Darwin's idea of "Survival of the fittest" debunked... - Page 10

In layman's terms, sure.

Using the term "random" does throw a wrench in the works if you really want to get past layman's terms though.
Some genetic changes are completely random, yes... they could also be forced by the environment (and therefore not strictly random)... or changes to an organisms lifestyle or environment that favor certain traits which allow them to "expand" while other traits "die off"... such circumstances may not fit one's definition of "random".
Obviously, we could describe evolutionary mutation in such detail that it would require several hundred pages to provide the right information...

But I think most people would accept your one-liner as the shortest possible explanation.

But that would be a lot like describing how and airplane flies by saying: "because it has wings".

There was a very interesting discussion on mutation rates in a certain genetic marker (17q21 / h2) in 'Gene Expression'.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gn...enomic-region/

It's interesting, because it's a genetic polymorphism found in populations divided by great distances, and was thought to have been 3,000,000 years old. According to the new research, the mutation probably occurred in Africa a lot later, almost certainly in a pre-Agricultural African population of homo sapiens sapiens ancestral to the the Mbuti of central East Africa.

But evolution and genetics is all "pseudo science" and "propaganda", right?

Even when it's just scientists publishing their discoveries for each other.

Fair enough. I was just trying to get to the point that it is not a change/mutation that is introduced by an intelligent being for the purpose of mutating for a specific purpose. No intelligent or purposeful direction is at play. Would that be fair?



Well then provide a better description. Let's try to be precise and accurate while still trying to keep things in so-called layman's terms. I want to make sure I'm not misunderstanding or misrepresenting something here. With due respect to the lack of fidelity that speaking in layman's terms sometimes creates.

That is the accepted idea, yes.
Because there is no evidence to support an intelligent intervention. (yet?)
If you could find evidence to support such an idea, the scientific/evolutionist community would be happy to incorporate that into the scientific theory.

Is it possible that an alien race came to earth several million years ago and "played" with DNA here? ... certainly!... but we need to see evidence of that before we incorporate it into our scientific understanding of how things happened... until then, it's just an idea... an unsupported possibility.
The evidence we have does support the idea of "random mutations".

OK. Is that idea falsifiable and, if so, how? What would falsify this idea?

The far larger creationist community awaits your evidence of evolution and evolutionist theory; in the event you ever have any we would be happy to incorporate it within our creation-based understanding of man's origin.

Where did you get that one?

And while you're trying to find somthing to support that you might consider on many other fronts one of the main arguments your right wing buddies have been trying to use is that larger numbers don't make something right ( and of course it's what they think is right is the only thing that counts ).

So what you're saying is that we have mutation, but that mutation could be triggered by scientific causes, could be triggered by the actions of a sapient being, could be triggered by space aliens, or could be triggered by beings from an invisible dimension, but which of those it is, we cannot prove? Have I got that right?

Well, of those causes, only one can be verified and falsified. This is the only one that can be considered science.

Actually, we can verify that mutation can be caused by radiation. We can verify that mutation can be caused by chemical process. We can also verify that radiation exists in the natural world, as does chemistry. These are observable facts that cause mutation. When random mutation happens, it can be concluded with logical certainty that the cause of mutation in the natural world is sometimes one of these things. In the realm of evolution, "sometimes" is quite enough.

Conversely, it cannot be concluded that space aliens are sometimes the cause of mutation.

To "falsify" natural causes for mutation, one could show that the experiments verifying scientific cause for mutation were somehow faulty or drew a false conclusion, and that there was an altogether different cause for the mutations observed in such experiments.

He's not saying larger in terms of larger, as in "more people". He means larger, as in "bigger" as in "We're more important!"

Whatever it is, his opinion of himself and his "community" is certainly larger than life!

Evolution Less Accepted in U.S.
National Geographic News
August 10, 2006
In the U.S., only 14 percent of adults thought that evolution was "definitely true," while about a third firmly rejected the idea.

What I'm saying...and let me quote myself here lest I be accused of changing what I said:




OK. How can it be falsified? What would falsify it?



But that isn't the question.



First, there's no need to put the word falsify in quotes. It isn't a made up idea or concept. In fact it is a critical one in the scientific process. Second, yes that would falsify an individual experiment. You're getting it.

Now back to the original question is this idea:


Is that falsifiable? If so, what specifically would falsify it?

That doesn't mean that they automatically are a creationist by default. Mostly it sems they just aren't sure about anything.

From your article :

Do you have an authoritative unbiased reference to back you position? Post it! Not anything from Evolution Monthly please! Show and/or document that evolutionists - those believing in monkey science - are anything but a minority... Let's see your proof.

Welcome to the new dark ages. I hope you're living right.

I'm guessing you're making reference to what you quoted from me. The answer is just logic. The nonacceptance of one side does not automatically imply the acceptance of the other.

But I did quote your own article which would seem to agree with my one doesn't imply the other idea. Now if the article you chose to quote isn't good enough for you...........

My goodness! He gets it.

**looks around for flying pigs**

What "new dark ages?"

