Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

Hi DB, Call me eccentric, but I'd love to see you answer it with an answer. Hows about you give that a go. Well good, because that would be a stupid thing to say. We have the fossils. That means we know that the pre-human hominids existed. What matters for this discussion is exactly how each was related to the group as a whole. How exactly? And why?We would not expect to see a pre-human hominid frozen in ice. They lived in Africa. A few extended as far as Southern and central Eurasia, but, as far as we know, they were not present in the far North.There is not much ice in Africa and what there is sits at the tops of mountains. There is no reason why we would expect a hominid to blunder into a frozen death like a mammoth.I wonder why creationists so frequently demand to see precisely the evidence we wouldn't expect to see.But okay; you think there should be more evidence. What do you think we should see? Exactly why should we see that? Be specific.If you can provide exacting, evidence based reasoning explaining why we ought to see more evidence of hominids, then you might start being taken seriously. If not, all you have is "Seems wrong to me.". If that is all you have, you are in the wrong thread and you should take your incredulity to the Counter-Intuitive Science thread. "Otzi the Iceman" is an anatomically modern human (albeit one with rather unusual mtDNA). It is about 5300 years old, much younger than the hominid fossil of Africa.Mutate and Survive

---

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

Hi, Shadow.I attended a seminar by Jerry Coyne at my university a couple months ago. It was a promotion for his new book, Why Evolution is True. I have to say that I wasn't very impressed.It was a nice presentation of several basic pieces of evidence that demonstrate evolution in action (transitional fossils of whales, and atavistic limbs on dolphins and stuff like that). With that part, I was quite impressed, even though my time on EvC had already made me aware of all the evidence he was presenting before I saw his seminar.What upset me was his introduction to the whole thing, in which he engaged in several logical/philosophical faux pas that we routinely rebuke here on EvC. For example, he actually said (word for word) that theories grow up to become facts, and (not word-for-word) that all scientists recognize a progression from speculation, to hypothesis, to theory, to fact.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

Of course they do. All scientists question the theories that they use. That's the whole point of science, to test our models of how nature works. For microbial life where horizontal genetic transfer is common there is not a branching tree, but more of a knot of life. That is what the author is arguing for. He is not arguing for a forest of life which connotates separate origins for different lineages. Where it concerns macroscopic organisms like you and me, the tree of life is still quite solid. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Perhaps Stephen Jay Gould can help to clear this up:"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered."
Top Cash Earning Games in India 2022 | Best Online Games to earn real money I am sure that the scientists studying evolution feel the same way.

Which means you never answered my question.Why don't we see wooly mammoths and elephants living side by side in the present day? Why should it be more obvious? Please explain. Like I stated earlier, there were billions of passenger pigeons in North America and yet we only have a handful of passenger pigeon fossils. Why do you think that is? Both. Modern humans are both humanoid and hominids.

Surely such a statement should be followed by examples of biologists who reject evolution based on non-religious reasons. So who are they? You did not answer my question, again. What evidence, if found, would affect creationism?

If the theory needs revision it should be revised. One cannot worry about what someone else is going to say. I think it was pretty brave of Koonin to set forth his findings and opinions. You all know that Lynn Margulis and Barbara McClintok were attacked and ridiculed by many of the leaders of the neo-Darwinism group, and now they are for the most part accepted theories..

You professionals in the field are much more familar with the progression from idea to hypothesis to theory than I am as you can see by my posts.
I have been reading Coyne's "evolution is a fact" blog and I an not really impressed by his self love, and almost child like writings.

Their ideas were questioned, yes, if that's what you mean. That's how science works. And then once their ideas had passed scrutiny, "the leaders of the neo-Darwinism group" (or "biologists" as they are more commonly known) gave 'em Nobel Prizes.However, this does not presage that every idea that is questioned will turn out to be right.

I have no problem with Gould's statement. I believe what Koonin and many micolecular, micro, and genetic biologists are now finding is that the mode of the fact of evolution may be different than what the Darwin and neo-Darwinian theory state. That perhaps natural selection and random mutation are not as important as now stated. That the cells are restructuring their genome at rapid rather than gradual alterations.

Wrong. Wrong. Did you see in the paper his acceptance of wingless pigs?Did you see in the paper any reason why he should mention it one way or the other? How would that stop it from being a fact? Or make it "arrogant" to say that it is one?

* sigh *Lateral gene transfer is neo-Darwinian; and if you can find me one biologist who says that natural selection does not apply to its products then I shall buy a hat and eat it.

I agree, but you must admit, when a new idea is championed it very often meets challenges that often result in ridicule and chastisement. So my point is that I admire someone who is qualified, when they dare state an idea or hypothesis that is significantly different from the present state of the established theory in the field.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.

But he isn't. No-one denies the existence of lateral gene transfer, nor has since it was discovered in (if memory serves) 1928.He might as well go around telling astronomers about his radical new idea of heliocentrism.

I do read Koonin's paper as falsifying parts of the Darwin and neo-Darwinian as he himself says when he states:"...in the postgenomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparaably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution."So I think my message was on topic. Perhaps a new topic is needed about the new findings in Molecualr, Micro, and genetic findings since the 1950's.

BAsis? Basis? I was responding to Percy's message here he mentioned natural origin of life.Edited by shadow71, : No reason given.