Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

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

It does mean that.
But it also means that animals are not completely 'warm-blooded' or 'cold-blooded'.
There are different grades of 'warm-bloodedness'.I had hoped that phrases like

quote:

---

Both the terms "warm-blooded" and "cold-blooded" have fallen out of favour with scientists because of the vagueness of the terms and an increased understanding of the field

---

would have helped you realise that you are going in the wrong direction.You claimed:

quote:

---

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?

---

which was then shown to be falacious. If different species have different degrees of endothermic and ectothermic metabolisms then it is possible to go from 'full warm-blooded' to 'full cold-blooded' without the large jump you claimed was necessary (but impossible). It proves you are wrong.

You claimed the Wikipedia article on Haldane's Dilemma erred when it stated that later work showed there was no dilemma. You requested peer reviewed solutions, and Dr Adequate provided two references that you dismissed without giving any reasons. Can you be specific about why they are not solutions?--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

Hi Kaichos Man,First, I'm not participating as a moderator in this thread.Second, take as much time off as you want. Participate to whatever degree you feel comfortable with. No one will mind.But when you decide you need some time off and leave a topic in mid-discussion, please do not upon your return accuse the other side of ignoring that topic, something you've done several times now in your short time here. If you honestly want to discuss Haldane's dilemma then instead of raising the issue here as if it had never been discussed before you should return to the original thread (TOE and the Reasons for Doubt) and resume the discussion we were having about it back in mid-October.--Percy

Let me repeat myself: We're still waiting. Did you not read the papers, or did you just not understand them?How about Haldane's paper? Have you got round to reading that yet?Do you even know the significance of Haldane's Dilemma, or is it just one of those magic phrases like "Second Law of Thermodynamics" that you people recite in an attempt to make reality disappear? Even if you were (a) any good at biology (b) moderately honest, I should ask you for some reasoning rather than just taking your word for it.As you are you, I am no more inclined to believe you on your say-so than I believed you when you wrote: "Simply furnish your own peer-reviewed solution to Haldane's Dilemma and the case is closed."

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

I already did, twice. The very message you replied to contained a link to the thread where you abandoned the discussion on Haldane's Dilemma last year. That's why it makes no sense for you to reintroduce the topic of Haldane's Dilemma in this thread as if it were something we were ignoring. If you honestly want to discuss Haldane's Dilemma then should pick up the thread of the discussion you abandoned over at TOE and the Reasons for Doubt. There, that's the third time I've provided the link for you.By the way, when you get to that thread, if you click on the mood icon of any message you'll get a breakdown of all the messages and their replies. You'll see big red circles next to any message you didn't reply to. There appear to be 62 messages that you haven't replied to. I suggest responding only to the most recent replies.--Percy

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

The answer is that I read and understood them.I suggest that you try to do the same. Then you'll be able to discuss them without making a fool of yourself.I also strongly suggest that you read Haldane's own paper.Come back when you've done so, and then maybe you can avoid making comments which alternate between the foolish and the irrelevant.

The big theory is indeed unaffected by stuff you make up.So is everything else. I hate to break it to you, but your imagination is impotent to affect reality in any way.(Sadly, the reverse also seems to be true --- reality apparently places no constraints on your fantasies.) It's because you can't bring down a scientific theory by making stuff up. And science is, by definition, uninterested in fiction.You silly little man.Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

None of the things you mention have been falsified, so I assume you mention them because they are potential candidates for falsification. What leads you to believe this?--Percy

If you're going to claim his arguments incorrectly interpret those papers then it would be helpful to those of us trying to follow along if you described how he was wrong.--Percy

Hi ICANT,Back in Message 318 I tried to clear up your mis-understandings about Macro-Evolution. You did not respond and disappeared from the scene. This is the second time I tried to help you understand only to have you run away. The first was here: Can I disprove Macro-Evolution thread Message 237.I suppose the next time you pop in, you will spout this nonsense again, ignoring the fact that someone tried to explain it to you.

---

Tactimatically speaking, the molecubes are all mixed up. -- S.ValleyWhat if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty PythonYou can't build a Time Machine without Weird Optics -- S. Valley