Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Creos and naturalists both believe in common descent. NDTOE however posits common descent for one common ancestor while a creationist explanation would be common descent form many common ancestors created during the creation week.Common descent is just one small part of NDTOE.

Hi AOk, welcome back! Well, yes and no... You can't act as though all creationists agree on their mutual position here, that's just not the case. Some will accept that there is some common ancestry, others will not accept any form of common ancestry at all. But of course, there is no agreement amongst creationists upon what these "kinds" might have been. The only case where almost all creo's agree is the alleged lack of common ancestry between humans and other primates. In other groupings, there is little agreement, save for a sort of "I know it when I see it" approach. Yes, but one that is so well evidenced that it is rather essential to the whole.Mutate and Survive

---

"A curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it." - Jacques Monod

Oh, I see, you simply misunderstood me (and have misunderstood the terms.) I was referring to common descent of organisms, inclusive - all organisms. The notion of created kinds is not "common descent" because the kinds do not have descent in common, they have it separate to each kind. It's an important part of the theory of evolution in any form. It's inherent to the idea that organisms descended from a single common ancestor, not that they were specially created by God. It's fruitless to simply muddy the terms as you insist on doing.Regardless, I'll repeat my point now that the axis of misunderstanding has been clarified - all available evidence from population genetics upholds the notion that organisms share common descent from a single most recent ancestor (the "Last Common Universal Ancestor", or LUCA.) Indeed population genetics is among the most powerful evidence for the above. Within population genetics alone there is more evidence for universal common descent than there is medical evidence for any medical diagnosis that has ever been made, physical evidence for any discovery of physics, or courtroom evidence for any finding by any court. That is the extent of the evidentiary basis for evolution from population genetics alone.

Thanks for the well thought of question. I will try my best to explain it for you. Slightly deleterious mutations were recognized first by Kimura in his neutral theory of molecular evolution, and then later refined by Ohta in the nearly neutral theory of molecular evolution. This theory is now well excepted in population genetics as it is used in the molecular clock.Now natural selection works at the phenotype with individual organisms. As phenotypes gain these slightly deleterious mutations, there is a selective pressure against these mutations, but basically all of the organisms have them, so they cant' be differentiated at the organism level. They are like noise in the population. Therefore, they don't get selected out on average. So the next generation has more mutations which many more are nearly neutral. The worst offenders are selected out, but on average the population carries the mutations. Also don't forget that many mutations are recessive, so they don't show up in the phenotye. The population will also carry the recessive negative alleles, because NS can't see them.Now, natural selection can remove these mutations from the population if the population can afford the cost of section. In organisms with large genomes, low fecundity, and long generation times (most large mammals), they cannot afford the cost of selction without severe inbreeding depression. So the population continues to exist under reduced selective pressures and the mutations just add up over time. The adding up problem is what "genetic entropy" is.

Well, with all due respect, I understand this quite well. "All of the available evidence" that you refer to equally supports a common designer and multiple ancestors as well. Keep in mind there is no genetic evidence from all of those extinct species that leads you to LUCA.

This makes no sense. What is the obstacle to selection occurring even if the population "can't afford it"?What you're suggesting is that natural selection somehow knows to stop happening on a population that is too small, that natural selection somehow gives them a break. But that doesn't happen. If natural selection poses too high of a "cost" on a population that is too small to bear it the population simply goes extinct. Natural selection doesn't cut anybody any breaks. Natural selection is only blind to recessive negative mutations in the heterozygous individuals. But the Hardy-Weinburg equation makes it clear that recessive negative traits will nonetheless show up in the homozygous individuals, which is where natural selection acts to take out those genes. When a homozygous individual is selected against as a result of his negative mutations, that's two copies of the negative allele gone in a single act of selection. That's how natural selection is able to prevent a "build-up" of negative mutations, even if they're recessive. (And few are. Classic Mendelian genetics is limited to a small number of species, not least of which because so few organisms on Earth are actually diploid.) Well, for the most part. There is actually intragenomic competition as well - competition between alleles that happens within a single organism.

