Testing Evolutionism (the alleged theory of evolution)

Posted on by

Testability is the main thing a concept needs in order to be considered science. If your claims cannot be tested then science doesn’t care about them. Enter evolutionism, also mistakenly called the theory of evolution, ie the concept that all biological diversity evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral construction starting from some much simpler biological replicator, which in turn evolved from much simpler molecular replicators.

None of that can be tested. Not only that the sub-claims are also untestable. Biology is full of biological systems, subsystems and structures. These too need to have testability, yet they do not. Evolutionists hide behind father time and think that excuses them from the testability criteria science requires. All that does is prove theirs is not a scientific position.

No one knows how ATP synthase arose and no one knows how to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction did it. Dembski tried to help by formulating a conditional probability but he was shrugged off. Evolutionists are fine failing on their own and don’t need no steenking help from Dembski!

So how can we test your claims, evolutionists? And why, in the absence of testability, do you think your position qualifies as science?

 

 

431 thoughts on “Testing Evolutionism (the alleged theory of evolution)”

  3. Inventing the dynamo machine: the evolution of the F-type and V-type ATPases.
    Mulkidjanian AY1, Makarova KS, Galperin MY, Koonin EV.
    http://www.macromol.uni-osnabrueck.de/paperMulk/Mulkid_Nat_Rev_Micro_2007.pdf

    Abstract
    The rotary proton- and sodium-translocating ATPases are reversible molecular machines present in all cellular life forms that couple ion movement across membranes with ATP hydrolysis or synthesis. Sequence and structural comparisons of F- and V-type ATPases have revealed homology between their catalytic and membrane subunits, but not between the subunits of the central stalk that connects the catalytic and membrane components. Based on this pattern of homology, we propose that these ATPases originated from membrane protein translocases, which, themselves, evolved from RNA translocases. We suggest that in these ancestral translocases, the position of the central stalk was occupied by the translocated polymer.

    On testability:

    Conclusions
    In this Opinion, data on the distribution of homologous and non-homologous subunits in the structures of F- and V-type ATPases have been used to develop an evolutionary scenario for the origin of the rotary cation-translocating ATPases, beginning with an RNA helicase and a membrane channel, and proceeding through the intermediate stages of RNA and protein translocases. A notable feature of this scenario is the recruitment of a protein substrate (the translocated protein) as a new, functional enzyme subunit. To our knowledge, the recruitment of a protein substrate as a new subunit of an enzyme has not been considered as a mechanism of enzyme evolution. Testing models of the early stages of evolution is always a difficult task, and the current model for the origin of membraneion-translocating ATPases is no exception. Nevertheless, relevant experiments are conceivable, at least in principle. Experiments that would provide evidence for the proposed model include the successful construction of a protein translocase from a membrane ATPase by removing the central stalk and mutating the proteolipid subunit. In addition, experiments that construct an ion-translocating ATPase from a helicase, a membrane channel and additional proteins to form the peripheral and central stalks would be informative. Further insights into the evolution of ion-translocating ATPases could be derived from the detailed analysis of their assembly mechanisms. It has been shown that the catalytic subunits of the Escherichia coli F-type ATPase bind to the peripheral stalk only after the hexamer is formed84, and that during the assembly of the enzyme in yeast cells the formation of a complex between the catalytic hexamer, peripheral stalk and membrane subunits does not require the subunits of the central stalk85,86. Thus, the molecular details of how the subunits of the central stalk are incorporated into the ATPase complex could shed light on the evolution of these enzymes.

  4. And rumrat’s equivocation is duly noted. Notice rumrat’s entry does not test the concept of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes. And to top it off it is nothing but speculation.

  5. Ummm…didn’t we have over 1000 replies on this topic already the Joe disregarded because they didn’t meet his strawman? The old saw about never wrestle with a pig comes to mind here. Apparently Joe likes it…

  6. Joe sez:

    No one knows how ATP synthase arose and no one knows how to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction did it. Dembski tried to help by formulating a conditional probability but he was shrugged off.

    Wait, what? What precisely had Dembski formulated, and why was it “shrugged off”? Dembski has a history of writing complete nonsense.

  7. Oh god I forgot how retarded this guy is, what the fuck am I doing responding to this pool of human sludge? Straight back to ignore.

  9. Robin:
    Ummm…didn’t we have over 1000 replies on this topic already the Joe disregarded because they didn’t meet his strawman? The old saw about never wrestle with a pig comes to mind here. Apparently Joe likes it…

    What strawman? Please be specific

  10. LoL! rumrat sez that I am retarded because rumrat is willfully ignorant equivocator?

    How does that work?

