Falsification and History of Evolution Theory

For the past couple days, I've been searching for articles about past attempts to falsify the Theory of Evolution. I've not been very successful. I get alot of hits from Creationism websites with current arguments but I'm looking for past papers/articles/abstracts presenting a case to falsify the theory.Like most everyone that posts on this site, I'm trying to learn more about TOE. I'm to the point where I'd like to read about the kind of evidence that would falsify TOE. I'm also interested in the history of falsification aimed directly at TOE. Talkorigins had a good article about the development of the falsification process. I'm still going through articles on that site and with the bounty of information there, I'll be reading for quite a while.As a shortcut, I'd thought I would tap the resources on this forum. Can you guys (and gals ) recommend good links or books about the following:1) What evidence TOE states would qualify as falsifying.
2) What formal attempts have been made to falsify TOE.As always, thanx
PM1K

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

Here's an example from Darwin himself:

quote:

---

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

---

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/.../origin1859/origin06.htmlNeedless to say we have no such examples nor anything that could reasonably be argued to be an example of such a thing.

If taxonomy, the fossil record, and molecular biology would each give radically different phylogenic trees, that would be a problem.

Portmaster,I found an article by Ernst Mayr that is quite fascinating, at least to me. In about two pages he covers the development of the modern theory of evolution over the last 80 years culminating in what is called the "Evolutionary Synthesis". It mentions some of the early mechansims of evolution that have been overturned, such as "hopeful monsters". Ernst Mayr seems to agree with Chiroptera in that molecular biology (DNA and proteins) were perhaps the best and final challenge for evolution. From Just a moment... : If you want to look at specific falsifications, you might also look at this page at the talkorigins.org website. It contains 29+ evidences for macroevolution. For every piece of evidence they also include a potential falsification. This might be a good start. If you want something more specific let us know.

I'm replying to Loudmouth but thanking everyone for the input and links. They'll provide me with good info and improve my search queries.PM1K

quote:

---

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

---

just for the creationists out there wanting to give this a shot, i'd like to clarify. exclusive good of the other organism means the first gets nothing in return. for instance, the e coli in our intestines wouldn't qualify, because we feed it, and it breaks down our food. darwin's not talking about symbiotic relationships. he's talking about relationships that can't have developed as beneficial to one of the parties involved.

quote:

---

PaulK:
Here's an example from Darwin himself:

​

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.

​

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

http://pages.britishlibrary.net/.../origin1859/origin06.html

​

Needless to say we have no such examples nor anything that could reasonably be argued to be an example of such a thing.

---

There are many symbiotic relationships that we observe. Evolutionists can only speculate and say those relationships evolved together, or the dependence evolved separately.

---

"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"

It seems that you have nothing useful to say on this point.Remember that if you wish to claim a falsification the onus is on you to provide the evidence.

Sometimes I wonder if some people actually read what they read. Altruism is not the same as symbiosis.

---

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current. For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

I am a creationist and i have one falsifying point.Darwin and Toe have as the foundation of biological evolution a great premise. Geological interpretation.i mean Toe is based on a different subject's assumptions.
The way Toe could be falsified, evidence and attempt would be to pay attention to its geologic underpinning.
This would falsify the whole thing if done right.
Rob

quote:

---

Darwin and Toe have as the foundation of biological evolution a great premise. Geological interpretation.

