Evolution: FALSIFY IT!

reply to post by MrXYZ


I agree that predation mixed with pre-existing genetic diversity caused the bloom in the variously coloured populations of the European Peppered Moth.

As such, it is a good example of natural selection but really tells us nothing about the process of speciation.

The fossil record shows far too few indications of gradual change and far too many sudden jumps.

Evolutionary theory currently does not explain these "jerks" in what should be a smooth curve.

Nor does it explain bio-chemical changes in a species. It has been said that chemically, humans are similar to pigs (one of the reasons cannibal societies refer to humans as long-pig is due to the taste of the meat).

While it is easy to draw a conclusion that apes are most similarly shaped to humans and say that we therefore come from apes, it is harder to explain why we are actually chemically closer to pigs but haven't descended from them. Where are the developmental "link" stages here? What sort of environmental pressures would induce an organism to change its basic biochemistry (as well as physical form)?

We laugh at Lamarck for his theory but, I believe, new technologies in gene sequencing and a review of old "accepted" but invalid ideas (like the European Peppered Moth being a good example of evolution in action) will reveal current theories, based largely on the shape of the animal, as equally absurd.

reply to post by MrXYZ

the chances of it being a natural cause is a gazillion times more likely than divine intervention given that we have ZERO evidence of divine intervention ever occurring. So if you suggest that "god" had something to do with it, you're basically filling a gap in knowledge with "magic"...god of the gaps, again

I was not talking about God at all. The topic is "Evolution: FALSIFY IT!"

I'm not trying to falsify it really, just show that we have a long way yet to go (and your reply shows how ismIST the topic can easily become).

reply to post by chr0naut


Soo...empty speculation and ignorance of the scientific literature? I'm sorry, but how has genetics done anything other than strengthen Neo-Darwinian evolution (which simply means Darwin's ideas + Mendel's genetics)?

Evolution as it stands now explains everything about the diversity of life...there are merely issues of figuring out exacts rather than overalls. We aren't 100% sure on rates of evolution for all species, we aren't 100% sure of how all traits arose, etc.

Please, provide something that is a proper counter to the modern evolutionary consensus.

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


OK, The Cambrian Explosion (Wikipedia link) explain it.

I am not taking some sort of creationist point of view, which is outside the scope of this thread, I was attending to the science.

I was pointing out the theoretical holes that have been agreed upon by Darwin himself and have not yet been resolved.

Your previous reply indicates that to you, evolutionary theory is an article of faith and that you are not be open minded enough to question it.

Please review what you said and your motivation for saying it.

reply to post by chr0naut


The claim that pigs are "chemically" more similar to use than apes is WRONG. I'm not surprised you believe that though, if you google "humans,shared dna,animals", all the first results (and that of similar searches) are links from creationist websites. It's really quite amazing and their search engine optimization is obviously better than their sense for logic or need for objective evidence.

Chimpanzees share more common DNA with us than pigs, that's a FACT. The reason people prefer to eat pigs is because they give more energy (fat content), and the fact that it simply tastes better. I tried it in Asia, and it's really not that great. Also, the reason we use pig organs rather than monkey organs is because the size of the organs fits better. The individual organs in a pig are pretty similar in size than our own, whereas finding a monkey with organs large enough to donate to a human is difficult. Gorillas are too large, chimpanzees too small. What's in between? Pigs are also a lot more available.

In short, your claim that they are chemically closer to us than pigs is simply wrong and based on pseudo-science...pseudo-science that is arguably repeated a on on certain creationist "research" websites. Not the first time they blatantly lie

reply to post by chr0naut

OK, The Cambrian Explosion (Wikipedia link) explain it.

If you read the link you just posted, you realize that it wasn't really an "explosion". It was a period of millions upon millions of years! The rate of evolution was accelerated during that time, and the very link you posts explains possible causes. Like Madness said, it's hard to trace back the rates of evolution, but it doesn't debunk the theory. For example, if DNA evidence shows that humans evolved from a common ancestor with today's apes (fact), it doesn't really matter at which rate it happened. It's of course interesting to know, but it doesn't change the fact that we evolved

reply to post by MrXYZ


Ok, so it covered millions of years (which is beside the point), it also simply cannot be explained by the current theory.

