Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

I have already stated my belief that Evolution has and continues to happen. To me the interesting part is that the experts in the field are now questioning the apparatus for this phenomen.
I don't see in the paper the author's acceptance of a natural origin of life.
As a matter of fact I don't see any fromidable hypothesis as to the origin of life.I read the paper as saying the author does not agree with a tree of life, but rather a forest of life, ie. we can't tell after these last 50 years of new discovery , what is actually going on.I am not sure the author is so sure of natural selection as per the Darwin or neo-Darwinian theory.I find it very interesting that the theories are so much more complicated or complex than has been expounded by the evolutionist such as Jerry Coyne, Dawkins et al. Who arrogantly state Evolution is a fact. Perhaps there is more to evolution than what these guys are stating.
That is why I find Koonin's paper so interesting. Koonin is not a creationist.There may be more to this theory than we realize.

Can you think of anyone else who says that Evolution is true? So, you agree with 'arrogant' evolutionists.
Good for you.

Coyne and Dawkins are "money guys", they will not accept any suggestions that evolution is in any way different than what they say it is.
By money guys I mean they write their books and collect their royalties and really are not interested in any opinions that do not agree with theirs.They are not molecular or microbiologists and I am sure they would reject Koonin's paper out of hand.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

Hi shadow71, and welcome to the fray. Please be careful that you are not conflating the process of evolution (the change in hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation in response to ecological opportunities) with the theory of evolution (ToE). The ToE can somewhat simplistically be stated as: the process of evolution, particularly with the process of speciation (the differential evolution of subpopulations in different ecologies resulting in reproductive isolation of daughter populations), is sufficient to explain the diversity of life as we know it, from the world around us, to the fossil record.Theories are never fact. Evidence is fact. The process of evolution has been observed and is indeed a fact. The theory of evolution has been validated (and it has not been invalidated), but it is not fact. There have been a number of molecular biologists that have voiced similar opinions. See "Sudden Origins" by Jeffery H Schwartz for another example of someone claiming that the ToE is in need of massive revision .... one can hardly wait for the creationist quote miners to have a field day, as this is the kind of "controversy" they like to feed on and regurgitate.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist.
But I expect that you think that is the wrong subject to have studied to understand biological evolution.Jerry Coyne is a Professor of biology who focusses on evolutionary genetics.
But I expect that you think that is the wrong subject to have studied to understand genetic evolution.I also see you are ignoring the many thousands of scientists that agree with them.
But I expect you to think that all those molecular biologists and microbiologists don't know what they are talking about.The only criticism you have is based on an unfounded guess as to what their opinion would be.
Unfounded guesses are pretty worthless.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

I never stated the theory of evolution was invalidated. Eugene Koonin the chief investigator of the National Center for Biotechnology, Natonal library of medicine, national institute of health stated that opinion.What I find interesting is his ideas for a new synthesis."I will mention two candidates. The first one is the population-genetic theory of the evolution of genomic architecture according to which evolving complexity is a side product of non-adapataive evolutionalry processes occurring in small populations where the constraints of purifying selection are weak.
The second area with a potential for major unification could be the study of universal patterns of evolultion such as the distribution of evolutionary rates of orthologous genes which is nearly the same in organisms from bacteria to mammals or the equally universal anticorrelatiion between the rate of evolution and the expression level of a gene."This suggest to me that his work and the work of people such as Giuseppe Damiani and his work in Natural Genetic Engineering Systems are the future to find the nature of evolution.Damiani wrote:"The discoveries of many natural genetic engineering systems, the ability to choose the most effective solution, and the emergence of complex forms of consciousness at different levels confirm the importance of mind-action directed processss in biological evolution, as suggested by Alfred Russel Wallace. Although the main Darwinian principles will remain a crucial component of our understanding of evolution, a radical rethinking of the conceptual structure of the neo-Darwinian theory is needed.""Corrections to chance fluctuations: Quantum mind in biological evolution?"This natural genetic engineering systems information is very interesting stuff.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

That's because those are not a part of the theory of evolution.Different field entirely.

---

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

I merely stated the findings in a paper written by Eugene V. Koonin, chief investigator NCBI,NLM,NIH.
Please don't blame me for Mr. Koonin's findings and opinions.
Also there are many new papers that are also sounding the end of the Darwin, Neo-Darwinian theories as they are elucidated today.You really should have an open mind to scientific criticisms of the theories when they are written by evolutionist scientists in the field.
Too many people on this site get nasty when the theories are challenged.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

If this is the case, it will be because the new evidence provides a better understanding of evolution.That's the way science progresses.Nothing in this process should be of any comfort to creationists because none of this new evidence is supporting their beliefs. Too many of them have focused on Darwin; for 150 years they have thought that if they could only discredit Darwin everything he wrote would just disappear.Those folks have 150 years of catching up to do.

---

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

I didn't blame you for Mr. Koonin's findings or opinions.
I didn't mention him at all.
You are making shit up again.I did criticise you for getting nasty when your pet theory was challenged though.
Maybe you can see the irony of your reply.

The Longest-Running Falsehood In Creationism

But I did answer your question with a question. Did we or did we not find an intact Mammoth frozen in the ice?as i indicated before, atleast indirectly this type of evidence certainly lends support for any creatures previous existenceIm not saying directly your hommonids didnt exist, I am simply saying the evidence should be a bit more obvious if we are talking about centuries of living and dying by these creaturessecondly, are you saying this is an example of a frozen Hommonid or a frozen humanoid, in the picture?Do you have any other pictures of this same individual that would help to confirm his Hommonid status, if that is the correct terminologyOn a side note, he would not have been in that mess had he simply carried his cell phone with him.Dawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Again it is a common mistake to assume that everyone that rejects evolution does it on religious grounds. its a common mistake to assume that Evo has anything to do with the question of creation, it does notBertot writes taq writes A well set out, sound argument, the likes of which would say that creation/ism is a self-contradiction. this argument would of course need to pit itself against physical realitesdawn bertot

Lying for god, again?Answering a question with an irrelevant question is dishonest.
If god is honest, then he must view your behaviour with the utmost disgust.
I am sure that you feel justified in being so deceitful, but I expect that god would consider it a sin.
But sinning in the name of god is ok, yes?

Oh. I assumed you were a creationist who rejected evolution as the explanation for species change over time, and that you thought Koonin was advocating something that would help falsify evolution, since potential falsifications of evolution are the topic of this thread.While overblown in his rhetoric, Koonin isn't wrong, but he isn't exactly right, either. In the part of the real world that we can directly observe, in other words, visible animals and plants, random mutations filtered by natural selection drive adaptation, and Koonin is giving this short shift. But he is correct in that by far the largest part of the real world, the microbial world, is invisible, and is driven by other mechanisms like horizontal gene sharing and purifying selection to a much greater extent.Koonin makes it his job to be controversial, and he came up in another recent thread where he'd published a controversial paper in an "open access" journal where he's an editor, see Message 279 and read forward. Here's an article about yet another of Koonin's controversial papers: Eugene Koonin and the Biological Big Bang Model of Major Transitions in Evolution--PercyEdited by Percy, : Improve clarity of 2nd para.