Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

quote:

---

I know this thread is old but is there anyone who can present evidence that ToE has been falsified (not how it could be, I mean actual evidence that has falsified ToE)?
  —Larni

---

The falsification of neo-Darwinian TOE will be a scientific process. It won't happen with one paper. However, I believe that the process has begun.Now before I begin, I would like to define some terms for clarification:TOE = The change in gene (allele) frequencies within a population over time. This is a narrow theory, and is often referred to as a "fact".Neo Darwinian TOE = NDTOE = The neo Darwinian synthesis of TOE. It is a broad theory that uses TOE to postualte the origin of the species through common ancestry. It includes the evolutionary tree/bush, and the evolution of natural history.This is really the theory in contention with creationists. Now please be advised.....I agree with TOE. Populations change over time. We see this. I agree. So please don't confuse the two in your arguments with me.However, we cannot observe long periods of time except for the contentious fossil record. We cannot observe the dino/bird trasition that NDTOE theorizes. etc etc. It is the NDTOE that can be falsified, and that is what us creos are working towards.As I said, the process has begun, and there is evidence. Dr. John Sanford has already published a few things on this subject, and more is coming. You can find his information here:http://logosresearchassociates.org/...john-sanford/#more-136His paper here claims falsification: http://logosresearchassociates.org/...Mendels-Accountant.pdfThis is not peer reviewed material, but Dr. Sanford has approximately 5 papers that will be peer reviewed and published in the science community by June of next year. Dr. Sanford is an extremely accomplished Biologist/ Genetisist and has a long track record of getting his papers published in the scientific community.Dr. Sandford's work, when published and peer reviewed will not immediately falsify NDTOE. The claims will be made, but the process will take years, but I believe that the process has already begun, and population genetics will lead to the demise of NDTOE.

Interesting claim, please support this with some evidence. I know of no such claim. Well, your claim is false. There are extinct species of rabbits. And there are some extremely close to extinction right now. Do you recognize reality, or is it something you just believe in? Why not bring forth your ideas and facts and arguments and let theirs stay where they are. Well if the simulation says rabbits are going extinct, and rabbits are indeed going extinct then I would say it is a pretty good model. Again, what is this reality you keep referring to?

Echos are empty vibrations. Why don't you support your claim that MA doesn't not model reality. I'm sorry you are forced to read awful research. Us creos have been reading the circles for years.

No one is trying to falsify "the common descent of organisms".

Creos and naturalists both believe in common descent. NDTOE however posits common descent for one common ancestor while a creationist explanation would be common descent form many common ancestors created during the creation week.Common descent is just one small part of NDTOE.

Thanks for the well thought of question. I will try my best to explain it for you. Slightly deleterious mutations were recognized first by Kimura in his neutral theory of molecular evolution, and then later refined by Ohta in the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. This theory is now well excepted in population genetics as it is used in the molecular clock.Now natural selection works at the phenotype with individual organisms. As phenotypes gain these slightly deleterious mutations, there is a selective pressure against these mutations, but basically all of the organisms have them, so they cant' be differentiated at the organism level. They are like noise in the population. Therefore, they don't get selected out on average. So the next generation has more mutations which many more are nearly neutral. The worst offenders are selected out, but on average the population carries the mutations. Also don't forget that many mutations are recessive, so they don't show up in the phenotye. The population will also carry the recessive negative alleles, because NS can't see them.Now, natural selection can remove these mutations from the population if the population can afford the cost of section. In organisms with large genomes, low fecundity, and long generation times (most large mammals), they cannot afford the cost of selction without severe inbreeding depression. So the population continues to exist under reduced selective pressures and the mutations just add up over time. The adding up problem is what "genetic entropy" is.

Well, with all due respect, I understand this quite well. "All of the available evidence" that you refer to equally supports a common designer and multiple ancestors as well. Keep in mind there is no genetic evidence from all of those extinct species that leads you to LUCA.

Sandford was an atheistic evolutionist. He then became a a theistic evolutionist. And when he really understood the limits on natural selection , he became a young earth creationist.I was an old earth creationist, and am now a YEC.

Empty claims without evidence may be dismissed with the same. LOL. Recent genetic studies conclude that all dogs descended from the ranks of wolves. That is clear evidence of a dog grouping or "kind" genetically. The evolutionary tree or bush shows multiple branches coming from missing common ancestors. This is clear evidence that the missing common ancestor may not exist. So it appears, you are wrong and don't seem to understand anything about biology.Ummmmm....there is no support in any field of science for anything without the involvement of human intelligence. Your argument is self refuting. Even you realized it by the time you finished writing it. Well, maybe you didn't.... Well, many thinking people do take it seriously. But of course those thinking people don't refute their own arguments. Does any of this make any sense? Glad your laughing, you can step away from the mirror now.

Ahhhh. You have provided a good example. Can I use it?. Let's say the straws are the mutation rate, and each of the straws weighs very little. Gen 1 has no straws. Gen 2, each camel in the population gets 100 straws. (100 mutations per generation) That's no problem for all the camels. Gen 100 all the camels are still standing fine with 100000 staws each. At Gen 200 some of the weak camels start dropping because of the weight of the straws, and they are selected against. Only the strongest camels survive (now remember, the strongest camels are still carrying their straws). At Gen 5000 there is no camel that can withstand the load. The population goes extinct.You see, the problem is that the strongest camels surviving each generation are still carrying and passing on their load of mutations. Individually, none of these straws are a problem. But eventually, they do add up. I think you are assuming that I am arguing against NS. I am not. NS works very well. It just is limited in what it can do in a population. Sickle cell example is a good example of NS. It happens. Agreed.Now evos theorize that we all came out of Africa. But we don't all look like Africans, do we? We have mutated. They have mutated. The majority of indiginous African people have mutations for kinky hair, larger lips, and flatter noses. (this is not racist, it is a fact). There appears to be no selection against these traits. There appears to be no selection for these traits either. But those traits have spread through the population. So either they drifted or were selected. There are two ways mutations can spread through a population. One is drift, the other is selection.Now please understand, that I realize a bottleneck can cause the traits to spread. However, that is random and not NS, so it is drift.

