all I can on the theory of evolution, pro's and con's. I have no idea how creation was carried out, but I do not out of hand reject Darwin or neo-Darwinian theories.Koonin is stating that evolution as stated in the neo-Darwinian Synthesis is not corrobated by the findings of molecular, micro, and gentic biological findings since the 1960's. But rather that new findings are not conducive to the theory as it is now.I think he is arguing for a more developed theory based on the research since the 1960's.

I really don't see him arguing for the rejection of Darwin and neo-Darwinian theories. I rather see him as saying that based on these new findings in biology the theories as stated do not agree with what has now been observed. The theories must be changed and altered to accomodate the new findings. Some aspects of the old theories will have to be modified or discarded. That in my mind is what science should be all about.
You cannot hang on to a theory because it has always been that way.

But the theory as stated is what has now been observed.The theory of evolution is, simply put, everything we know about genetics that is relevant to evolution. That's the neo in neo-Darwinism. Darwin knew that there was reproduction, variation, and selection. We know the details. Finding out more details helps to flesh out the theory, it doesn't controvert it.

Koonin is arguing that what we are finding out about evolution in the study of prokaryotes and viruses shows that they have and are evolving in ways not imagined by classical evolution theories. That these theories must be reevaluated based on the new findings in genetics, micro and molecular reseach.
I believe he telling us that we are not allowed to rest on what we now believe about the theories, but must change them where necessary.Edited by shadow71, : spelling correction

Hi again shadow71, please slow down and take a breath. And I did not accuse you of doing so either, so I have to wonder what your beef is.What I did accuse you of was confusing the process of evolution, which is a phenomenon that is observed every day (and thus EVOLUTION_{(the process)} is a fact), with the theory of evolution. You complained about people claiming that evolution was a fact and then talked about the theory -- the evident implication being that you have confused process with theory. There are at least three ways the term evolution is used within biology - as a process, as a theory, and as a science - and it is important for one's own clarity of thought to keep these distinct.The process of evolution is the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities.The theory of evolution is that the process of evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us and from the evidence of archeology, paleontology, geology, molecular chemistry, genetic analysis, etc...The science of evolution is the study of how the various mechanisms of evolution work within the biological world, through experiment and observation, and seeing how the theory applies to the known objective and empirical evidence, including the evaluation of new evidence and comparison of the results with the predictions of the theory. Are you expecting us to debate Dr. Koonin's work against a blank slate? Clearly you seem to be enamored of his work, and to fail to support it after claiming that you find it compelling is rather ... somewhat ... disappointing? Perhaps you are not qualified (undereducated) to speak on this topic but present it because it reinforces some beliefs you have, but are honest enough to realize that you do not have the expertize to discuss it from a scientific basis (which is okay with me). Even when those evolutionist scientists are offering nothing more than their opinions?What about you being open minded to the scientific criticisms of your chosen critic's concepts when written by scientists (the modifier evolutionist only being needed by creationists as true science is not biased by belief) in the field? Have you read Percy's link?

quote:

---

The Biological Big Bang is not so much wrong as it is unnecessary.

---

That kind of sums it up in a nutshell. We already have a web of life at the early stages from other sources, and we already have horizontal gene transfer between bacteria as a means of genetic exchange for single cellular life. These are not new, nor are they earth shaking revelations that shake the foundations of the science of evolution or rattle the walls of the ivory towers of the scientists that study evolution.The theory of evolution does not fall into oblivion if there is more than one origin of life, for evolution occurs after that origin. One of the tasks of the science of evolution is to determine whether there was one common ancestor population or several.Nor does the theory of common descent, that life is related to life by descent from common ancestor populations, fail if there is horizontal gene transfer that provides essentially the same contribution to descendants that sexual reproduction does in multicellular organisms. It just means that identifying the "mama" and "papa" may be a little more difficult, but that the process of changes in the frequency of hereditary traits in (gene exchanging) populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities still occurs and is still subject to the trials and tribulations of survival, reproduction, drift, etc, within those ecologies. Oh boo hoo, your pet theory was challenged and you got nasty. Why do you find it interesting? Can you tell me how to differentiate "purifying selection" from the natural selection towards relative stasis in a predominantly static ecology? This is observed, and is part of the punc-eek mechanisms as described by Gould and Eldredge. The small populations living outside the fringes of the main population ecology would have different ecological opportunities than the main populations, and thus more opportunity to select traits not necessarily adaptive for the main population, but which are suited to those fringe ecologies. This too is part of the punc-eek mechanisms as described by Gould and Eldredge. So either Koonin is not offering anything new or he is trying to pretend to reinvent the wheel by calling it something else. Rates of evolution change. Stunning. I fail to see any cause for a new synthesis nor any reason to say that current theory is in any jeopardy. This again is his opinion. Opinion is not fact, nor is it able to alter facts in any known way, whether "mind-action directed" or not.What will alter the theory of evolution is facts and objective empirical evidence of portions of evidence that the theory does not adequately explain -- that is how science works -- not by opinions. That, of course, is your opinion, and you are welcome to it ... as long as you realize that opinions are strangely ineffective at altering reality, and that you shouldn't react with anger and nasty comments when it is criticized on the basis of facts and what the evidence shows.An open mind considers the possibility of new concepts being valid, however a skeptical mind reacts with skepticism of concepts not supported by adequate empirical objective evidence to support the concept. There needs to be a balance between open-mindedness and skepticism.Enjoy.ps - as you seem relatively new here ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

And if by "classical evolution theories" you mean everything we knew about genetics between 1850 and 1920, then what you say he is arguing is right. I for one would not roll the clock back on genetics 90 years. A radical idea. I guess he should also preach to physicists that despite their rigid dogmas it is possible to split the atom. And there was I thinking that he couldn't possibly articulate a more trivial truism.

