Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Of course not. That would have suggested that you were a scientist first and foremost, rather than an atheist. That is called pre-judging the situation. The noun (you may have heard it) is "prejudice". It would certainly have been less scientific. When you dismiss the possibility of falsification a priori you have already abdicated as a scientist. Good boy. Nobody is going to charge you with heresy. Here lies the body of the Scientific Method, which had to be humanely put down because it's pedantic requirements were making the great god Neo-Darwinism uncomfortable.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Now that you have finished crying into your whine maybe you can provide us with a real (major) falsification of evolution since you seem so convinced they exist?You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that evolutionary theory has already been falsified, otherwise all your bitching at Minnemooseus would just look like paranoid crazy talk, so perhaps you can provide us with the requisite evidence for this falsification?Even better you could go to this thread, Does ID follow the scientific method?, and be the first to offer any potential way of falsifying the Intelligent Design hypothesis. Which might be a small step to making it seem like a genuine scientific hypothesis and not creationism with a fake beard.TTFN,WK

Hm. Lack of fossil evidence of transitional species? No. That was covered by the alibi -sorry, theory- of punctuated equilibrium. A small subpopulation becomes sexually isolated, madly mutates into a superior organism, breaks out of its isolation, outcompetes and replaces its predecessor.Hang on, though, aren't the mutations necessary for this frantic evolution mathematically more likely to occur in the larger, unisolated population? What's that? Stick my fingers in my ears and say "La-la, la-la"?Why on earth would I do that?Okay. Let's try something else. How about the problem of unicellular to multicellular?Let's see- we have unicellular creatures by the number, even a few bicellular (mainly yeast). Next step up the ladder is eight-celled, but they're parasites who do not yet have a host so they don't count in the ascent of life. Next step up is twenty-two celled. So we have to believe that life jumped unaided from two to twenty-two cells, or that there were intermediate creatures that have since become extinct (despite the fact that their simplicity made them very durable) without leaving any fossil trace at all.What's that? Again with the La-la!Dear me, this is harder than I thought. What about the non-existence of the Trilobyte's ancestor?Oh, that's right- they were "soft-bodied", and didn't leave any fossils. Funny, though, I mean there were plenty of soft-bodied creatures that preceded the Trilobyte that did leave fossils, and Trilobytes are so plentiful you'd think we'd find at least one of their forefathers. Come to think of it, why would a segmented creature with multiple limbs be soft-bodied?Oh, I forgot. The theory required it. That is so much more important than concrete evidence.Dear me, what to do.Invertebrate to vertebrate? Exoskeletal, dorsal respiratory system, ventral nervous system to endo skeletal, dorsal nervous system and ventral respiratory system without so much as a suggestion of fossil evidence for all of these amazing transitions?La-la? >sigh<Cold-blooded to warm-blooded? Even though a warm-blooded creature requires 10 times as much food as a cold-blooded creature? And in turn the creature needs to be warm-blooded in order to gather 10 times as much food? So in order to become warm-blooded you have to already be warm blooded?La-la? Thought so.The chance assembly of a single reproducing genome? 1 to 10 followed by 4,200 zeros? And that's not counting a cell membrane, protoplasm, organelles, mitochondria, plasmids etc?La-la? La-la-la-la-la?Im afraid you are right, Wounded King. The Theory of Evolution cannot be falsified. Because every time it is, the leak will be plugged with some idiotically improbable just-so story.What we are dealing with here is FAITH, not science. The theory of evolution is the doctrine of atheism, and atheism is very much a religion.You can't falsify Faith. Believe me, I know.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Hi Kaichos Man,(Disclaimer: I'm not a biologist, but I think I can answer some of your questions) It's true that larger populations tend to have more genetic diversity, but smaller populations can change faster as novel mutations can become fixed more easily. If, say, a population with some useful alleles became separated from the larger population, these alleles could become fixed very rapidly in the daughter population. You're assuming that organisms evolved multi-cellularity one cell at a time. Why are you making this assumption? How would you identify it if you found it? We do not know enough about pre-cambrian biota to be sure of how it relates to later phyla. But check out Spriggina. Some speculate that it might be a relative of the trilobites. Familiar with the term "Gish Gallop"? Respond to the earlier points first, then we can discuss other objections you have in detail.Respectfully,-MeldinoorEdited by Meldinoor, : No reason given.

