Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

There are a number of websites that you can access that sell replicas of most skulls and the important paleontological finds.Try this one for a start:Bone Clones, Inc. - Osteological ReproductionsThey have an extensive collection of skulls and other bones. But you can't just look at the pictures. To learn about these specimens you have to do some detailed study, and really you would need to study under an expert. Two years of concentrated effort should be good for a start. (I did six years in grad school, half time, studying osteology and evolution and closely related fields.)Edited by Coyote, : Change title

---

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

Dawn, you are quite the most trite and empty poster we have had here in years. All you seem capable of doing is mindlessly repeating yourself. Well go and study anthropology then. I don't really care about your doubts, given that you don't know a single damn thing about what you're talking about.If you want to have your opinions taken seriously, you need to learn more. You need to bring real objections, based upon real evidence. Your undereducated opinions count for jack shit. You ask for "great numbers" and "tons" of fossils, but in actual fact, you haven't the slightest idea how many non-human Hominina fossils exist have you? Pathetic. You opine from a position of pig ignorance. How despicable.I'm done with you. All you do is repeat yourself and fail miserably in your childish attempts at wit. You have no point, you have no argument, so I'm done wasting my time on you for now.Mutate and Survive

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Threads in which Dawn Bertot participates tend to begin focusing on Dawn more than the topic. I have two choices:

1. I can ask Dawn to stop participating in this thread; or
   ​
2. Other participants can either:
   1. Ignore Dawn; or
   2. Figure out how to engage with Dawn on-topic.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Does the science of evolution include what causes the mechanisms of evolution to work, not just how they work? You have his paper to read. You can refute his findings if they are not accurate. I assumed all scientists read papers , agree, disagree etc.. and reply to the author's findings.
So I don't think you are working with a blank slate.I have never claimed to be a biologist, but I do feel I have the education to read and understand what is being written.Would you have the education to explain how product liability case law should be followed in order to prove a case in front of the jury in a case?
Probably not, but you could read it and form your opinions on it, correct? Are you findings consistent with "Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology" or do you agree that Crick's Dogma has been replaced by new findings by Temin and Mitzutant et. al. that have changed cellular informatics, and how the interpretation of changes in the genome take place? But the recent findings in Cellular information including a read write memory system view of the genome in lieu of the conventional 20th century view of the genome as a read only memory subject to an accidental change do change the explanation and the how of evolutionary change.-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- But , would you agree, that alterations to the genome that occur in bursts and novel adapatations that require changes at multiple locations in the genome that can arise within a single generation would cause a rethinking of the Modern Synthesis?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------.I agree. Are you familar with the new concept of "natural genetic engineering? If it is valid it will mean many changes in the modern synthesis.Thanks for the posting tips. I am trying to get a handle on them. Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Sorry Razd, this quote should have preceded my last reply in my previous reply.

Koonin clearly stated in his paper the was referring to events after 1960.

Hi again, shadow71, and thanks for your reply. Yes, I could form an opinion, and it would be the opinion of an under-educated layman, and not that of someone educated in the field of product liability law and competent to discuss it in depth.Curiously, I would not have the presumption to assume that my opinion would matter to anyone that was educated in the field of product liability law, and most especially I would not presume to say that one lawyer's position was any better than any other. I would look to the common position as being most likely correct, and not any lawyer outliers, no matter how much they matched my personal under-educated opinion. If I was interested in the outlier position and wanted to know how possible it was, then I would ask other product liability lawyers about it: if they told me that the person with the outlier position was an attention seeking individual who published things like this to get attention even though what he actually said did not amount to a significantly different position from the common one, then I would accept that. Again, this forum is not designed to debate by links, but by personal argument based on how well you understand the positions.As I've stated, and as the critique posted by Percy showed, I don't see any significant change to the overall pattern of evolution, certainly not enough to call for the death of the ToE (but perhaps the terms "Darwinism" and "neo-Darwinism", which are neither accurate nor descriptive of the ToE today, can be dispensed with, to the greater clarity of understanding that accompanies the use of proper terminology).I don't see anything he suggests as new or novel within the field of evolutionary biology. Are we supposed to debate the contents of the paper among ourselves while you watch? We've done that: nothing really new in the paper. Done. Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology - DNA to RNA to Protein

quote:

---

From this affirmation and the knowledge that RNA was the immediate precursor for protein, Francis Crick proposed in a 1954 paper - and reasserted in 1970 - formulated a flow diagram which has become known as the central dogma of molecular biology: DNA to RNA to Protein.
... however modern advances in molecular biology and genetics have shown that this idea was too simple. ...
Modern discoveries have highlighted that the flow of genetic information is much more dynamic. ...