What shared genetic markers would falsify a common designer and multiple ancestors? What mixture of characteristics in a fossil would falsify a common designer and multiple ancestors?Why is it that common design and multiple ancestors produces the same exact evidence as we would expect from common ancestry and evolutionary mechanisms? Can you explain this?

How long does this extinction due to genetic entropy take?I ask this because we have evidence of a couple of billion years of life and evolution, and we're not extinct yet. Some branches may be extinct, but overall the earth is teeming with life.Or do you not accept this billions of years age estimate? Are you more comfortable with a few thousand years?Otherwise, there is no way that the genetic entropy argument is anything but nonsense.

---

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

With all due respect you don't seem to understand anything about biology. You're completely wrong. There is no support whatsoever in population genetics for the notion of "created kinds" or multiple ancestors. There is no support in any field of science for any form of biological design except for the biological designs human beings have succeeded in creating. Infrequently, we're actually able to collect genetic evidence from a small number of extinct species, and without fail that genetic evidence supports their common ancestry alongside all living species. The notion that common ancestry is shared by all living species and all extinct species we've been able to sample but not all the extinct species we've coincidentally not been able to sample is one hell of a coincidence. That's an ad-hoc explanation for your enormous scientific blunders, not a position that any thinking person could take seriously.Further, if that pattern were true - and it obviously is not - then it would indicate that not sharing common ancestry with all other species is one hell of a survival disadvantage, since all species that don't share common ancestry with living species are extinct, apparently. That's not much of a recommendation for the robustness of divine design of organisms.Still, though, you've succeeded in one thing, at least - your position is the best comedy I've seen all week.

If there is selective pressure against these mutations then they would not become fixed in the population to begin with. If they are not deleterious enough to lower the fitness of the organism so as to bypass natural selection then they will not cause the species to go extinct.Perhaps the analogy to use here is the "straw that broke the camel's back". Each piece of straw is very light, but the camel can only carry so much. That last piece of straw that overloads the camel is the threshold, the mutation that will be strongly selected against. Please support this assertion. They are seen by NS in homozygotes. This is why there is a strong correlation between the frequency of the sickle cell allele and geographic areas with endemic malaria. If what you claimed is true then the frequency of the sickle cell allele should be the same in Europeans as it is in Africans. It isn't.

Sanford himself is on the record as believing the Earth is between 5 and 10 thousand years old.TTFN,WK

Yes, I know.I am trying to see whether AlphaOmegakid does also.

---

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

Sandford was an atheistic evolutionist. He then became a a theistic evolutionist. And when he really understood the limits on natural selection , he became a young earth creationist.I was an old earth creationist, and am now a YEC.

Empty claims without evidence may be dismissed with the same. LOL. Recent genetic studies conclude that all dogs descended from the ranks of wolves. That is clear evidence of a dog grouping or "kind" genetically. The evolutionary tree or bush shows multiple branches coming from missing common ancestors. This is clear evidence that the missing common ancestor may not exist. So it appears, you are wrong and don't seem to understand anything about biology.Ummmmm....there is no support in any field of science for anything without the involvement of human intelligence. Your argument is self refuting. Even you realized it by the time you finished writing it. Well, maybe you didn't.... Well, many thinking people do take it seriously. But of course those thinking people don't refute their own arguments. Does any of this make any sense? Glad your laughing, you can step away from the mirror now.

I suspect that Sanford became a young earth creationist before he came up with the nonsense of genetic entropy. His ideas seem to stem from the religious myth of a fall, and he has invented genetic entropy to explain it.Unfortunately, this does not work in the real world. The evidence shows an old earth and that alone kills the notion of genetic entropy.So genetic enthropy, rather than being a potential falsifier for the theory of evolution, is consigned to the dustbin of history.

---

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