If mutations due to scientific causes exist, it is no longer a question of experimentation to prove that they result in change over time. It is a question of mathematics.

These are the new dark ages. The world might end tonight.

What are "scientific causes?" Do you mean natural causes?


I don't think anyone is disputing that a) mutations can and do happen, b) can and do happen as a result of natural phenomena (e.g., radiation as you suggested), or even c) that changes occur over time. These are not the things that are generally in question or dispute.

But Evolution appears to mean, to many, not just that concept, but that:

a) these changes accumulate over time to form "beneficial features" in some species, and,
b) these "beneficial features" are then the basis of the continual survival of those species, and,
c) these changes go in different directions over time, creating new species that are different and separate from (i.e., don't interbreed with the previous species, but now interbreed among themselves to grow the population of this new species by producing re-producable offspring), and finally,
d) this entire process explains the vast diversity of plants and animals that now exist (and ever have existed) in the history of the planet.

This is why I asked you (or others) to define as precisely and clearly as possible what it means to you when you hear the word "evolution" (in the context of biological sciences.)

Finally, you still haven't told me whether this idea is falsifiable or not and, if it is, how so.

So what are you trying to say MJ? That you don't believe in evolution?

Well, first, I've been told that Evolution doesn't require any belief. But, secondly, if you would read, you'd know what I was saying...what I'm saying is really what I'm asking, and what I'm asking is a fair question:

Is this idea falsifiable and, if so, how?

Do you have something to contribute to that question?

Do you believe in the theory of evolution? Or that it's on the right track even?

That's pretty simple so no dodges or side steps please. Tell us what you think on this subject to clairify your position.

Why does it matter? We're not talking about what I believe or don't believe. We're discussing (or trying to anyway) whether Evolution is science as many claim. One of the fundamental questions on that subject is whether or not one of the central ideas of Evolution is falsifiable or not and, if so, how? Can you contribute something to that question?

Absolute falsification could only be done by observation over a period of millions of years. So, while falsification is possible, I think we'll have to go with "no" in terms of the attention span of most humans.
What we DO have, though, that creationists lack, is a TON of evidence that DOES SUPPORT evolutionary conclusions.

Hmmm. It seems we might have a problem then. Attention span or life span?



We're not talking about that right now. We're talking about Evolution as science (or not). One of the key pieces of determining whether something is science (or scientific) or not is whether or not its claims are falsifiable. But, based on your statement above, it seems there might be a problem. If "falsification could only be done by observation over a period of millions of years" then there could be a problem, because how can we know if something can be falsified if this can only be done outside of the scope of our observational abilities? Do you see the potential problem here?

To put this is simpler terms, can anything be done to prove this aspect of Evolution (the whole mutation/change/speciation thing) wrong or false? What would do that?

You don't get to throw big words around like falsifiable while still believing in the big boogeyman in the sky. You have a clear agenda. Those who subscribe to the theory of evolution do not. Upon receipt of new information that would require a theory to be altered, rational people adjust their worldviews accordingly. You do not. You start with the conclusion and work your way backwards.

How about you don't get to tell people what they do and don't get to do?



Yes I do. I'm trying to find out if anyone here can show me if this idea can be dis-proven (and how). If you don't wish to engage is that discussion, then feel free to avoid it.



That's clearly debatable.



How about we make a deal: You don't tell me what I think and I won't tell you what you think. Mkay punkin'?

If evolution weren't falsifiable, then creationists wouldn't have latched onto that method of attack a long time ago. Remember Paluxy? http://paleo.cc/paluxy/paluxy.htm

Clearly creationists themselves admit to the falsifiability of evolution by stating the alleged tracks of man alongside those of dinosaurs disprove the theory. Turns out the creationists' science was wrong (shocking), but presenting that sort of evidence is an admission to falsifiability.

Case closed. Time for you to move on to another argument.

Not so fast. Yes, this kind of example would falsify a specific claim of Evolution "science" which is that dinosaurs and humans did not co-exist at the same time. In other words the specific claim about the timeline existence of certain living beings is a potentially falsifiable claim since one would only need to be able to show the existence of being out of order (or in the "wrong" times). So yes, that specific claim is falsifiable. But that's not the sum total of Evolution "science."

But would such evidence disprove the broader theory of mutation, speciation, selection, etc? Can these be dis-proven?

All of your dumb questions are very readily addressed with two minutes of research. Your questions aren't new and they aren't profound. They've been invalidated time and time again. I have to go to work. Go do some homework for yourself for once and don't drink your creationist koolaid.

How nice. How typical. How predictable.



Then it should be any trouble to answer them.



I have.

Of course.

Good. Now we're getting somewhere. We can begin your education as to why evolution is science because of the above. Let's start by answering your questions:

Yes, some mutations are beneficial. Some are harmful, and some are benign. Mutations can accumulate over time. Fact. Next question:

For those species that survive. I wouldn't say "are then the basis", however. I would say, "are sometimes the basis". Fact.

This has been observed, yes. Galapagos.

