Evolution is False; now what?

quote:

---

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.

---

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.Speaking about the topic in general, this would seem to lead us to an outside force creating genetic and phenotypic diversity which could lead anywhere, including Raelianistic alien genome manipulation. I think we can all agree that if evolution false then creationism is a false dichotomy as there are multiple other explanations that do not require supernatural phenomena. Creationists would then have to show that a creation event by a supernatural deity is the most accurate theory available, and the only way to do that is through objective evidence. Much like the swift boat veterans fiasco in current US politics, once they move past this argument they might actually have to start focusing on their own evidenciary support instead of attacking another position.

Just playing Devil's Advocate here . . .

quote:

---

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.

---

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).

quote:

---

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.

---

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.Of course, one would first need to measure these non-evolutionary selective mechanisms and the mechanism for non-random mutations before such a theory could be proposed to fill the role if neo-Darwinian evolution were overturned.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-30-2004 05:27 PM

quote:

---

what evolution does or does not do. Nothing will change creationism, you cannot add to it or take away from it, it is simply fact to some and fiction to others, and so it shall remain.
There is no proof for or against God, there never will be. The creationist operates by faith and is so required to do.
When this is understood, all arguments will cease between the factions.

---

I don't think there would be this kind of debate if creationists didn't insist on getting creationism into public schools. There wouldn't be an uproar if children were not told that creationism is on equal scientific footing with evolution. There wouldn't be an uproar if creationists would stop misquoting scientists. There wouldn't be fighting amongst the factions if creationists understood that evolutionists do not accept scientific theories on faith alone. There wouldn't fighting if creationists compared evolutionists to Stalin and Hitler. There would be no fighting if creationists claimed that their theory is a philosophical stance that is not consistent with science. I think you get the picture.This message has been edited by Loudmouth, 08-30-2004 05:34 PM

quote:

---

The problem with postulating this is that so much of this has already been shown to be false i.e. pre-adaptation.

---

Come on Mammuthus, think outside of the box.You are right, pre-adaption is bogus as it relates to observations in the lab and field. However, the scenarios I am proposing are what I would propose as falsifying evolution. The main mechanisms of evolution are random mutation and natural selection. I am proposing guided mutations and artificial/non-natural selection, sort of like ID through gene mutation and selection. The required observation for non-random/guided mutation would be the sudden emergence of a beneficial mutation not tied to one common ancestor. Instead, a disproportionate number of organism acquire the same beneficial mutation in the same generation (something like 30% have the same nucleotide insertion at the same genome position). Most would agree that there would seem to be a specific stimuli that caused this DNA change instead of a random mistake missed by DNA repair mechanisms.For my second scenario (artificial selection) I will use sickle cell anemia as an example. Let's pretend that a population in an area devoid of malaria also contains a disproportionate number of sickle cell heterozygous and homozygous individuals. Also, this population is not a result of a recent migration out of an area with endemic malaria. This would run counter to the idea that sickle cell is a detrimental mutation in a malarial free environment and therefore should be selected against. Now, once the sickle cell allele reaches the same concentration as seen in populations dealing with malaria we see a sudden and rapid invasion of mosquitoe born malaria. This, too me, would be an indication that detrimental alleles were being kept at high concentrations in preparation for a malarial invasion. The only way to keep such high concentrations of the sickle cell allele would be through non-natural selection.If morphological characteristics also followed similar patterns of non-random mutations and artificial selection then I would say that evolution as a mechanism guided by chance and natural selection has been falsified.Relating to the mechanisms of heredity, these would stay the same. You would recieve a mixture of your parents DNA and some mutations that neither of them have. However, that mixture may involve statistically improbable combinations of alleles in a non-Mendelian fashion (homozygous recessives occur more often than the dominant phenotype). Also, you may share the same mutation with a large portion of your generation.And again, all of this flies in the face of observation, but just trying to show how heredity can be right while evolution is wrong.