  11. TristanM:
    Joe sez:

    No one knows how ATP synthase arose and no one knows how to test the claim that natural selection, drift and neutral construction did it. Dembski tried to help by formulating a conditional probability but he was shrugged off.

    Wait, what?What precisely had Dembski formulated, and why was it “shrugged off”?Dembski has a history of writing complete nonsense.

    Well tristan, you could always step up and try to support evolutionism.

  12. Frankie:
    the theory of evolution, ie the concept that all biological diversity evolved via natural selection, drift and neutral construction starting from some much simpler biological replicator, which in turn evolved from much simpler molecular replicators.

    None of that can be tested

    How about plate tectonics, testable? E= mc2 ?

  14. GlenDavidson:
    But ID can be tested.Just show that “evolution can’t do it.”

    Next ID step:Make up the numbers.

    Glen Davidson

    I have already posted on how to test ID, Glen. You cannot say how to test the claims of your position. Try to follow along

  15. GlenDavidson:
    But ID can be tested.Just show that “evolution can’t do it.”

    Next ID step:Make up the numbers.

    Glen Davidson

    Prediction: Frankie says it isn’t ID’s fault that it is unfalsifiable, it is evolutionism’s failure

  16. Yes, newton, your attempted distraction is duly noted. If you don’t know how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes just say so. I am OK with teaching the students that we don’t know.

  17. GlenDavidson,

    And Glen, if you and yours could figure out how to test the claims of evolutionism and actually go and test them, no one would have to make up anything- not even you

  18. There’s a hierarchy of testability in evolution. It’s fairly easy (well, often) to show that a set of species shares common ancestry and to find the tree of descent. Using that tree, it’s also reasonably simple, though less simple, to estimate the changes that happened along its branches. What can be very difficult is to determine why those changes happened (by which I mean why the mutations that gave rise to them became fixed in the population). Frankie would appear to reject the entire field purely because the last part of the chain is hard to accomplish. But what justification can there be for rejecting the first two parts?

  19. Frankie:
    Yes, newton, your attempted distraction is duly noted. If you don’t know how to test the claims of evolution by means of blind and mindless processes just say so. I am OK with teaching the students that we don’t know.

    No Frankie no distraction, just trying to see actually what your point is.I understand that you claim that blind ,mindless processes cannot be tested just wanted to see if that claim only applied to the theory of evolution.

    Your refusal to provide a simple yes or no is duly noted

  20. Science is mainly about processes.

    When people say that the evidence for evolution is strong, they are usually talking about the evidence for the processes described by the theory.

    Frankie is questioning the historical events. All of history consists of a sparse collection of facts (often dubious facts at that), with details being interpolated on the basis of well understood processes. Natural history (the history of biological life) is similar to all other history in that respect.

    It is typical of all history, that we cannot experimentally test individual historical events.

    The argument being made in this thread is absurd.

  21. John Harshman:
    There’s a hierarchy of testability in evolution. It’s fairly easy (well, often) to show that a set of species shares common ancestry and to find the tree of descent. Using that tree, it’s also reasonably simple, though less simple, to estimate the changes that happened along its branches. What can be very difficult is to determine why those changes happened (by which I mean why the mutations that gave rise to them became fixed in the population). Frankie would appear to reject the entire field purely because the last part of the chain is hard to accomplish. But what justification can there be for rejecting the first two parts?

    I think you are missing Frankie’s point. Evolutionism ( also known as the theory of evolution to Frankie ) requires that the processes must be both blind and mindless. Given that it is possible that there exists an undetectable omnipotent designer/ God, yadda , yadda

  24. The rise of Neutral Theory and the appreciation of random genetic drift in the 1960s led to an understanding that most evolution at the molecular level is due to fixations of nearly neutral alleles by random genetic drift. If population genetics is correct, then the rate of fixation of these alleles should equal the mutation rate.

    The discovery of an approximate molecular clock led to development of this new evolutionary theory and additional studies confirmed the predictions with respect to certain genes.

    However, this prediction couldn’t be tested for whole genomes until the sequences of whole genomes became widely available thirty years later.

    Modern evolutionary theory (population genetics) was tested by comparing human and chimpanzee genomes. The results could have refuted the theory but, instead, they supported it.

    How do you explain the differences between chimpanzees. humans, and macaques?

    Why are the human and chimpanzee/bonobo genomes so similar?

    It may come as a big shock to most readers of The Skeptical Zone, but the IDiots completely rejected the test and completely failed to understand modern evolutionary theory.

