Evolution is False; now what?

Though an interesting topic, this overlooks some additional consequences of the ToE being falsified. The entire thoery of heredity would also be false i.e. you do not pass your genes to your offspring as the descent with modification relies on the passing on of DNA (which is mutable) to offspring thus allowing for allele frequencies to vary within populations. It would also falsify broad portions of molecular biology i.e. that mutations in DNA actually occur or are significant. Also that specific mutation in a disease gene has anything to do with that disease and so on. The foundations of evolution stand on evidence on so much molecular evidence is is both hard to envision your scenario or its the unintended consequences.But like the profound impact prions had on biology, i.e. the idea that a protein alone could be a transmissibly infectious element without any nucleic acids involved, scientists would try to find the best explanation for the data and the hypothesis that best reconciled the data would become a theory. This of course would not happen over night...though the protein only hypothesis of prion infection became pervasive amazingly quickly....and on far shakier foundations than the ToE.

quote:

---

Falsifying ToE wouldn't necessarily falsify patterns or mechanisms of heredity. In the OP, the fictitious study is talking about insufficient RATES, not insuffecient mechanisms. Therefore, we could keep our theories on heredity while realising that they are inadequate for producing the amount of diversity in certain time frames.

---

However, evolution as both changes in allele frequency over time and common descent rely on the same hereditary mechanism as the fact that you are the genetic descendant of your parents. Falsify the ToE and there is no reason to accept that you are related to your parents. One would have to postulate a non-genetic mechanism for the similarity of each and every species that does not rely on the passing of DNA from parent to offspring i.e. that species branch by a non hereditary means and that for whatever reason, the DNA changes subsequent appear to reflect common descent.

quote:

---

But what if mutations resulting in the alleles within heredity were not truly random with respect to fitness? What if alleles were not governed by their fitness in the current environment but instead are pre-adative in that they are favored more by the current environment then they should be (eg feathered wings on whales for an extreme example).

---

You definitely have to play devils advocate since this has been shown in laboratory experiments to be wrong
In any case, even pre-adaptive traits would not completely falsify the ToE as Mr.Jack's thread is postulating. If it turns out that heritable methylation patterns or histone position can cause non-random mutation, you still have descent with modification and changes in allele frequency over time. The problem with postulating this is that so much of this has already been shown to be false i.e. pre-adaptation.

quote:

---

The genetic mechanism for dispersal of genetic content to the next generation could remain intact while the selection and producting of new genetic alleles could be under the control of non-evolutinary mechanisms. There would still be the appearance of common ancestory in the DNA of different species through currently observed hereditary mechanisms.

---

I don't get this. If the reason I am genetically similar to my parents is just an artifact of a non-evolutionary mechanism, then the hereditary connection to my parents is broken i.e. both genetics and evolution are falsified. If a chimp is more similar to human than any other primate or a dolphin to a whale merely because of some non-evolutionary statistical artifact, then relationships based on genetics and heredity itself is supported by the same artifact i.e. you are no more closely related to your parents as to a fruit fly. This is the leap of illogic creationists make in the micro macro evolution arguments. They wish to state that the mechanism of transmission and the mutations that distinguish a parent from its offspring work the way genetics claims based on the findings and the science of genetics. However, when it comes to species they claim said system is insufficient to explain the transmission of mutation by a normal hereditary mechanism..no reason other than religious zealotry is provided for the opposition to genetics of species versus populations.