This has already happened. The things Koonin mentions have already been incorporated into evolution and genetics. Look again at Table 1 on page 5 of The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?. What do you see in that table that isn't already part of evolution or genetics?--Percy

You sure do a lot of projecting. I have been dealing with creationists for decades, whereas you repeatedly exhibit abject ignorance of them. As an IDist, you are lying in bed with those people; if you're going to sleep with someone, you really should make some effort to learn about them. Yes, there are. Besides the fact that their disagreement with evolution is not based on the science, but rather on their religious and/or philosophical beliefs. they are very rarely the ones that we see here. Those who do actually understand the science know better than to use the blatantly false claims of "creation science", at least not in a forum where they would have to respond to questions. Even those who do not understand the science but are experienced "debators" know better than to engage in forum discussions; they tend to be little more than bullies who will only engage with opponents who are weaker than they are (the moment they realize that their opponent actually knows something, they immediately try to disengage; I've seen this done personally) and they will pummel their weaker opponents out of public sight.Rather, the creationists that we normally get here are those who are ignorant of science and are ignorant of their own ignorance. All that they can do is to repeat the false claims and arguments that they have learned from other creationists, in many cases effectively acting as proxies for the creationists who know better than to engage directly in public discussion. Clearly, these creationists who are ignorant of science would be ill-prepared to understand scientific explanations, as I stated. The people at Cutting Edge Ministries were given the true explanation of why Jupiter could not be a star and they could not understand it, but they could understand the false bullshit that Kent Hovind fed them instead (not that Hovind knew any different himself).Dawn, you are clearly ignorant of science, among many other things, and you are clearly intent on retaining your ignorance. That is why you are unable to understand the clear answers we are giving you. Completely irrelevent bullshit that has nothing to do with what I said.Ignorance is not knowing something. We are all ignorant about many things; it's part of the human condition. We can reduce our ignorance by learning about those things we are ignorant of. Not wanting to reduce our ignorance, even opposing it, is just plain stupid. Ignorance can be cured; stupidity can't.Since you are ignorant of science, I was advising you to learn something about the relevent sciences so that you could understand what we're saying. But you insist on clinging to your ignorance, which by definition is stupidity.Ironically, in your bullshitting you accidentally said something that is very true and that I have been trying to get creationists to realize for decades, but which they vehemently oppose. Incredible! You finally got something right! It is indeed true that there is no actual conflict between evolution and creation. Nor even between evolution and many forms of creationism -- there the only conflict is created by forms of creationism that choose to claim that there is a conflict, such as YEC's "creation science". Nor does evolution invalidate the Bible, no more than it would invalidate Moby Dick or Pliny's histories; again, that conflict only exists in those forms of creationism that teach that evolution invalidates the Bible and disproves God. And whether evolution would affect the tenets of creationism depends heavily on the form of creationism under consideration; most forms are unaffected, but not the more virulent forms. And you're back to talking nonsense again. The tenets of creation and of creationism are based directly on religious beliefs. They may be developed through logic, but the premises are firmly grounded in religious belief. Indeed, leading YECs such as Dr. Henry Morris of the ICR, practically the inventor of Flood Geology and co-creator of "creation science", explicitly state and insist that Scripture must always take precedence over the real world, so your statement is pure bullshit. Yet again.Now, Dawn, for a little experiment, if you're man enough. Find a YEC forum, join it, and tell them exactly what you had just told me (starting with "Evolution has nothing to do with creation or creationism."). How do you think that your fellow creationists will receive you?I predict that that they will villify you for "hating God" and will attack you for being an apostate or even as an atheist. "Creation science" insists that evolution is incompatible with creation and with God. That if evolution is true, then the Bible is false and God is either a cosmic Liar or does not exist. Either way, if evolution is true then you must abandon Christianity and become an atheist.Dawn, you are abysmally ignorant of your bed-mates. Clinging to such ignorance is a stupid idea.

Know alot about God do you Panda, where did you get these details about God? Oh yes from the same book you revile constantlyAs I said before your nothing but a sick disturbed little man with an agenda against GodDawn Bertot

No one one is question the extinction of animals or supposed homminids. I am questioning why there isnt more evidence, that doesnt have to rely on skant parts pieced together from here or therethere simply should be more evidence if what you say existed, actually exsisted the lack of evidence that is characteristic in humanoid existence is what I am questioning. Your "evidence" may be sufficient for you but it is not for me The frozen example was simply an example to a point. it was an illustration that could apply to any scenerio where such could have been preserved

Bertot writesTaq writesSurely you understand you dont need to be a biologist to know that from an evidential standpoint one does not have to agree or see the concept of Macro-evolution in the fossil record.Since the fossil record does not prove absolutely evolution, it would follow that an observation in the opposite direction is more than plausiblethe sharp distinctions and trail of the fossil record do not show a clear cut evolution of every species on earth.i dont need religious reasons to know that is a factthat is how i was making the statementDawn BertotDawn Bertot

IMV, absolutely nothing could be found that would affect the tenets of creationism, unless you are thinking of something that could affect its principles. In which case i would say present itDawn Bertot

Fascinating...
It appears to be trying to communicate.

You make your god deeply ashamed.

Really? So What!The fact is there is, at least there is some evidence to back up the The ToE. Where is the evidence for your viewpoint?
It would not be more plausible, unless there was evidence to back it up, for which, there is none.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008