Evolution is False; now what?

True, but...In many things we reach the point where we simply do not know. One such example is the issue of what caused a singularity that must have existed for some long period to change state?If the evidence had shown that the universe as we know it were reciprocating, expanding for awhile and then collapsing only to explode again in a never ending cycle, it would have been a blow to Creationism.On the other hand, what appears to be the case based on the evidence so far, that there was a singularity, that the singularity existed as a singularity, and that at some point in time changed state into the expanding universe we see today, then there is the ligitamate question, "what changed"?There are several options, we can say we don't know, or we can say God Done It. Neither is really objectionable nor will either affect any of the theories beyond that incident.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

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.

The existence of God is fact to me. It is fiction to you.
Prove your fiction and I'll prove my fact.
What needs to be resolved?

didn't say that. I said they are compatible.

and when the supernatural is invoked outside of science?

quote:

---

One such example is the issue of what caused a singularity that must have existed for some long period to change state?

---

Didn't time begin with the singularity, so isn't talking about "before" the singularity inaccurate?

Unfortunately there is no agreement on that issue, and current QM theory can't answer it. Both String Theory and Quantum Loop Gravity however imply that there is a 'before the bang'.

Actually, the question I asked doesn't deal with before the singularity, which is another issue. Rather all I was looking at is the trigger that changed the state of the singularity.But my underlying point is that so far, every time we seem to have reached a beginning point, an ultimate simplicity, we have found that there is some additional system beneath that. And there, as we get closer and closer to root causes, to root objects, we find a beauty, logic and reason.So if something came along and proved the TOE false, I have no doubt that we would find another theory that worked even better. Yet even that new, improved version would likely not negate the possiblility or logic of some divine intervention.What it would not do is support the Creation Myth as contained in Genesis. Those stories have already been falsified.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Alrighty, thanks for answering my question.

If evolution is ever 100% disproven...we all better start believing in magic.This message has been edited by SilverTab, 11-13-2004 09:54 PM

My understanding of the the singularity, and I don't have the math or physics to actually grasp the theory, results in something that fits with my concept of certain eastern metaphysical viewpoints.The singularity is in perfect balance. It is only when the balance, symmetry, perfection is altered or fails does the universe begin.Thus it is the introduction of imperfection that causes the universe. This fits with the idea that all the things we observe in the universe are incomplete and imperfect, that is to say partial, only a part. We exist because we are imperfect. If we were perfect we wouldn't exist.This leads me to speculate on whether the totality is perfect, or whether there was a whole that gave birth to the incomplete imperfect processes of the universe. This whole is best described as an immaculate void. Void of any characteristics because to ascribe a characteristic to it is to limit it, even to ascribe perfection to it limits it!I do deny that the process that is me, or any person will ever be perfect as that is a contradiction in terms. Although I would accept that we are perfectly imperfect. This being a statement of acceptance. Or surrender to the will of God if you like that phrasing.lfen