quote:
The point was certain aspects of evolution may be debated but not whether evolution occured or not. The tentative part is the mechanism, what evolved from what, etc. The unfalsifiable part is whether evolution occured or not.
Why would this be unfalsifiable? If you could show, for example, that non-clonal lineages didn't change from generation to generation, then evolution is falsified. If you could show that speciation has never or could never occur, then evolutionary theory is falsified. The reason that the basic scientific fact of evolution is no longer debated is because there has been sufficient evidence to show that it happens. How much, how fast, and mechanisms are still being argued.
{irrelevant "argument by quotation" snipped}
quote:
Don't need the genus or species or family, etc. The phyla is sufficent to falsifiy evolution. Not sure what you mean by more problems with my statement.
I think I must have missed something. How does phyla falsify evolution?
quote:
Please provide me with data the demostrates the kind of change needed to explain the Cambrian has been demonstrated in the lab.
Well, search for Patel, Ronshaugen, etc, who are working on precisely that. You can also search for ubx genes, etc. There have been a number of experiments showing hox genes can radically alter body plans with very minor mutations. A recent example is Ronshaugen M, McGinnis N, and McGinnis W (2002), "Hox protein mutation and macroevolution of the insect body plan" Nature 6 feb 2002 (I don't have the vol/ed number handy) or look up this article for a more general overview
Understanding the genetic basis of morphological evolution: the role of homeotic genes in the diversification of the arthropod bauplan.
As to the Cambrian, that's almost a whole new thread. Please expand your argument a bit so I can see where you're coming from.
quote:
The science was invented. Mendel conducted his work at about the same time Darwin was working on his theory. Mendel's work was ignored until after his death.
This is flat wrong. Mendel's initial monograph wasn't published (and even then, in a very obscure local publication) until 1863. It wasn't even promulgated until 1866 - and then in very limited edition. The only reference Darwin makes to anything by Mendel is a passing reference to Mendel's hybridization studies (which he cited from Hoffman's 1869 Untersuchungen zur Bestimmung des Werthes von Species und Variett) in Darwin's 1876 "The effects of cross and self fertilisation". It is unlikely Darwin had the first clue as to the greater implication of Mendel's work - primarily 'cause Mendel was a lousy writer, apparently. Nobody else understood his work, either. I personally think Darwin would have been delighted to have the mechanism - it was the one thing he never figured out. Even the German's couldn't figure out what Mendel was on about until his rediscovery. On a final note, if you check the catalog of Darwin's library (from 1908) which he bequeathed to the Royal Society, there is no mention of any copy of Mendel's original paper ("Versuche uber Pflanzenhybriden", Proceedings of the Brun Natural Society). Darwin apparently only knew of Mendel's work by second hand, at best.
quote:
If evolution cannot evolve a flagella it can't work. A flagella requires a large amount of complexity for minimum functionality. So we must model what are the probability that new genes will arise to code for new proteins that provide new functions, etc. Take any other structure that needs this much complexity. In order for something to be selected a minimum level of specified complexity must arise by chance and be benefical to the organism. It cannot gradually evolve or it won't be selected. There must be a fairly significant amount of complexity at once in order for evolution to work. We can calculate the probability of just a minimum level specified complexity arising. Noone has demonstrated this with any of the more complex biological systems is possible.
I'd be interested in hearing your definition of specified complexity. Most important, I'd be fascinated to hear how designed specified complexity can be distinguished from naturally arising specified complexity.
™ Version 4.2
