Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Of course not. That would have suggested that you were a scientist first and foremost, rather than an atheist. That is called pre-judging the situation. The noun (you may have heard it) is "prejudice". It would certainly have been less scientific. When you dismiss the possibility of falsification a priori you have already abdicated as a scientist. Good boy. Nobody is going to charge you with heresy. Here lies the body of the Scientific Method, which had to be humanely put down because it's pedantic requirements were making the great god Neo-Darwinism uncomfortable.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Hm. Lack of fossil evidence of transitional species? No. That was covered by the alibi -sorry, theory- of punctuated equilibrium. A small subpopulation becomes sexually isolated, madly mutates into a superior organism, breaks out of its isolation, outcompetes and replaces its predecessor.Hang on, though, aren't the mutations necessary for this frantic evolution mathematically more likely to occur in the larger, unisolated population? What's that? Stick my fingers in my ears and say "La-la, la-la"?Why on earth would I do that?Okay. Let's try something else. How about the problem of unicellular to multicellular?Let's see- we have unicellular creatures by the number, even a few bicellular (mainly yeast). Next step up the ladder is eight-celled, but they're parasites who do not yet have a host so they don't count in the ascent of life. Next step up is twenty-two celled. So we have to believe that life jumped unaided from two to twenty-two cells, or that there were intermediate creatures that have since become extinct (despite the fact that their simplicity made them very durable) without leaving any fossil trace at all.What's that? Again with the La-la!Dear me, this is harder than I thought. What about the non-existence of the Trilobyte's ancestor?Oh, that's right- they were "soft-bodied", and didn't leave any fossils. Funny, though, I mean there were plenty of soft-bodied creatures that preceded the Trilobyte that did leave fossils, and Trilobytes are so plentiful you'd think we'd find at least one of their forefathers. Come to think of it, why would a segmented creature with multiple limbs be soft-bodied?Oh, I forgot. The theory required it. That is so much more important than concrete evidence.Dear me, what to do.Invertebrate to vertebrate? Exoskeletal, dorsal respiratory system, ventral nervous system to endo skeletal, dorsal nervous system and ventral respiratory system without so much as a suggestion of fossil evidence for all of these amazing transitions?La-la? >sigh<Cold-blooded to warm-blooded? Even though a warm-blooded creature requires 10 times as much food as a cold-blooded creature? And in turn the creature needs to be warm-blooded in order to gather 10 times as much food? So in order to become warm-blooded you have to already be warm blooded?La-la? Thought so.The chance assembly of a single reproducing genome? 1 to 10 followed by 4,200 zeros? And that's not counting a cell membrane, protoplasm, organelles, mitochondria, plasmids etc?La-la? La-la-la-la-la?Im afraid you are right, Wounded King. The Theory of Evolution cannot be falsified. Because every time it is, the leak will be plugged with some idiotically improbable just-so story.What we are dealing with here is FAITH, not science. The theory of evolution is the doctrine of atheism, and atheism is very much a religion.You can't falsify Faith. Believe me, I know.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Hi Meldinoor. But the smaller population can fall out of equilibrium much more easily, which makes rapid change far more likely to result in extinction. This is what Haldane examined in his dilemma; the fact that any mutation can only be fixed gradually, with the passage of a large number of generations, if the population is going to remain in equilibrium. The large population, apart from numerically containing the greater number of mutations, can sustain a much higher background mortality rate.This is why many evolutionists have returned to neo-Darwinism, preferring to deal with the paucity of the fossil record than the manifold logical inconsistencies of punk eek. Because I'm assuming that the prospect of 11 bicellular organisms forming a co-op is beyond the imagination of even the most gullible evolutionist. No. I'll check it out and get back to you.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

A falsification is a deductive prediction which, if verified, shows an hypothesis to be false.Example:Hypothesis: All species evolved from a common ancestor (Molecule to Man evolution).Prediction: If evolution is true, the fossil record will be full of the remains of transitional species.Result: The fossil record shows only a handful of (highly disputed, even among evolutionists) transitional species.Conclusion: Molecule to Man evolution is falsified.You see, if it was science, it would be quite straightforward. But your dealing with faith here. The religion of atheism. Every falsification must be dogmatically countered with a "just so" story (like punctuated equilibrium) to preserve the precious theory.When the hypothesis itself is used to decide whether the falsification is valid, you are fighting an uphill battle.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Please provide a reference for this.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Wow, that's great, Fraco. So there's no more need for punctuated equilibrium? That's a relief. As theories go, it was a real dog anyway. What an absolute crock. Take a look around at the millions of fossils that are forming right now. And then think that, according to evolution, we've had lakes and rivers and oceans and snow and wind for millions of years with thousands of deluges and floods of varying intensity and expanse. We would be up to our freaking armpits in transitional fossils- if evolution was true.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

The entry for Haldane's Dilemma on Wikipepedia has been edited no fewer than 279 times. That's because an evolutionist troll sits on it and re-institutes his own mendacious viewpoint whenever somone tries to correct it.However, we don't have to put up with that unscientific childishness, Percy. Simply furnish your own peer-reviewed solution to Haldane's Dilemma and the case is closed.We're waiting!

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Dear me, Doctor. Epistasis and Soft Selection. Is that the best you can do? These two documents contain the seeds of their own destruction.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

First of all, Percy, you would be aware that Creationists are outnumbered something like 10 to 1 on this forum, so you would expect there to be a very high burn-out rate. There comes a point when you are being offered the same old laughably improbable just so stories, together with the assertion that these same stories constituted a "rebuttal" last time they were used, that you despair of making any headway and you need a good long rest.Secondly, I notice that many an evolutionist takes a long vacation from these boards, but upon their return they are not subject to the hectoring you have directed at me.As an evolutionist you can be as virulent as you like. As a moderator you should at least attempt some level of even-handedness.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

So what does this prove, Panda? That some mammals have the ability to conserve energy when resting (hibernating bears, sleeping bats) and that some cold-blooded creatures (sharks and rays) can maximise temperatures to their eyes and brians?This is a million miles away from suggesting there is gradation in endothermy/ectothermy. As the Wikipedia article states: Metabolic versatility on the part of endotherms and ectotherms does not mean they are on the same scale.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Please show me exactly where I've done this.

---

"Often a cold shudder has run through me, and I have asked myself whether I may have not devoted myself to a fantasy." Charles Darwin

Sadly true, Minnemooseus.The fact is that the little theories all bite the dust; abiogenesis, single-celled to multicelled, invertebrate to vertebrate, cold blooded to warm blooded etc. but the big theory remains unaffected.That's because you can't bring down a religion by disputing individual points of doctrine.Faith is, by definition, uninterested in the facts.

---

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton

Dear me, Doctor. I am forced to ask you the same question.The earlier paper invoked "supergenes" -which I assume is a 1974 expression for hox genes and epistasis- to try and get around the dilemma. While it is true that epistasis allows a few mutations to have a broad effect, it also raises the spectre of having to account for the stochastic simultaneous creation of highly complex and interconnected genetic architecture.Evolutionists can't show how RM/NS can create a single enzyme, let alone a homeobox gene and its attendant slave genes.The later paper suggested that under soft selection the cost of selection can be discarded, before lamenting the fact that soft selection may not even be a major, let alone the dominant, form of adaptation.Are you suggesting that these two papers allow the Wikipedia troll to continue to claim that Haldane's Dilemma has been solved?I doubt that the authors of these papers would agree with you!

---

"When man loses God, he does not believe in nothing. He believes in anything" G.K. Chesterton