Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

The whole point is that Haldane was never able to show that there really is a dilemma. Haldane lacked sequence data, the very thing he was trying to model.Before you ask for solutions to a problem perhaps you should demonstrate that there is a problem to begin with. Sure you have been told about the nylonase gene?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htmThere is also Hall's EBG (evolved beta-galactosidase):
The EBG system of E. coli: origin and evolution of a novel beta-galactosidase for the metabolism of lactose - PubMedEdited by Taq, : No reason given.

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 Tanypteryx, Had you read what I had written in that thread you would not be supprised that I did not answer your nonsense.But to save you time I will put most of it here.In Message 21 I presented the following in a post to JRTjr.In Message 167 RAZD said to ABO: In the same message RAZD said: This was presented to show that the faith he was talking about is different from the faith ABO had. SourceNow is you have verifiable evidence that macroevolution has occurred present it now. All the above information was available in the thread "Can I Disprove Macro-Evolution"?So explain why I should repeat it again for you.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Part 1This has been posted many times. The fact that you don't like or accept this does not mean it is not evidence. Your attempts to hand-wave it away mean nothing.

---

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

Hi Coyote, You present a picture of 14 skulls and claim that is evidence of 'Macro-Evolution".The only thing you have presented is 14 skulls that prove that a creature existed at one time that had that particular skull.Anything else you want to conclude from that picture is your conclusion.God Bless,

---

"John 5:39 (KJS) Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me."

Not even a very good hand-wave.But I guess if you are afraid to look at the evidence, then it doesn't matter how good that evidence is.Suffice it to say that experts have looked at that evidence and those skulls represent macro-evolution. I looked at that evidence for several years in grad school and that was one of the subjects on my Ph.D. exams.Hand-wave all you want, it doesn't make it go away. The evidence is there, staring you in the face whether you look or not.

---

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

It is evidence, ICANT. A conclusion based on evidence.You could use your same argumentation to say that nothing is evidence of anything

We have also presented the fact that the theory of evolution predicts that those creatures with those particular skulls should have existed if the theory of evolution is true. Therefore, these skulls are evidence for the theory of evolution.Why don't you take your dog and pony show to a court room sometime. You can tell the jury that those fingerprints are not evidence against your client. OH NO, that can't be. Those swirls of oil are just that, swirls of oil. You can conclude what you want from those swirls, but it will be nothing more than your interpretation and not science, right? Yes, a well evidenced and scientific conclusion. That's our point.

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

Look again at those skulls. The first skull (A) is a modern chimpanzee, the last (N) is a modern human. Taken in isolation, I think you'd agree that to transition from chimpanzee to human would be described as macroevolution. But we also have these transitional fossils from the Australopithecines, whose skulls are morphologically similar to modern chimpanzees, through Homo habilis, erectus et al. showing this general trend of microevolutionary changes.
It is this that Taq, Coyote, Tanypteryx and others having been trying to get you to understand, that these gradual microevolutionary changes we see in species in the fossil record build up to what would be described as the macroevolutionary difference between humans and chimpanzees.Edited by Malcolm, : No reason given.

no, your honor. that video means nothing, as it doesn't actually show my client shooting the victim. while we know that bullets do indeed move through time and space, you've only managed to capture a series of still frames that represent the position of a bullet at any given time. you can't actually show that the bullet in one frame is in any way related to the bullet in the next. maybe it's just coincidence that two bullets happened to magically appear and then disappear in similar places, one shortly following the other. it takes speculation, and operating from a certain viewpoint that is highly prejudiced against my client.oh, and that smoking gun and the dna? you'll just have to ignore those, as a 99.99% match isn't exactly conclusive. nor does a smoking gun actually prove much of anything, just that my client owned a gun and used it at some point -- there's no good way to link it to the victim, at that time and place.the witnesses, you say? clearly they are conspiring against my client.......guys, i'm telling you. if i ever kill somebody, i want a creationist to be my lawyer.

---

אָרַח

No you don't. Creationists do have the advantage that they can make those kinds of arguments with a straight face, but every time they go to court they lose.--Percy

The DNA evidence is best explained by a common designer, not a common source. Obviously, the creator of my client also produced the DNA at the crime scene.

You present 14 lion footprints and claim that that is evidence that a lion walked that way.The only thing you have presented is 14 footprints that prove that a creature existed at one time that left that particular footprint.Anything else you want to conclude from those footprints is your conclusion.---You do present a challenge to evolution. Why weren't your ancestors eaten by lions?

yes, but if i was caught on video, seen by a bunch of eyewitnesses, and found holding the smoking gun, it'd be about the only argument that could be made.that, and insanity. which hiring a creationist fraud as a lawyer should sufficiently demonstrate, imho.

---

אָרַח