If the theory doesn't work, face it; it doesn't work!

Why also did the rate of speciation slow down again afterwards? There is no explanation for this either.

Perhaps current evolutionary theory it is part of the answer but it is by no means complete.

reply to post by chr0naut


The theory of evolution also doesn't state a given rate of evolution. But like I said, that doesn't mean "the theory of evolution doesn't work". I gave you a very specific example of why this is the case, but I guess you missed it

Hell, the only thing you really need to do is actually read the link you posted

reply to post by chr0naut

Originally posted by chr0naut
reply to post by madnessinmysoul

 

OK, The Cambrian Explosion (Wikipedia link) explain it.

Evolution happened relatively fast over a period of tens of millions of years. So what? How does that contradict evolution?
Here's a handy reference...I'd point out that this objection to evolution is decades old and still holds not a single ounce of weight in the argument for a reason.

I was pointing out the theoretical holes that have been agreed upon by Darwin himself and have not yet been resolved.

Like what? And Darwin is far from the be all and end all.

Your previous reply indicates that to you, evolutionary theory is an article of faith and that you are not be open minded enough to question it.

No, evolution is an article of proven scientific fact. If you could highlight an actual problem with evolution, I'd addres it.

Please review what you said and your motivation for saying it.

You said the following:

Evolutionary theory currently does not explain these "jerks" in what should be a smooth curve.

Of course it doesn't....why? Because the issue there is fossilization, not evolution. Your basic ignorance of the science at hand was too telling to address properly. That was my motivation for saying it.

reply to post by chr0naut


How can the currently evolutionary synthesis not explain the Cambrian explosion? What is not explained by the current evolutionary synthesis? You're saying it cannot be explained, please explain what is not being explained.

reply to post by MrXYZ


Of course rate of change and time are important to evolutionary theory. They are at the core of it. Take them away and you'd have species appearing instantly out of nowhere and I'm sure you can see where that leads.

Perhaps madness's avatar should say "Very gradual change (well sometimes), we can believe in?".

The Cambrian era had tens, if not hundreds, of new species every year for millions of years and then suddenly it all slowed down.

That is not irrelevant data.

Your ismISM is blinding you.

Current evoultionary theory neither explains the speed-up, nor the slow-down. Not only for this period, but for several others too. It is inadequate.

reply to post by chr0naut

Originally posted by chr0naut
Of course rate of change and time are important to evolutionary theory.

Rate of change is variable between species...so it's not all that important. Bacteria change at a far faster rate than chimps do.

They are at the core of it. Take them away and you'd have species appearing instantly out of nowhere and I'm sure you can see where that leads.

...except that this is a straw man. Again, rate of change is variable. Humans have between 100-200 mutations unique to them. As in, genetic data not present in either parent. This is per generation...but a human generation is much longer than a mouse generation.

Perhaps madness's avatar should say "Very gradual change (well sometimes), we can believe in?".

...Darwin was a committed gradualist. It's a reference to Darwin's initial assertions, not to the modern evolutionary synthesis. Evolution is a theory that has been modified by the 150 years of data accumulation since Darwin's time.

The Cambrian era had tens, if not hundreds, of new species every year

Citation needed.

for millions of years and then suddenly it all slowed down.

I'm sorry, but where's the evidence that there were between 700 million and 8 billion species arising within the Cambrian explosion?

That is not irrelevant data.

You're right, it's fictional data. If you can show me an actual academic work that cites hundreds of millions or billions of species arising within the Cambrian explosion...then...we can start somewhere.

Your ismISM is blinding you.

Your misinformation is blinding you.

Current evoultionary theory neither explains the speed-up, nor the slow-down.

Actually...it could. Quite easily. And I already pointed to an article that does.

Not only for this period, but for several others too. It is inadequate.

Says someone who has never actually examined the evidence or the literature.

reply to post by chr0naut

The Cambrian explosion corresponds to the fossilization of hard parts. In fact, it should be re-evaluated as the Cambrian decimation. About 15 phyla are no longer extant. It seems once the hard-parts evolved, anatomy was free to vary until it was optimized. Its actually evolution 101, if you've ever taken a college course on evolution, the first day you learn the concept of "Slow, Fast, Slow", which is obvious given the systems at work.