I suspect Darwin became an old earther before he came up with the nonsense of OOS. Darwin's ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of Lyell's uniformitarianism, and he invented evolution to explain OOS.

through genetic drift. It is well documented. You may want to learn about it. Yes, agreed. But you are confused. We are not talking about "deleterious combinations of mutations". I am talking about nearly neutral mutations. Mutations that are barely deleterious or barely advantageous. They do become fixed in the population all the time. So climate has no impact on selection? LOL Look, you are focusing on selection. Selection workks well for delterious and advantageous mutations. It does not work well for nearly neutral mutations. This is rather a red herring isn't it? When talking about the cost of selection, there are three factors that determine an organisms ability withstand higher costs of selection. This should be abundantly clear to you in a moment with your polar bear example. What a strawman! I said nothing about selection not operating on any animals. Selection clearly operates on all animals. now look at your beloved polar bear example. A clear example of genetic entropy. You chose a species that is endangered. Close to going extint. So selection takes out half the cubs. What if it took out 90% of the cubs? Can they afford that cost? Of course not. The answer is obvious. So strong selection which would weed out the many nearly neutral deleterious mutations that all the bears carry. So half the bears survive under reduced selection as I said. Those cubs have more mutations than their parents. It is a fact. Most of those mutations are deleterious. And those cubs will pass them on to the next generation. Well what do you think protection of endangered species is? It is a reduction of selection. And no that reduction is not caused by mother nature. She is an idiot. That reduction comes from the will and intelligence of man. Dittos

Thanks, It's nice to be remebered. OK, I accept your argument. I wasn't intending to generalize. So to clarify.....YEC's believe in descent from the original created kinds of animal and plants. Let's not get sidetracked on "kinds" for now. I recognized that it is not defined in a scientific way. Well there is "lack of agreement" in all kinds of the sciences. YEC's do agree that the creation account is predominantly historical and that groups of plants and animals were created on certain days of creation. I agree that there is alot of evidence. However, there is more evidence for biogenesis which TOE needs, yet scientists still hope and pray for abiogenesis.

Thanks, I'm a masochist looking for some punishment. I made no mess, but you have....
I was trying to prevent equivocation which evidently you want to promote. Nope. I did no such lumping as you accuse. I separated definitions and did so accurately. Nope. What I labeled TOE was the part that Darwin was wrong about. Darwin had no clue of genes and alleles. The TOE came many years after Darwin.Now Darwin proposed NS as a mechanism of evolution. That part he got right. But Darwins' main theory and the title of his book was the Origin of the Species (or OOS). The NDTOE is a reconciliation of TOE and OOS. The NDTOE is an extrapolation of TOE into all of life's history. It is really that simple.The TOE is a falsifiable theory on it's own. The NDTOE is a falsifiable theory on it's own. I believe that TOE is correct. I am not arguing that gene frequencies in populations don't change. They do. It is central to my argument that TOE is correct. However, I also believe that NDTOE is incorrect. Gene frequencies in populations can change and lead the future populations to higher levels of relative fitness, or they can change and lead to lower levels of relative fitness. I believe the evidence is showing the latter. And that is what I am defending.By defining these terms acurately at the beginning, it prevents equivocation. Now you wouldn't want to equivocate by equating these two terms as you did above now would you?

Well so far, you haven't pointed out any, but to the contrary, I have pointed out a bunch of yours. LOL. Except that's exactly what a "kind" is ...a grouping.Blunder # 1 Failure to logically recognize synonymous language. Oh? Really? Then you should have no trouble producing fossil evidence of these common ancestors. And population genetic evidence of these common ancestors. So I specifically ask for you to bring it forth. Wow! Sounds like there are alot of these common ancestors. Well then I know now, that you are extremely confident that you can produce the fossil and population genetics evidence of these commoners. I will anxiously await your reply! Great! I love science. I learn from it all the time. My job is in the "science" world. So, show me. I would say that I am from Missouri, but I'm not. Show me the population genetics evidence that you claim to have delineating these lineages of critters.Oh? What's that? You mean these common ancestors are theoretical critters? You don't have any fossils of them? And you really only have population genetic info from extant organisms? Well that's a little disappointing isn't it. Are these common ancestors like angels? You've read about them. Someone who penned the books told you about them. Therefore, you believe they exist, but you really don't have any evidence for them? Especially population genetic information?Any way, for now, I will assume that you have an abundance of evidence about these commoners. But I am anxiously waiting to see it! But just in case you don't provide any fossil evidence or genetic evidence of these common ancestors, then unfortunately, I will have to let you know that will count as ....Blunder # 2: Failure to support main premise of argument. Oh mercy! I agree! (sarcasm) That's like saying...".Except for the evidence that we can see the sun, feel its heat, measure its EMR etc., etc., etc., there is no evidence that the sun exists!"Blunder #3: Failure the second time thru to recognize self refutation and contradiction.Now, even excluding humans there is evidence of design in nature. I challenge you to logically argue that a beaver's dam is not intelligently designed.Blunder #4: False premise. Failure to recognize design in nature. No one has asserted that "only extant species are descended from LUCA". Only you have made this statement/ argument.Blunder #5: Failure to recognize a strawman argument, which leads to .....Blunder #6: Failure to recognize that in a strawman argument, you are arguing with one's self. There are hospitals for that activity. How can such a blundering rationality make any meaningful argument about any design? Let alone a divine one.