---

That's from the first google reply to "Crick's Central Dogma of Molecular Biology".Dogma does not belong in science, as all concepts are subject to change over time, even if it is just refinement of previous concepts in light of additional information that it is likely correct.Genetics is a new field however, essentially starting with the finding of DNA.Do you think nothing new has been learned in the last 40 to 60 years in the field of genetics? Do you think Koonin somehow is the only person to have noted this? Again, what he presents is not news, nor does it require massive rewriting of current knowledge. If by "conventional 20th century view" you mean a 40 to 60 year old non-current genetics view, then once again we are dealing with things currently known. Much ado about nothing. And yet, curiously, evolution is still the change in the frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities, and the theory (that this is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it) is still valid.What he is quibbling about is whether there is a new mechanism within the arsenal of biology to effect change.That horizontal gene transfer occurs in bacteria is not new.That viruses can insert genes into other DNA sequences is not new.That the processes of life are found to be more complex and more dynamic the more we study them is not new.etc etc etcSo is it a molehill of incremental changes incorporated into the science of evolution or is it a mountain of attention grabbing sensationalism to pile all these up and say "this is all new since 50 years ago" and that the 50+ yr old ideas need to be changed when they already have been changed? One of his examples was the Cambrian "Explosion" -- a period of change that occurred over millions of years, and seemed sudden in geological time due to the paucity of early fossil finds.Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Cambrian explosion or Cambrian radiation was the relatively rapid appearance, over a period of many million years, of most major Phyla around 530 million years ago, as found in the fossil record.[1][2] This was accompanied by a major diversification of other organisms, including animals, phytoplankton, and calcimicrobes.[3] Before about 580 million years ago, most organisms were simple, composed of individual cells occasionally organized into colonies. Over the following 70 or 80 million years the rate of evolution accelerated by an order of magnitude (as defined in terms of the extinction and origination rate of species[4]) and the diversity of life began to resemble today’s.[5]

​

The long-running puzzlement about the appearance of the Cambrian fauna, seemingly abruptly and from nowhere, centers on three key points: whether there really was a mass diversification of complex organisms over a relatively short period of time during the early Cambrian; what might have caused such rapid change; and what it would imply about the origin and evolution of animals. Interpretation is difficult due to a limited supply of evidence, based mainly on an incomplete fossil record and chemical signatures left in Cambrian rocks.

---

The rate of evolution has been observed to vary widely in other cases as well -- such as following mass extinctions -- this is not an explosion in the normal sense of the term.Also see Cambrian explosion - Wikipedia

quote:

---

A range of theories are based on the concept that minor modifications to animals' development as they grow from embryo to adult may have been able to cause very large changes in the final adult form. The hox genes, for example, control which organs individual regions of an embryo will develop into. For instance, if a certain hox gene is expressed, a region will develop into a limb; if a different hox gene is expressed in that region (a minor change), it could develop into an eye instead (a phenotypically major change).

​

Such a system allows a large range of disparity to appear from a limited set of genes, but such theories linking this with the explosion struggle to explain why the origin of such a development system should by itself lead to increased diversity or disparity. Evidence of Precambrian metazoans[19] combines with molecular data[96] to show that much of the genetic architecture that could feasibly have played a role in the explosion was already well established by the Cambrian.

---

This was the main thrust of Schwartz's book, "Sudden Origins", however his concept has been unable to overturn modern evolutionary theory, as he also claimed. Will it?Page not found - Suite 101 (May 31, 2007)

quote:

---

Firstly, they encode instructions for the plant to manufacture certain amino acids that are the favoured food of the bacteria. These amino acids, called opines, are never naturally produced by the plant, nor are they easily utilized by other organisms. The Agrobacteria, however, are specifically adapted to eat them, and in having the plant manufacture them, the bacteria have created themselves a cozy niche, free from competition.

​

Secondly, the bacteria send genes that instruct for hormone production, causing the affected cell to multiply rapidly, and indeterminately, very much like cancer. These virulence (vir) genes essentially multiply the effect of the bacteria’s efforts, so that an entire mass of food-supplying GM plant cells can be cultivated. The result is that tumorous growths occur on the affected plants, which we recognize in our garden as galls.

---

andDr. Jim Shapiro, Chicago, Natural Genetic Engineering -- the Toolbox for Evolution: Prokaryotes (Mar 15, 2001)

quote:

---

Natural Genetic Engineering -- the Toolbox for Evolution: Prokaryotes
Dr. Jim Shapiro, Chicago

---

Interesting synopsis that is 10 years old.Once again this is an issue that is old news in evolution science ... nor does it mean that "many changes in the modern synthesis" will be needed: this is still the change in frequency of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities - where in this case the ecology includes the bacteria. The theory is still that evolution is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it. Providing a more comprehensive accounting of the ecological factors is not a major rewrite of theory. You're welcome, their use makes reading your posts easier. I generally use the [qs](pasted quote)[/qs] for message quotes and [quote](pasted quote)[/quote] for quotes from books and articles (with references and links of course)Enjoy.

