Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution

I do agree with the confidence with which Molbiogirl makes this statement. I don't know her exact scientific background, but it appears to be similar to mine. Once you understand the nitty-gritty of how DNA replication, regulation, transcription, etc. works you might have a better handle on why we state such things with confidence.The probability that mutations are actually non-random and deterministic is on par with the probability that the theory of relativity is completely wrong. Yes, science is tentative. Yes, it is possible, no matter how improbable, that every theory in science is wrong. However, when mountains of evidence are piled on one side and almost zero evidence is piled on the other side you have to tip your hat to the winning theory and move on. You don't seem to want to move on.Perhaps it is morbid curiosity or an unhealthy detachment from normal human emotion, but I find your tenacity to be intriguing. For me personally, I would be embarrassed to tenaciously hold on to an idea that is shown to be wrong time after time after time. Not so for you. No matter how many times we show evidence for random mutations (with respect to fitness) you still hold on to the idea that they are really non-random no matter what the evidence shows. You even take it up a notch by accusing us of being closed minded for following the evidence where it leads instead of accepting ideas that stand in stark contrast to the evidence. My brain doesn't work that way, so it interests me to find a brain that does if for no other reason than to find out why it does that.

We keep presenting evidence that mutations are non-deterministic. You keep ignoring it. Why is that? Again, we are saying that the processes that produce mutations are non-deterministic. We say this because that is what the evidence indicates. We have this crazy idea that we should follow the evidence where it leads. We also have this crazy idea that those who willfully ignore the evidence in the name of their religious beliefs are no friends of science. We also have this absolutely crazily insane idea that science is important for the progress of our species and just as a human endeavor that seeks new knowledge.So why shouldn't we say that mutations are random with respect to fitness when this is what all of the evidence indicates? Can you please explain?

That is what scientific research is for, finding answers to questions. Why is it that you need to point to ignorance in order to support your arguments? No one is claiming that these systems arose through a completely random process. Evolution is not a random process. We have explained this several times now. Do you really have to misrepresent our arguments in order to have one of your own? No one is claiming that they arose from nothing. So says the poster who has to ignore the evidence and misrepresent other peoples' positions in order to make an argument.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

The discussion is about whether or not mutations are random with respect to fitness. Do you agree or disagree that the evidence points to random mutation with respect to fitness? I don't remember stating anything about the theory of how many genes a human or yeast should have prior to the advent of genome sequencing. The theory of evolution was never used to predict how many genes were in the genome. They never stated that evolutionary processes MUST BE gradual. Again, another distortion from you. The theory predicts that random mutations are filtered through natural selection resulting in an increase of fitness within a population. Nothing you have stated falsifies this theory. Again, you construct strawmen to make arguments.Edited by Taq, : No reason given.

We can demonstrate that evolution is non-random with respect to fitness. For example, bacteria with mutations conferring resistance to antibiotics have a much better chance of reproducing in an environment that contains antibiotics. This is a non-random process of selection, and demonstrably so. You need to include a fitness function in your analogy for it to be applicable. Let's say that there are 100 antibiotic mutants in a population of 3 trillion bacteria. After placing the population in broth containing antibiotic all of the descendants were from those 100 bacteria that had the mutation conferring antibiotic resistance. The odds of this happening by accident are astronomical, and yet this is the result of the experiment each and every time. Obviously, evolution works by something other than accident.It seems that the only card you have left is distortion. Rather sad, isn't it?

Preface:
It is impossible to summarize every argument in this thread for this post so I will only speak in generalities. I will instead focus on how scientific theories are falsified and why creationists consistently fail to do so. If others are still interested in specific topics I urge them to open new threads that focus on that specific topic.Summary:To falsify any scientific theory you first need to understand what the theory actually predicts and what facts it is trying to explain. For example, the precession in Mecury's orbit did not falsify the theory that electrons move about the nucleus of an atom. As it relates to evolution, the theory makes no predictions on how many fossils there should be nor which species should have been fossilized and in what number. Fossilization is a process of geology, not biology. Therefore, citing the lack of fossils in the fossil record is not a valid criticism of the theory of evolution which makes no statements on the actual processes of fossilization.This leads to another common mistake made by creationists trying to falsify the theory of evolution, or any theory for that matter. Lack of evidence is not evidence of absence. You can only falsify theories with evidence that actually exists. Using the example of fossils again, the lack of a specific fossil intermediate between two species does not falsify the theory of evolution. What you need is a known fossil that does not fit the predictions made by the theory. A lack of transitionals between non-avian dinosaurs and birds does not falsify the theory of evolution. A known fossil with a mixture of avian and mammalian features WOULD falsify the theory of evolution. All scientific theories predict what one should NOT see if the theory is correct, and it is those things that you must find.A third mistake that creationists make when trying to falsify the theory of evolution is citing a lack of knowledge as an indication that the theory is false. We are told that unless we can explain every single mutation that has happened over the last 3.5 billion years that the theory is false. IOW, we either have absolute knowledge or no knowledge. Any sane person would not expect us to know everything before we can know something, but that is the creationist argument nonetheless.Creationists seem to think that theories are simply something that is taught, just as theology is something that is taught. What they don't seem to understand is that science is an activity. It is something that you DO. Theories guide research. The whole point of science is to use theories to discover what we DON'T know and then design research programs to fill those gaps. This is an ongoing process, not one that was finished when Darwin finished the last page of "Origin of Species". Do we know the step by step evolutionary pathway of every single protein complex in every cell of every species? No, but how does that falsify the theory of evolution? Quite simply, it doesn't.There is no theory in science that is complete. If the lack of complete knowledge falsifies a theory then every theory in science has been falsified. It would seem that creationists are not only after the fall of evolution but of science as a whole. They can't seem to understand that "I don't know" is a perfectly valid scientific answer, and one that is actually very exciting. The whole idea of science is to confront our ignorance and try to solve the problem. This seems to upset creationists who would rather accept faith based explanations and never question them.So my advice for creationists is this. Understand what the theory predicts we should not see and try to find those pieces of evidence. Arguments from ignorance and incredulity only expose your ignorance and your lack of imagination.