Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism

Uh, no.People who have one sickle cell allele and one normal allele are provided resistance to malaria and are otherwise healthy. They are known as carriers, since they can pass the sickle cell allele on to their children but do not experience the disease themselves. For this case it is incorrect to say that "sickle cell kills people slowly in the process of saving them from a more rapid death by malaria." They are not affected by the disease, but they are at much reduced risk from malaria.When both parents are carriers the potential exists for their children to receive two copies of the sickle cell allele with a 1-in-4 chance. People with two copies of the sickle cell allele develop the illness known as sickle cell anemia, and they are also resistant to malaria. For this case, too, it is incorrect to say that "sickle cell kills people slowly in the process of saving them from a more rapid death by malaria," because the disease is so severe that the malarial benefit plays a minimal role in determining an affected person's lifespan. Without sophisticated medical care an early death is assured.The reason the sickle cell allele persists in malarial regions is because it provides an advantage to half the offspring of carrier parents without otherwise affecting health.--Percy

Thanks for the reminder of the genetics of the thing. So the protection against malaria is good when there's only one gene for sickle cell and it's only when there are two that the problems with sickle cell arise. Good clarification. OK, that's much clearer. It doesn't help at all in this case that there is protection against malaria; they're going to die of the sickle cell anyway.Thanks.

The corrections about the genetics of sickle cell and the HIV protecting alleles are interesting, but it doesn't really change the fact that both involve what could be called a deleterious effect. Yes, I understand how you all think that this isn't a problem for evolution.

I suppose it depends on which if either system is able to establish the validity of its scientific claims. If scientific foundations could be established for either I'm sure you wouldn't object to its being taught in the schools. Regarding science itself at least you'd have to acknoweldge that you've been wrong about the ToE. What happens next is up for grabs. I suppose science would go on as usual for the most part, since most of it deals with nitty gritty facts and realities that aren't going to change in themselves even if the overarching theory that supposedly explains their place in the great scheme of things changes.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Since we're assuming evolution has been falsified, it is no longer accepted science and cannot be taught in science class.But whatever replaces evolution must have scientific evidence supporting it, and it must not already be falsified by existing evidence. It doesn't matter that evolution is out of the picture - Biblical creationism has no supporting evidence and is already falsified many different ways, so it can't replace evolution in schools. But this shouldn't matter to Biblical literalists, who only want to remove evolution from educational curicula.You are correct about the process of science continuing on unchanged, since the process is independent of the theories built from it.--Percy

I meant either YE creationism or ID, not evolution since it would have been falsified. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Interesting that you agree with this in this context, but it's been hotly contested in the context where I claim I'm not criticizing science as such when I criticize evolution. Long arguments have been posted to prove that most of the scientific disciplines couldn't exist without the ToE. I knew that was wrong but they insist. All I was saying there is what I'm saying here though:

If I recall correctly (from the flood discussions), Faith's definition of evidence differs from evolutionist's. So finding fossils on top of a mountain is evidence that the mountain used to be covered in flood water or that the mountain was formed after/during the flood. Likewise, the fact that all around me is flat land and I don't fall over when I go for long walks is evidence for a flat earth. Biblical creationism has plenty of evidence as Faith considers evidence. Naturally the falsifying evidence is merely misinterpreted, the interpretation method that should be used has not been fully explained but it generally involves whether or not something contradicts a certain reading of the Holy Bible.Of course you knew that, but perhaps Faith might appreciate that us evolutionists are paying attention - at least a little bit anyway.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I don't have a different definition of evidence. Marine fossils on top of a mountain suggest the explanation that the fossils got there during an episode of marine exposure. Evos say that's because the land that became the mountain formed under the sea. We say if you're going to go that far, admit it was formed in the Flood. In either case the mountain came later.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Based on both my own education and reading on the subject, as well as my own observations in the field, I'm not sure I'd characterize this as an accurate observation. However, a detailed discussion of why I disagree with this would entail substantial topic drift. Perhaps one day a more appropriate thread will be started. My "view" is that speciation does NOT in fact cause loss of variability except in certain specific cases (founder effect, for instance). Indeed, genetic diversity increases following speciation. This would also represent another thread, rather than a continuation of the discussion of the OP. I think someone proposed (or was going to propose) a thread on bauplan/"body plan". Again, to avoid accusations of "off-topic-ness", I'll simply state that I disagree. However, I don't really have a conceptual problem here, merely a definitional one. That would probably be a good place to look. I think you'll find most of the research into homeobox and other key dvelopmental and regulatory complexes shows that there's more similarity than difference from organism to organism. The way they are expressed is very different, of course, especially in early embryological development. Unfortunately, again, such a discussion would be waaay off-topic for this thread.To bring this post to the point: I see we more or less agree that, in at least this one instance, the ToE can be falsified if the evidence warranted it. So all we need to do now is determine whether the second question, "...if so, would it advance Biblical Creationism?" has an answer in this context. I see you are already engaged with Percy along those lines, so I'll simply observe until/unless I see something different (from Percy, that is), that I feel the need to comment on.See? It doesn't always have to be confrontational...

quote:

---

Marine fossils on top of a mountain suggest the explanation that the fossils got there during an episode of marine exposure. Evos say that's because the land that became the mountain formed under the sea. We say if you're going to go that far, admit it was formed in the Flood.

---

Why should we "admit" that if there's no evidence for a worldwide Flood?

Well, read my exchange with Percy, his Message 128, my Message 129, then his Message 132. The idea is that the reduction is a trend over time, may not be noticeable in some cases, and only dramatically occurs in the drastic selection processes such as founder effect or similarly drastic versions of migration of a very small portion of a population, or of natural selection. But in no case do you get an increase of variability by any of these processes, only a change in allele frequency. If two formerly separated populations rejoin, then you can have a sharp increase in diversity, but this doesn't involve the introduction of anything new, so it remains a case of shuffling what's already there. In any case over time the trend is to reduction, sometimes very slow, sometimes faster or even very abrupt. The only thing that introduces anything new and increases genetic diversity is mutation, and that's a whole other set of issues. Just finished one, my ancient thread "Natural Limitations to Evolutionary Processes" a few days ago or so. The whole argument is about the reduction in genetic diversity through the various selection and population-splitting processes (as opposed to mutation). Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Maybe it would have helped if I'd put a smiley after the sentence?Seriously, however, it's a more parsimonious or elegant explanation than having to postulate a different local dunking for each mountain on which you find marine fossils.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, I've been reading your exchanges with Percy. I reiterate that a discussion of an increase or decrease in genetic diversity due to speciation is inappropriate to this thread, however. If and when another more appropriate thread is initiated, I'll be happy to provide detailed reasoning as to why I disagree with your contention. Must have missed that one during one of my periodic absences. I assume it's closed?ABE: Nevermind, I see that it hit the 300 post mark and was closed. I'll peruse the thread as I get a chance and see if there's anything "resurrectable" in this context. Edited by Quetzal, : correction

Oh, okay, but the answer remains the same. The falsification of evolution would cause scientists to seek alternatives that have supporting scientific evidence. YECism and IDism, lacking as they do any supporting scientific evidence, would not be alternatives they would consider.--Percy