At first there is no selection pressure if population density is low, and the population begins to vary largely in evolved traits. Then there is an optimization period as the correlation between traits and reproductive success intensifies, due to high population densities and competition.

Darwin's emphasis on gradual change is an incite to his desire to refute the Biblical Catastrophist who had a monopoly on explaining life histories. I don't think any scientist today would suggest evolution acts on a constant time scale.

reply to post by uva3021


Thanks uva3021, I accept that the fossil evidence that we have from the Cambrian really only proves the death of the preserved organisms, and especially those whose body parts were more likely to be fossilized than soft tissue.

What I still feel, is that there is inadequate data around the rate of heritable genetic errors and how that may be applied to evolutionary theories.

As somone whose background leans towards Physics rather than the life sciences, I like to have mechanistic explanations which include specific numbers and equations to both verify theory and extrapolate with.

In reviewing evolutionary theory, I have not found any attempts at curve fitting which would either be used to support or discredit the theory. This is in contrast to much of other biology where population data and curve fitting appears to me, to be used extensively (my assumptions may be due to my ignorance of the subject).

If we are not able to delve into areas where our knowlegde may be deficient, we will only end up rehashing the same issues and ideas with no resolution (as, I think, this thread demonstrates).

reply to post by chr0naut
When addressing questions on evolutionary theory, the only thing that is certain is there will be variation. Evolution is an ongoing process. In fact, I would assert that if the rate of evolutionary change were constantly proportional to life cycles, then the modern synthesis would be proven wrong. It would be a a little too teleological for the more eminent scientists in the field today, IMO.

Rates of change were never and will never be constant because selection pressures are always changing. Whether its parasite resistance, environmental and climate changes, life histories of predators, prey, and every other organism in the local ecosystem. As well as solar and extraterrestrial activity. All these factors are essentially non-additive.

Even the mutation rate of single nucleotides (which is itself a function of the proteins responsible for negotiating such mechanisms) will always be in the process of being refined or altered, as the trade-off properties between repair mechanisms and metabolism are inherited, thus differential reproduction can appropriate the corresponding alleles in a gene pool.

Mutation rates follow a Poisson Distribution. The average rate between and within groups is simply a value and is in no way definite.

Darwin had many reasons for not considering these factors, one being he had absolutely zero idea about how traits were inherited, and even in his works he would write about his absurd notions of pangenesis.

reply to post by uva3021


I know it's a little beside the point but your avatar looks a lot like Richard Dawkins, are you a fan, or the man (if you don't want to answer I'll understand. ATS is about anonymity).

Also can you recommend any good books on DNA & RNA & protein encoding/decoding, or even software if it exists? I know it is probably well beyond me but I would be interested in trying to get a better understanding of genetics.

something id like to add - everything that isn't evident yet of evolution i guess may be good enough to imply as falsification, since there's missing pieces to the puzzle and so any gap in our knowledge of the theory of evolution is evident of it being falsifiable.

However just in the last few days there's been another piece of the puzzle solved as scientists figured out how unisex life evolved. arstechnica.com...

Originally posted by andre18
something id like to add - everything that isn't evident yet of evolution i guess may be good enough to imply as falsification, since there's missing pieces to the puzzle and so any gap in our knowledge of the theory of evolution is evident of it being falsifiable.

A gap in the theory and a point of falsification are two totally different concepts. A gap is just that - something that is unknown. A point of falsification is positive evidence that the theory is invalid. One commonly mentioned potential falsification of the theory of evolution would be to find fossilized bunnies in the pre-Cambrian.

Originally posted by chr0naut
The Cambrian era had tens, if not hundreds, of new species every year for millions of years and then suddenly it all slowed down.

Now you are just making up stuff..

Your Wikipedia link
The presence of Precambrian animals somewhat dampens the "bang" of the explosion: not only was the appearance of animals gradual, but their evolutionary radiation ("diversification") may also not have been as rapid as once thought. Indeed, statistical analysis shows that the Cambrian explosion was no faster than any of the other radiations in animals' history.

reply to post by iterationzero


You're right, i just came off stupid....i've disgraced myself forever!!!! Well at least now i know better