    A creationist illustrates the argument from ignorance while trying to understand population genetics and Neutral Theory

    IDiots respond to the evidence for evolution of chimpanzees and humans

  27. Larry Moran: It may come as a big shock to most readers of The Skeptical Zone, but the IDiots completely rejected the test and completely failed to understand modern evolutionary theory.

    Every single one of them?

  28. Larry Moran,

    Vincent Torley says,
    With the greatest respect to Professor Moran, none of these methods counts as an observation of the rate at which mutations get fixed in the human population. Inferring how many mutations must have taken place from an assumed time at which the human and chimp lineages diverged, is not the same thing as observing the rate at which mutations get fixed in the human line. And observing how many mutations occur in the space of one generation, from parent to child, is not the same thing as observing the rate at which mutations occur in the human population as a whole.

    That’s correct. My posts were about the mutation rate and not the fixation rate.
    However, the fact that humans and chimpanzees descend from a common ancestor several million years ago is just that, a fact. It would be perverse (IDiotic?) to believe otherwise.

    You here agree that fixation is not tested and then assert that the common descent is a fact and it would be Idiotic to believe otherwise.

    Why would you make this assertion without fully testing the claim?

    Untested hypothesis = fact?

  29. testability.

    What are the unique entailments of:

    Unguided
    Guided by the environment
    Direct designer intervention
    Front Loading

    ?

  30. Hey, I found a picture of Joe hard at work in his Top Secret ID Laboratory / Toaster Repair Shop! 🙂

  32. colewd: You here agree that fixation is not tested and then assert that the common descent is a fact and it would be Idiotic to believe otherwise.

    Why would you make this assertion without fully testing the claim?

    Untested hypothesis = fact?

    Can I answer for Larry? Nobody said fixation wasn’t tested, merely that the mutation rate is not synonymous with the fixation rate (unless one assumes neutrality, in which case it is). Nor does the fixation rate have anything to do with testing common descent, and common descent — specifically, in the current context, of humans and chimps — has indeed been as fully tested as any scientific hypothesis can be. I believe you’ve even been shown some of the evidence on various occasions. Did you forget?

  33. John Harshman,

    . What can be very difficult is to determine why those changes happened (by which I mean why the mutations that gave rise to them became fixed in the population). Frankie would appear to reject the entire field purely because the last part of the chain is hard to accomplish.

    If you don’t know why the changes happened how can you claim it was solely through reproduction and isolation?

    common descent — specifically, in the current context, of humans and chimps — has indeed been as fully tested as any scientific hypothesis can be

    This is contradictory to your admission that you cannot test for the cause of fixation.

  34. Richardthughes: Again, Frankie wants to frame things using his own, silly terms.

    Any thoughts on why the article left out any mention of Ernst Mayr’s use of the term?

    This is another of those anti-ID PRATTs like the claim that macroevolution is a term made up by the creationists.

  35. colewd: If you don’t know why the changes happened how can you claim it was solely through reproduction and isolation?

    I don’t know what you’re trying to say here. Isolation isn’t a cause of change. It’s something that allows differences to arise in how two populations change. Reproduction is the occasion for most mutations, so I suppose you could call that a cause of change. While it’s true that we can’t actually see ancient populations reproducing, it seems a safe bet to me. What other explanation of the data can there be? Are you supposing that instead of reproduction, new generations quite similar to the previous ones might instead be poofed into existence?

    We know reproduction happens. We know that mutation, selection, and drift also happen. Why, when examining evidence consistent with all those things, do you feel it necessary to introduce other, undescribed mechanisms of whose existence we have no evidence at all?

    common descent — specifically, in the current context, of humans and chimps — has indeed been as fully tested as any scientific hypothesis can be

    This is contradictory to your admission that you cannot test for the cause of fixation.

    No it isn’t. The cause of fixation is irrelevant to the question of common descent. Are you sure you know what “fixation” means?

  36. colewd: This is contradictory to your admission that you cannot test for the cause of fixation.

    It’s entailed by the mathematics and therefore doesn’t need to be tested.

  37. John Harshman,

    We know reproduction happens. We know that mutation, selection, and drift also happen. Why, when examining evidence consistent with all those things, do you feel it necessary to introduce other, undescribed mechanisms of whose existence we have no evidence at all?

    Because it is unclear how these mechanisms can generate new features that separate chimps from humans. The 22 million mutations did not just land in random spots, they landed in spots that enabled language, changed muscle structure, changed the brain to enable complex reasoning. We also know that 70% of the proteins have more than 1 AA difference. We know there are splicing and gene expression differences.

