Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Hi, AlphaOmegakid.Good to see you back. I know you've defined your terms for the discussion and want the clarity from doing so, but you've made such a mess of it that I can’t refrain from commenting on it.Modern evolutionary biology contains a large number of different parts and components, that, for some reason I can’t figure out, creationists and IDists are fond of lumping into amalgamated theories that bear the name of Darwin. Usually, as is the case here, y’all get it completely wrong.The neo-Darwinian synthesis is the synthesis of Darwin’s descent with modification with Mendel’s genetics that occurred in the 1930’s and 1940’s. It includes Mendelian inheritance, mutations, natural selection, and the fusion of microevolution and macroevolution into the same thing. So, what you labeled ToE above is actually the neo-Darwinian ToE.On the other hand, universal common descent and the tree of life, while accepted by neo-Darwinists, wasn’t actually a part of the neo-Darwinian synthesis. It isn’t neo-anything it’s one of the oldest evolutionary ideas, predated only by unsuccessful competing ideas, such as the great chain of being and Lamarkism. In fact, the tree of life was one of the primary points of Darwin’s original proposal.In fact, it’s the new components of ToE that you actually accept, and the old ones that you reject.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, AOk. And, I would also like to say that I missed your zingers: wittiest creationist I ever met!----- Um... ignoring everything else you wrote in your reply to me, I would like to point out that the only point I was making was that you reversed the names of the two evolutionary concepts.Once again, the term "neo-Darwinian synthesis" refers to the parts of ToE that you agree with. The extra stuff about the tree of life and natural history was part of Darwin's work from the beginning, and thus, is not "neo-" anything.Look it up.I suspect that you chose "neo-Darwinism" for the parts you disagree with, despite the factual and historical inaccuracy of doing so, simply because it has the word "Darwin" in it, and you don't want to say you accept anything that has the word "Darwin" in it.For an added bit of historical context, look up "pangenesis." This was what Darwin proposed as the mechanism of inheritance. Neo-Darwinism is the modern form of the ToE that rejected Pangenesis in favor of Mendelian genetics, but accepted all the other bits. When you understand this important little bit, you will suddenly realize why "neo-Darwinism" is not what you think it is.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, AOk. I find it worth pointing out that the increase in frequency through drift that you keep alluding to is far from inevitable. Drift can also cause alleles to decrease in frequency.In fact, an increase in the frequency of one allele, by definition, requires a decrease in the frequency of another allele. So, if there is no difference in fitness between two given alleles, then it's game of chance that clearly favors an established, prevalent allele over an upstart mutant.I would go so far as to speculate that drift is much more likely to cause allele extinctions than allele fixations, especially for rare alleles, such as upstart mutants (though I appeal to Taq or WK to confirm or deny this).

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, AlphaOmegakid. Wait, now you don't like natural selection? I thought you agreed with it. What gives?Also, arguing that a theory about how the world operates is a model for how things should operate is called the "naturalistic fallacy."I've used this example before. I have an ancestor who had five wives. I also have an ancestor who was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. While reading this, did you interpret this as me stating that I advocate polygamy and the persecution of Black people?No, of course you didn't: you read it as my presenting to you the facts without regard for how I felt about them, and did not immediately conclude that I advocate the implementation of the behaviors I ascribed to my ancestors.So, why, when an evolutionist presents to you what they perceive to be the facts about the world, do you immediately conclude that they must advocate the implementation of the processes they ascribed to the natural world?

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, AOk. I need to point out an obvious problem with this. Generations are not discreet for large mammals: they overlap regularly.For example, I have an uncle who is almost two years younger than I, despite being part of a generation before me in terms of genetics. And, to make it more interesting, both of our wives just had babies this year. This means that individuals from two different generations are going to grow up together!In fact, most mammals (particularly large ones) get many chances to reproduce, over many years, which often means that old individuals can still be reproducing when later generations are reproducing.So organisms do not only compete with individuals from their own generation, so defining fitness relative to one's own generation alone is not going to provide any sort of meaningful commentary on large mammals.Now, insects, on the other hand, regularly have discreet generations. Maybe you could try to apply your model there. But, their populations are almost universally absurdly large, so genetic meltdown is extremely unlikely.Edited by Bluejay, : I wanted a new subtitle

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Hi, Shadow.I attended a seminar by Jerry Coyne at my university a couple months ago. It was a promotion for his new book, Why Evolution is True. I have to say that I wasn't very impressed.It was a nice presentation of several basic pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution in action (transitional fossils of whales, and atavistic limbs on dolphins and stuff like that). With that part, I was quite impressed, even though my time on EvC had already made me aware of all the evidence he was presenting before I saw his seminar.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.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.