Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

yes Well, the Theory of Evolution did not start until someone started studying living things. We do have life forms and that is what is evolving. The ToE explains how living organisms have changed since the earliest ancestors right up to the diversity of life we see today. Good! Scientists love problems.Are you saying that you have evidence that falsifies the Theory of evolution (the topic of this thread)? The fossil record and genetics are both verifiable direct evidence of the past history of life and how all life is related. I have no idea what you mean by transmutation. I thought that was what alchemists were trying to do (turn lead into gold). We are going to need more than your word for it if you are going to give us a potential falsification of the ToE. We do have a huge amount of evidence that micro-evolution happens.In the Can I disprove Macro-Evolution thread Message 237 I addressed your mis-understandings about Macro-Evolution.Here is some of that post. If you are going to give us a potential falsification of the Theory of Evolution it needs to be a little more precise than what you have said so far.Enjoy

---

What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Hi ICANT,Back in Message 318 I tried to clear up your mis-understandings about Macro-Evolution. You did not respond and disappeared from the scene. This is the second time I tried to help you understand only to have you run away. The first was here: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution thread Message 237.I suppose the next time you pop in, you will spout this nonsense again, ignoring the fact that someone tried to explain it to you.

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are all mixed up. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Hi ICANT,
Back in Message 318 I tried to clear up your mis-understandings about Macro-Evolution. You did not respond and disappeared from the scene. This is the second time I tried to help you understand only to have you run away. The first was here: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution thread Message 237.I suppose the next time you pop in, you will spout this nonsense again, ignoring the fact that someone tried to explain it to you.

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Hi ICANT, welcome back. OK, I did read what you wrote in that thread before I posted. So could you do me the courtesy of pointing out just which parts of my explanation you think are nonsense?You posted some information from Berkely Evolution 101 "What is macroevolution?" What do YOU think their description means?When we look at a tree diagram that shows the major branches of different related groups of organisms like the Mammals we see the Mammals are all on the same branch. Now if we were to zoom in on the base of that branch we would see that there was a single species that was barely any different from the species it split from. When those two populations stopped interbreeding they continued changing, minutely, each generation. They slowly become a little less like each other each generation. This is microevolution and it continues so each generation is a little different than the one before it. Eventually something happens and the species that is on the Mammal branch splits again. (This split could be something as simple as being on two side of a river or differences in food preferences or changes in behavior.)The point I am trying to make is that from generation to generation microevolution keeps happening. If there was an observer watching they would see populations of animals slowly changing and occasionally splitting into subpopulations that continue to slowly change independently. The observer would just see species slowly changing. They would not say to themselves "Aha, this is going to be the Mammals and there will be thousands of species of Mammals. It is only millions of years later when we look at the thousands of living Mammal species and the tens of thousands of extinct Mammal species that we can see what happend and try to understand it.There was never a special different kind of process that raised a big flag and said "This is a Macroevolutionary Event". It was just microevolution happening every generation. It is only when we see the results of these simple early branchings millions of years later that the trends become apparent.It is possible that simple splits in populations happening today will lead to what would be seen, millions of years from now, as major branches on the tree of life.I know you will reject what I have explained, but at least I tried.Enjoy

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley

Ahhhhh, I see where I went wrong now. Thanks for setting me straight.

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are out of alignment. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley