Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Less than 0.1% of scientists with a degree in the biological sciences disagree with evolution:CA111: Scientists reject evolution?I would not call less than 0.1% of scientists "many". On top of that, those who do reject it do so on religious grounds, not scientific. Then what would?

Early settlers in the Americas reported seeing huge flocks of passenger pigeons, so large that it would take hours for the flock to fly over as it dimmed the sun. There is no doubt that there were billions of passenger pigeons when Europeans moved to the Americas. Now there are none. On top of that, we only have a handful of known passenger pigeon fossils. How can this be?

The Theory of Evolution would not be a hot debate if they had just left it as "change' over time. The problem comes in when they state they have the evidence that backs up the details of their theory.Genetics at this point can only say that we share many protein sequences with many different species in the genes that are involved in development of body plans and its system of regulation mechanisms. A blind study of different samples from different species will not determine who those samples belong to that identify the subject.They can sequence your genes but it cannot tell them what you are going to look like so by stating this is evidence that connects each species in a tree model is not conclusive.There are many contributing factors that are believed to be involved with morphology changes in life forms over time. There is no such thing as A+B=C to define life's processes. This makes it impossible for science to solve the mysteries of life.Human beings are not qualified and are limited by their sensory abilities that prevent them from being capable to study life in its intricate details because we can''t see it up close.We can only observe the results not the actual process of how it got there. This is why we have many theories that attempt to explain these actual processes. The theories are validated as long as the results remain predictable. The conflict arises and the debate continues in defining the process based on opinions.

I don't understand. How does presenting evidence for a claim make the claim weaker? A study of endogenous retroviruses shows that we share a common ancestor with other primates:Just a moment...That same study also demonstrates that endogenous retroviral insertions have accumulated mutations in the exact pattern we would expect to see if evolution is true. We see the fingerprint of common ancestry and evolution in our genome and the genomes of other primates. It is as conclusive as any DNA paternity test. We don't need to know every single function of every single gene in order to establish relatedness. Would I require you to tell me the function of every base in your genome before I accept the fact that you share a common ancestor with your siblings? Please forgive me if I think scientists should still try to solve these mysteries anyway. Afterall, that is what science is all about, solving the mysteries of how nature works. Two thousand years ago the mystery of how matter is put together and where it came from was a complete mystery. Now we have built a huge ring in Switzerland that is going to produce (hopefully) quark plasma which resembles the form of matter seen just nanoseconds after the Big Bang. It's not based on opinions. It is based on the experimental results and the evidence.Also, why is it invalid to use evidence to reconstruct the past? It is done all of the time in murder trials. Have you ever watched CSI?

The Theory of Evolution is a "hot debate" because some folks can't accept it due to their religious beliefs.This has nothing to do with the evidence that supports the theory. It has everything to do with the beliefs of those who oppose the theory. When it comes to evolution, no amount of evidence would change the minds of most fundamentalists.That's why it is a "hot debate."

---

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

Hi barbara, You would prefer that "they" made claims without evidence? That seems a little odd.The reality of course, is that there is ample evidence to back up the ToE. It's just that you are unaware of it or have failed to understand it. The Toe is only a "hot topic" because it falsifies certain fundamentalist religious dogmas. This is complete bullshit. I suggest that you restrict yourself to making statements about topics you actually know something about.DNA can be used to identify a specific individual, never mind a species. You plainly have no idea what you are talking about. Nonsense again. You can't tell exactly what someone will look like from their DNA, as much of what influences our development is not due to DNA. That does not mean though, that DNA cannot be used to demonstrate relatedness. Or are you arguing that DNA paternity tests are invalid? This does not follow. Science attempts to model the real world as accurately as possible. Just because some processes are complex does not mean that we should throw up our hands and surrender to ignorance. WTF? Have you heard of a thing called a "microscope"? I believe they're very popular with scientists. So if we find fingerprints at a crime scene, we can't use them in court? Why don't you try that again, only in English? Actually, on second thoughts, don't bother. You have done nothing but spout confused nonsense, I doubt that's going to change as long as you remain convinced that you are qualified to comment on matters that you patently do not understand.Mutate and SurviveEdited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.Edited by Granny Magda, : No reason given.

---

On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" ... I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. - Charles Babbage

Also compare the three pelvises from other angles.From my old website:

quote:

---

I first saw creationists in action one night in 1982 on CBN. A Tennessean host would run various debates (I believe it was David Ankerberg). This particular night, a creationist was debating a scientist (kind of looked like Drs. Morris and Awbrey, though I cannot be sure since I didn't knew of either of them at the time). I remember that the scientist showed several slides of hominid fossils, such as knee joints (to show evidence of developing bi-pedalism). Then he showed slides of a human pelvis and chimpanzee pelvis side-by-side. First from the side, then from the top, he pointed out two sets of characteristics that clearly distinguish the one from the other (i.e. whether viewed from the side or from the top, the pelvis could be positively identified as human or chimpanzee). Next he showed both views of a hominid pelvis. From one view it was definitely ape, from the other it was definitely human; thus demonstrating it to be a intermediate form. The creationist then proclaimed the hominid pelvis to be 100% ape and not the least bit human by completely ignoring the human characteristic (even when reminded of it repeatedly by his opponent) and concentrating solely on the view that displayed the ape characteristic. Of course, the host declared this to be a creationist victory and threw in the standard gross misinterpretation of punctuated equilibrium for good {?} measure.

---

I have just finished a paper entitled "The origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" by Eugene V. Konnin chief investigator NCBI, NLM, NIH.I quote from page 1:"The edifice of the Modern Synthesis has crumbled, appparently, beyond repair. The hallmark of the Darwinian discourse of 2009 is the plurality of evolutionary processes and patterns. Nevertheless, glimpses of a new synthesis might be discernible in emerging universals of evolution."His reasoning is that molecular, microbiological and genomic "revolutions" have destroyed the neo-Darwinian synthesis.The molecular revolution concluding that the majority of mutations fixed during evolution are neutal and thus purifying selection is more common than positive selection.The microbiological revolution explored prokaryotes, which were not explored by Darwin or the Modern Synthesis architects. The prokaryotes do not engage in regular sex, but exchange genes as he states"promiscuously, so species cannot be meaningfully defined, and the concept of the species was at the center of both the first, Darwinian, and the second, modern, synthesis of evolutionary biology.The genomic revolution which investigates the evolutionary relationships of hundreds of complete genomes has revealed a biological universe:"...a far cry from the orderly, rather simple picture envisioned by Darwin and the creators of the Modern Synthesis. The biosphere is dominated, in terms of both physical abundance and genetic diversity, by "primitive' life forms, prokaryotes and viruses. These ubiquitous organisms evolve in ways unimaginable and unforeseen in classical evolutionary biology."He discusses HGT not being a rarity, and mobile genetic elements are everywhere. He states:, the entire world of prokarykotes is a single large network of interconnected gene pools.He states the Tree of Life concept has been destroyed and a central tenet of Darwin, and the Modern Synthesis "gradualism" has been destroyed."Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection.""...all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone."Seem like he is pretty definite in his opinions, any thoughts by our Evolution experts?
http:http://www.ncbi.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/Edited by shadow71, : added link

The Modern Synthesis has always been a very big tent. The core concepts of mutation, selection, and divergence are still there and quite healthy. Since the 1950's new forms of mutation (e.g. HGT) have been discovered and the strength of natural selection is now considered to be quite variable across the genome. However, we are still talking about mutation and selection, the foundation of the Modern Synthesis. The author does make one big mistake, IMHO:"Equally outdated is the (neo)Darwinian notion of the adaptive nature of evolution: clearly, genomes show very little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes (much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection"Nowhere in the Modern Synthesis does it require genomes to be optimally designed. All that evolution requires is good enough, which genomes are. Also, the author wants to separate the DNA sequence from the context of the species and it's environment. Evolution deals with the evolution of a population, not a genome (although the two are necessarily tied together). The genomic origin of important adaptations needed for the survival of a species were most certainly selected for and not reached through genetic drift.Sometimes experts can not see the forest for the trees. There is also the mindset of being sensational in order to make a rather mundane point.

tag writes, Are you farmilar with him or his reputation?

So it would be okay with you if the theory of evolution were replaced with a theory that emphasized purifying selection over positive selection, but where pretty much everything else remained the same? This new theory would still would still accept a natural origin for life around 4 billion years ago, and a tree of life where all existing life is descended from one or a few forms through evolutionary processes of descent with modification filtered by natural selection, which was Darwin's original formulation.I don't know why Koonin chose to be so dramatic about so mundane a fact that evolution is far more complex than Darwin ever dreamed, but very few biologists would agree that the modern synthesis is crumbling.Koonin's paper can be found here: The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?--Percy

Here's an interesting table linked to Shadow71's link.Something seems wrong with that table, but my biology knowledge is insufficient to be certain.
It is just a feeling, so I could easily be wrong.

Konnin in particular? No. Am I familiar with pedantic scientists with an overinflated view of their own arguments? Yes. I lean more towards Ernst Mayr's view of the modern Modern Synthesis. Afterall, he has been around for 80 years of it.

quote:

---

By the end of the 1940s the work of the evolutionists was considered to be largely completed, as indicated by the robustness of the Evolutionary Synthesis. But in the ensuing decades, all sorts of things happened that might have had a major impact on the Darwinian paradigm. First came Avery's demonstration that nucleic acids and not proteins are the genetic material. Then in 1953, the discovery of the double helix by Watson and Crick increased the analytical capacity of the geneticists by at least an order of magnitude. Unexpectedly, however, none of these molecular findings necessitated a revision of the Darwinian paradigmnor did the even more drastic genomic revolution that has permitted the analysis of genes down to the last base pair.

​

It would seem justified to assert that, so far, no revision of the Darwinian paradigm has become necessary as a consequence of the spectacular discoveries of molecular biology. But there is something else that has indeed affected our understanding of the living world: that is its immense diversity. Most of the enormous variation of kinds of organisms has so far been totally ignored by the students of speciation. We have studied the origin of new species in birds, mammals, and certain genera of fishes, lepidopterans, and molluscs, and speciation has been observed to be allopatric (geographical) in most of the studied groups. Admittedly, there have been a few exceptions, particularly in certain families, but no exceptions have been found in birds and mammals where we find good biological species, and speciation in these groups is always allopatric. However, numerous other modes of speciation have also been discovered that are unorthodox in that they differ from allopatric speciation in various ways. Among these other modes are sympatric speciation, speciation by hybridization, by polyploidy and other chromosome rearrangements, by lateral gene transfer, and by symbiogenesis. Some of these nonallopatric modes are quite frequent in certain genera of cold-blooded vertebrates, but they may be only the tip of the iceberg. There are all the other phyla of multicellular eukaryotes, the speciation of most of them still quite unexplored. This is even truer for the 70-plus phyla of unicellular protists and for the prokaryotes. There are whole new worlds to be discovered with, perhaps, new modes of speciation among the forthcoming discoveries."
Just a moment...

---

Mayr views it as a revision, not an overturning of the Modern Synthesis. I tend to agree.

Konnin slips between Darwinian and neo-Darwinian (i.e. the Modern Synthesis) evolution quite freely. He more or less conflates the two, even though there are striking differences. For instance, Darwin did hitch his wagon to gradualism. He did hedge his bet stating that evolution could have different tempos, but he did side with gradualism. neo-Darwinism fully accepted Punctuated Equilibria which is non-gradualistic. However, both gradualism and punk eek work through mutation, selection, and speciation with each putting more stress on one mechanism over another (e.g. punk eek stresses speciation as the major mechanism for biodiversity while gradualism stresses selection). IOW, they have the same ingredients just in different amounts.The author also moves between adaptation and genomic evolution. They are not the same thing. Yes, neutral drift is the dominant factor in the base changes in the genome. However, neutral drift is not the dominant factor in positive adaptations to environmental challenges. This is really a problem of context, not a failure of the Modern Synthesis. The question that Darwin was trying to answer was how the gross morphology and physiology of macroorganisms changed over time to fit their environment. Positive selection is the driving force for this type of adaptation, not neutral drift. Darwin was right, and is still right, within this context.I feel a bit guilty accusing Konnin of being pedantic while pedantically criticizing his points. However, I do not feel guilty in saying his claims are way overblown. If neo-Darwinism was a humorist it might claim that rumors of it's death were greatly exaggerated.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

Thank you.
That gives me something to build more knowledge on.