Well, I would state it that, "this entire process can explain the vast diversity...
You see, you're saying that you agree that natural mutation happens. You agree that it can accumulate over time. But you disagree with an assertion that hasn't even been made. That it is the only thing that causes change in species. No one has said that.
However, what we do know is that natural evolution is the only thing that has been proven that can cause change in species. So it is the only explanation that can be taught as science.


I have. We don't have to know that all changes in species and speciation are a result of natural evolution for it to be science. Just that some of those changes are. And that we do know.

And to this I must add. Just because evolution is proven science doesn't mean there is no God or that Creationism is false. This is a logical fallacy that the less intelligent religious folk too often make, leading to their entire dismissal of evolutionary science. Why can't they accept evolution as ONE way species change, and continue to believe in God as ANOTHER way? Maybe aliens are a third way. If we ever have any viable evidence of one of those, they can be taught in the (non-religious) classroom with equal weight.

Really? From what I have read and understood, these birds aren't necessarily different species (i.e., incapable of interbreeding and producing fertile offspring) but, instead, are simply sub-species or "varieties" that have various physical variations but would otherwise be part of the same species. Sorts like humans vs. different races of humans. Asians, Africans, Caucasians, etc. can all interbreed and produce viable offspring despite having markedly different physical characteristics. similar story with dogs: Save for some physical awkwardness, Great Danes and Chihuahuas could interbreed and produce offspring (wouldn't that be interesting to see!) But dogs and cats?

At best, the example you refer to (I'm assuming you're referring to Darwin's finches) is example where multiple species (and they really don't appear to be) that have some similarities and some differences have been observed to exist. It is not an observation that speciation happened. That speciation occurred by natural means to produce the multiple species is a hypothesis.



Well I don't believe I am. But please do tell what the other causes are.



Here's the problem though. There's this jumping back and forth from changes in species to changes into species (i.e., speciation.) It's on this latter claim that Evolution fundamentally hangs. I don't think anyone is reasonably denying that great variation can (and does) occur within a species. Some of this could be the result of natural phenomena and others (e.g., dog, bird, cat breeding) can happen as a result of "intelligent design."



Where? I'm not seeing it. Please provide a link to the post where you have. Thanks.



I don't believe I was making such a claim.



It sorta depends on how one defines Evolution.

OK... I assumed anyone that can read would see the injection of humor there and know that millions of years was a reference to lifespans... and "attention span" was just me trying to be clever. (One could argue that an experiment could be set up that took millions of years... and that the generational attention span of the human race wouldn't be able to stick with it.)




"Falsifiable" is not a pre-requisite of science. The ability to accept evidence that disproves a theory... that IS a requirement.
Now... there are theories that have been proven false... science accepts that proof... that does not mean something has to be falsifiable to be science.


You can even view creationism from a scientific point of view... many people have. Creationism is also not falsifiable, but that doesn't mean it can't be subjected to the scientific method. (Of course, we quickly find there is no supporting evidence, so creationists refuse to accept the scientific method as a means of analyzing creationism.)

Sorry if I missed the humor.



Careful.



Wrong. If something does not have the capability of being dis-proven (not falsifiable) it is arguably not scientific at all.




Back to creationism again? I'm talking about Evolution.

...philosophical analysis of the scientific method...

well... there you go.
Philosophy and Science are two completely different things.

We know gravity exists. There are several leaves that fall from trees that we do not observe in the act of falling. So how did this particular leaf arrive at its position on the ground? It could have been placed there by the hand of God. Or it could have fallen due to cellular deterioration of the membrane connecting it to the tree, followed by the force of gravity bringing it to its current position. We cannot prove either of these things was the true cause.

Creation of new species due to evolution is observable fact. Here, someone's done your homework for you.

There are examples of new species due to evolution that have been observed in botany, entomology and zoology. That you choose to ignore them is a pattern of behavior called selective ignorance.

If you're insisting on seeing one creature evolve into a dog and a cat, then you're asking for a conveniently impossible observation. We cannot definitively prove that evolution caused the difference in those particular species, because humans haven't been studying and recording science for the millions of years required to make such an observation. But this does not disprove that evolution is measurable science, though you'd like to pretend it does!

The reason evolution is proven science is that we can prove that evolution causes differences in other species besides cats and dogs, such as those cited in the above link. That is enough for it to be science, and enough for it to be taught in the classroom as the possible, even logical reason for the difference between cats and dogs. It's enough to say that evolution is a proven method of speciation that could possibly have been the reason for those differences. There is no other proven method of speciation (e.g. God; Aliens; etc.) that passes scientific scrutiny. But that's the beauty of science. You can point out in biology class that although evolution is a possible explanation for the difference between cats and dogs, it's not the only explanation. And your biology teacher or professor would have to agree with you. Just like you could say that gravity is not the only explanation for the position of a particular leaf on the ground.

Ahhh the ever popular "evolution is the same as gravity" argument.



I'll have to get to the rest of this later. But that old "gravity" argument was too funny to wait.

P.S. You still didn't show me where you explained how and why all of this is falsifiable as, in a previous post, you claimed to have done.