Obviously, since you failed to describe even one falsification to evolution.TBH: it wasn't even a good attempt.{abe} Re-Reading your post, I don't think you even know what a falsification is.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

There is no such thing as 'cold-blooded' and 'warm blooded' - they are obsolete terms that are only used in a colloquial sense.
How much an animal's body temperature is affected by the outside temperature is different between species.
This difference ranges from one end of the spectrum to the other with many shades of 'warm-bloodedness' inbetween.You argument can only have any weight if animals were only 'completely warm blooded' or 'completely cold blooded'.
But as species evolve, they can slowly increase/decrease their thermoregulation, without detrimentally effecting their diet or behaviour.

Hi Meldinoor. But the smaller population can fall out of equilibrium much more easily, which makes rapid change far more likely to result in extinction. This is what Haldane examined in his dilemma; the fact that any mutation can only be fixed gradually, with the passage of a large number of generations, if the population is going to remain in equilibrium. The large population, apart from numerically containing the greater number of mutations, can sustain a much higher background mortality rate.This is why many evolutionists have returned to neo-Darwinism, preferring to deal with the paucity of the fossil record than the manifold logical inconsistencies of punk eek. Because I'm assuming that the prospect of 11 bicellular organisms forming a co-op is beyond the imagination of even the most gullible evolutionist. No. I'll check it out and get back to you.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

A falsification is a deductive prediction which, if verified, shows an hypothesis to be false.Example:Hypothesis: All species evolved from a common ancestor (Molecule to Man evolution).Prediction: If evolution is true, the fossil record will be full of the remains of transitional species.Result: The fossil record shows only a handful of (highly disputed, even among evolutionists) transitional species.Conclusion: Molecule to Man evolution is falsified.You see, if it was science, it would be quite straightforward. But your dealing with faith here. The religion of atheism. Every falsification must be dogmatically countered with a "just so" story (like punctuated equilibrium) to preserve the precious theory.When the hypothesis itself is used to decide whether the falsification is valid, you are fighting an uphill battle.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

like the ones listed here and more found every year ?List of transitional fossils - WikipediaThough what you are asfking fore is every single transitional species has to be found before you belive in evolution well sorry to dissapoint you but fossils form very rarely if fossilization took place every time a critter died there would be a whole bunch more fossils found and more transitional species.to put a contra to your argument if ID was true god would show himself at leat once a year on a global news network he never did so id is false. Edited by frako, : No reason given.Edited by frako, : No reason given.

Please provide a reference for this.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Wow, that's great, Fraco. So there's no more need for punctuated equilibrium? That's a relief. As theories go, it was a real dog anyway. What an absolute crock. Take a look around at the millions of fossils that are forming right now. And then think that, according to evolution, we've had lakes and rivers and oceans and snow and wind for millions of years with thousands of deluges and floods of varying intensity and expanse. We would be up to our freaking armpits in transitional fossils- if evolution was true.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

err, where exactly? As with just about everything else, you seem highly confused.

To help you understand falsification.The observation that the fossil record is incomplete would be a good falsification of the claim that "the fossil record will be complete by 2010."The observation that there is loads that we still don't know about the natural history of this planet would be a good falsification of the claim that "everything will be known about the natural history of this planet by the year 2010."As evolutionary theory doesn't make either of these claims, your post was rather a waste of space, wasn't it? Of course you can falsify religious Faiths when they describe a false world.

quote:

---

The Christian Catholic Church, later known as the Christian Catholic Apostolic Church, was a religious group founded in 1896 by John Alexander Dowie. They are sometimes called the Zionites (not to be confused with the German Zionites) and were the forerunners of the Zionist Churches of southern Africa. They were noted for their adherence to a flat earth cosmology. Because of Dowie's emphasis on "faith healing", the church is considered by some Pentecostal groups to be one of the forerunners of the modern Pentecostal movement.

---

That group's cosmology was falsified before they even started up, but the religious mind can believe anything.That example should explain what strong falsification is. Observed facts that cut right across a claim or theory. So, this thread is about thinking up potential falsifications of evolutionary theory. There are many.Establishing positively that the earth is less than 10,000 years old would effectively do it, for example.

Here are 4 links for you:
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4

ORLYCan you show me an example? If there are so many you can probably take a shovel and dig in your garden take a pitc an post it here? Can you make a fossil of a bunny rabbit please i always wanted one il pay you. (plese note i want a fossil not bones and not Kaclification but fossilization where the bone is replaced by minerals and stuff not covered in kalcijum, or other rock like stuff.