---

Geology is only one of a number of important lines of evidence. There's geology, genetic analysis, observed mutation and divergence, and more recently computer simulation. I'm probably forgetting several in here.And geology does beg explanation. Scientists initially tried to explain it with a flood theory, you know. These people were all biblical literalists, but the more evidence that was discovered, they were reluctantly forced to give it up. So, what did they replace it with? A theory of *multiple* creations and floods by God, with each creation slightly different from the last! They were so set on the idea that there had to be a worldwide flood, and creation by God, that they refused to just give up on the notion. As more and more evidence kept coming in, they kept adding in more floods and creations to their theory, until they were finally forced to give it up all together. If you read their works, many of them lament having to accept anything other than a direct literal biblical truth.Geology does need explanation. Why are fossils *sorted*? You never find a myocene creature in a uniform devonian layer, or vice versa. It just doesn't happen. Early railroad engineers and miners realized this, and were actually very important in early geology, because they mapped their layers by what sorts of fossils were found in them, and noted that wherever in the world you were, they were always in the same order (apart from obvious folding and faulting, which is nothing special, since you can see where the layers go and bend). Why do radioisotope datings *match* the sorting, *consistantly*? One can claim that radioisotope dating is somehow wrong, but they need to explain the *consistancy*, and *matched data*.Then, the other lines of evidence discussed above need explaining. Why does everything match up with each other consistantly? There are millions of pieces of data added to the record every year, and creationists come up with half a dozen things each year, generally by doing the science completely wrong (carbon dating from near volcanic vents, completely misidentifying minerals, or whatnot). Most of these people aren't even trained in relevant fields, so it's not surprising.Science didn't come to the current level of knowlege easily. For example, the age of the Earth. At the turn of the century, geologists were insistant that the Earth was several billion years old. However, physicists and astronomers were adimant that it was no more than a few tens of millions of years old. Why? Fusion was not discovered yet, and so the theory for how the sun worked was gravitational collapse - denser particles migrating inwards. And, in fact, that is how protostars fuel themselves. However, gravitational collapse would only explain a star releasing as much energy as the sun for a few tens of millions of years. There was a big running, and often hostile debate.Then, fusion was discovered. They started observing the sun based on what we knew of fusion, and sure enough, it matched all of the conditions that fusion would create (one case - neutrinoes was a more recent matchup). They redid the calculations, and you know what? *It matched up to what the geologists were saying*.All lines of evidence keep converging on this reality. The *consistant* knowlege gathered is what allow us to send probes in interplanetary space. It is what allows us to manipulate bacteria and understand infections. It is what allows us to do effective mineral prospecting. It keeps getting things right. All of the massive quantities of data out there added in keep giving the same results. This must be addressed.

---

"Illuminant light,
illuminate me."

You said a lot. Its been said before or new but in any case this was about the seeking of a falsifying idea to deal with Toe.
Your off thread(I think)so I don't know how to answer you.
Rob

quote:

---

Darwin and Toe have as the foundation of biological evolution a great premise. Geological interpretation.

---

And you would have to show how the current interpretations are wrong. As the interpretations stand now, they are consistent with all of the data.

quote:

---

i mean Toe is based on a different subject's assumptions.
The way Toe could be falsified, evidence and attempt would be to pay attention to its geologic underpinning.
This would falsify the whole thing if done right.

---

You are very close to correct, Robert. The only thing I would add is that the geologic assumptions can not be proven correct, but they are supported by evidence and therefore tentatively accepted. Therefore, you would need to collect evidence that contradicts the assumptions. If someone observed a flood that was able to sort fossils, radioactive elements, particle size, etc. in a way that imitated what we see in the geologic record then it would severely damage those assumptions. However, the stress should be on FINDING or HOW TO FIND that evidence, not "paying attention" to the assumptions.

Robert, you brought up the geology as something you thought belonged in the thread. You didn't explain why but you brought it up.Your suggestion was torn to pieces (again). Now you want to duck without commenting beyond "You said a lot". A lot that you don't even comprehend.However, here's how it should have gone:1) you should have said."If the geological record and dating was shown to be in error then the sequence of development as shown by the fossil ordering and the time involved would be subject to doubt." I think that this is a true statement, btw.2) Rei didn't need to refute any apparent issue with the geology as you wouldn't have said that it was shown to be in error. Her detailed refutation of it is somewhat off topic.What she should have said is something like:
"Yes, if the dates and ordering were badly off then a major input to how we belive life developed on earth would be in doubt. However, the ToE itself would be predominently intact as a way for life forms to change, since we have seen it in action based on other evidence. What a change in understanding of the geology would do is suggest that the mechanisms of the ToE were not the ones that acted in the past."The problem is you suggested this nonsense about an interpretation of the geology which you have been unable to support in threads devoted to the topic. Therefore it is prehaps a bit silly to bring it up here.I don't think you are deliberately being obtuse or annoying. I think we are unable to understand your weakness in these discussions. I've attempted to point out a different way of doing wording what you wanted to post.Now your post 13 should have said:
"I was only suggesting that if it was wrong then it would be a problem for evolution as an explantion of life on earth. That is what the topic of this thread is about. I don't think it is the topic of the thread to determine whether the potential falsifications are actually really falsifications. As to the points you raise I have not been able to find any answers to them and don't understand geology well enough to say that there is any other interpretation possible. If I did I would supply that alternative interpretation in one of the appropriate threads. In addtion I can't find in the various creationist sites one that isn't riddled with holes and already discussed in other threads."The above is both a nicer, less annoying answer but still points out that Rei may be off topic. It also accurately describes the situation you are in. Any objections may be raised in suggestions and questions or in one of the geology or dating threads.Since you quality of posting is very low you may have to be restricted to the free for all. Try harder please.