    How would you support this claim?

    common descent — specifically, in the current context, of humans and chimps — has indeed been as fully tested as any scientific hypothesis can be

  38. colewd:
    John Harshman,

    Because it is unclear how these mechanisms can generate new features that separate chimps from humans.The 22 million mutations did not just land in random spots, they landed in spots that enabled language, changed muscle structure, changed the brain to enable complex reasoning.We also know that 70% of the proteins have more than 1 AA difference.We know there are splicing and gene expression differences.

    Unclear to you. Sorry, but the mutations, many orders of magnitude greater than 22 million, did indeed land in random spots. Most of them were removed from the population quickly, mostly by drift since 90% of them landed in junk DNA, and some by selection since they were deleterious, leaving the tiny fraction of 22 milliion to become fixed, again mostly by drift. The few that were not neutral or removed by selection landed randomly in places where they were advantageous. Yep, random. If I recall, it’s 70% of the proteins that have one or more AA difference. Many of those differences do nothing. Some of them change the protein’s function slightly. And some fixed mutations landed, by chance, in regulatory sequences, changing them slightly. Both had effects. How is this inexplicable?

    How would you support this claim?

    The claim that the relationship between humans and chimps has been tested? Every single paper on primate phylogenetics ever published, of which there are thousands. Let me cite the first one I find in my files, which happens to be one of the first DNA sequence analyses: Hayasaka K., Gojobori T., Horai S. Molecular phylogeny and evolution of primate mitochondrial DNA. Molecular Biology and Evolution 1988; 5:626-644. I suppose you’re going to say that if chimps are not observed to turn into humans in a laboratory experiment, it hasn’t been tested. Or have I underestimated you?

  39. John Harshman,

    common descent — specifically, in the current context, of humans and chimps — has indeed been as fully tested as any scientific hypothesis can be

    The claim that the relationship between humans and chimps has been tested?

    I see you are moving the goal posts. Interested to see if others think these papers test the hypothesis.

  40. …and on that note, I’m off to have a few drinks and try to for forget Joe’s idiocy for a few days. You all have a great weekend!

  41. colewd: I see you are moving the goal posts.

    Please explain where you think the goal posts were originally and where I have moved them to. I do not understand.

  44. colewd: Goal post A

    has indeed been as fully tested as any scientific hypothesis can be

    Goal post B

    has been tested

    Are you dense?

  45. Rumraket: Are you dense?

    Remains to be seen. Are you sure that “as fully as any scientific hypothesis can be” is what he meant? I would have thought that “Every single paper on primate phylogenetics ever published, of which there are thousands.” would have covered that.

  46. John Harshman,

    Are you sure that “as fully as any scientific hypothesis can be” is what he meant?

    Fully testing means to me testing all the claims of the hypothesis.

    The hypothesis is that man and chimps descended from a common ancestor.

    If I look at the sequence data how do I know if this has occurred?

    If I had two people and I was trying to check for direct ancestry I can make a testing standard from known ancestors, If the data matches this known pattern then I have a solid test.

    Without a standard sequence that validates ancestry I don’t think the claim is properly tested.

  47. John Harshman:
    There’s a hierarchy of testability in evolution. It’s fairly easy (well, often) to show that a set of species shares common ancestry and to find the tree of descent. Using that tree, it’s also reasonably simple, though less simple, to estimate the changes that happened along its branches. What can be very difficult is to determine why those changes happened (by which I mean why the mutations that gave rise to them became fixed in the population). Frankie would appear to reject the entire field purely because the last part of the chain is hard to accomplish. But what justification can there be for rejecting the first two parts?

    And where do blind and mindless processes fit in?

  48. Neil Rickert:
    Science is mainly about processes.

    When people say that the evidence for evolution is strong, they are usually talking about the evidence for the processes described by the theory.

    Frankie is questioning the historical events.All of history consists of a sparse collection of facts (often dubious facts at that), with details being interpolated on the basis of well understood processes.Natural history (the history of biological life) is similar to all other history in that respect.

    It is typical of all history, that we cannot experimentally test individual historical events.

    The argument being made in this thread is absurd.

    Then universal common descent is not a scientific concept. And universal common descent via evolution by means of blind and mindless processes is not a scientific concept.

  49. Larry Moran: Modern evolutionary theory (population genetics) was tested by comparing human and chimpanzee genomes.

    No, it wasn’t. And that has nothing to do with testing blind and mindless processes. So you lose

Leave a Reply