---

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)

Koonin would certainly agree with Coyne and Dawkins that evolution is a fact. He treats it as a given in the paper you quoted from. There's nothing arrogant about stating this. It's true. And neither Coyne nor Dawkins think that we know everything about the processes by which evolution happens. Just like Koonin.It's hard to see what point you're trying to make. Koonin certainly believes in common descent, natural selection and drift. The point about the lines of descent being blurred at the genetic level, especially in prokaryotes, is well known, and could possibly have been inferred to some extent when horizontal gene transfer was discovered (1959 I think). So is the point about jumps in change, like the endosymbiotic event that many think is the origin of eukaryotes.What he's discussing is the ongoing research into the fine details of exactly how evolution happens, and there's nothing particularly exciting about his paper, IMO. That's because it's not the subject he's discussing in that paper! He certainly discusses it elsewhere, and he certainly believes it's natural. What else should it be? He's not a fantasist (creationist), as you said above.

I have mentioned it. I don't see how Koonin's argument helps the creationist argument. Do you? This is why we do not use the neo-Darwinian Synthesis from the 1960's. We use the modern verison which incorporates everything that Koonin is talking about. That theory already exists. It is called the Modern Synthesis of the year 2011.

You have things backwards again. First of all, we are looking at types of primates. Humans are primates, as was our common ancestor with chimps, and as were the proposed transitional species between us and that common ancestor. So of course we are looking at types of primates.What you are ignoring is that the predictions made by the theory of evolution preceded the discovery of these fossils. You keep ignoring how science works, and this relates back to the OP of this thread. The theory of evolution predicts that we should find fossils with a mixture of modern human and basal ape features. THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THESE FOSSILS EXHIBIT. As we move through time the primitive features go away and modern features appear, JUST AS THE THEORY PREDICTS WE SHOULD SEE. Therefore, these fossils are evidence in support of the theory.At the same time, the theory predicts that we should NOT SEE fossils that violate the nested hierarchy. We should not see fossils with a mixture of primitive ape features and derived canine features, as an example.Let's ask a simpler question. According to you, if these fossils are not evidence then what characteristics does a fossil need in order to evidence the transition between modern humans and a common ancestor with chimps? If these fossils are not evidence, then what would the real evidence look like? If you can't answer these questions then you have no argument.Also, the theory of evolution does not predict the rate of fossilization. This is dealt with in geology, not biology. All the theory of evolution can do is use the fossils we do have to test the theory, and everytime we do this the theory passes. What is it about the hominid transitional fossils that you find lacking? Be specific.

----
Razd writes
---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Shapiro updated his paper and wrote a summary of his work in natural genetic engineering as per the abstract below. In his paper he writes: I understand this to mean he is saying that major changes are the result of planned, engineered functions in the cell that do not rely on gradual, random changes.That these changes can be novel in nature, and after that micro evolution settles in.
Since the cells responce is to "stresses" very quicky, he does not see a role for natural selection, except when the novel adapations are completed and micro evolution fine tunes the changes.

tag posts, I think it helps some creationists because of the complexity involved. One can construe this as planned. I posted James A. Sapiro's abstract in re "natural genetic engineerilng" that goes beyond the 20th century theory in regards to randoness and natural selection.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

blugenes posts, The problem I have with saying evolution is a fact is that it assumes the process and the cause of the process are fact. I agree the evolution is a fact, but the cause and the manner of the process is still not fully determined.One can see historically that evolution has happened but not how or what caused it to happen. That is the theory and theories are not fact.Edited by shadow71, : add to sentenceEdited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Its meant to be the exact opposite, though. When people say evolution is a fact, they are talking about what "One can see historically that evolution has happened" and not about the Theory of Evolution (which should not be called a "fact").

Where did Koonin argue this? Mobile DNA elements do insert randomly with respect to fitness. These mobile elements can and do result in deleterious phenotypes, as well as beneficial and neutral phenotypes. It's not as if a bear started experiencing colder winters and in response the entire species specifically mutated a single base that resulted in white fur across the entire species. That's not how it works. Environmental stresses can and do result in DNA mutations, genome restructuring, and the rest. However, these changes are still random with respect to fitness.What neo-Darwinism states is that mutation and selection are independent of one another. That is, mutations are blind to what is good or bad for the individual. This is exactly what we see with mobile DNA elements. They insert all over the place, and the helpful ones are kept through natural selection.