The Mystery of Evolution: 7. Falsifying the Evolution-The Prelude to Something Greater

UPDATE: So far NO IDEAS as to how the theory of evolution can be falsified have been proposed…To make things worst, nobody so far picked up any of MY SUGGESTED IDEAS how to falsify evolution – now clearly numbered from 1-4. 

It makes one wonder what the bases are for believing in the theory of evolution if no one seems to even want to at least try to falsify it…

Please keep in mind that by falsifying evolution you can refute many claims by the proponents of ID!!! Isn’t it what Darwin’s faithful want to do?

This OP is just a prelude to hopefully many future ones, where I would like to focus on the specific examples of how to falsify the theory of evolution…

This OP gives everyone an opportunity for the input on no doubt the many available ways how to experimentally falsify evolution…

As most of you know, Darwinists and post-Darwinists, for unknown reasons, are reluctant to experimentally prove their beliefs, so by the series of the OPs on the many possible ways of falsifying evolution, we can hopefully encourage Darwinists and the like, to do so for their own good… I could definitely help with that…

Here are some ideas on how to falsify evolution that I have come across so far:

How a walking mammal can evolve into an aquatic one?

1. Just as an example, let’s say I would like to evolve some aquatic functions…
How long would it take for me to see some evolutionary changes, if I spend most of the day in the water and what would they be? How about several generations of water-lovers? Can someone make a prediction, as evolutionists often do?

2. How about growing a bacterium without a flagellum, knockout the genes for the flagellum, or make the flagellum not fully functional and see whether the bacterium will evolve anything at least resembling a flagellum or evolves a better functionality of it…

3. How to evolve a function of an existing appendage that is no longer in full use to fully function again? How to make emus and ostriches to fly again?

4. How about finches? Since their beak size seems to change within one generation, could they evolve into another species within short period of time if put under selective pressure or something?

Let’s come up with ideas and put some organisms under selective pressure or whatever makes the organism evolve, and see if we can falsify evolution, so that we can end the speculations, once and for all, about who is right and who is wrong; Darwinists or Intelligent Design proponents…

Let us not hear any excuses anymore!

Let experimental science speak the truth!

I don’t think anybody in the right frame of mind would object to what I propose here… unless…. one doesn’t have the confidence in his or her preconceived ideas that could potentially be exposed…

Let’s begin!

517 thoughts on “The Mystery of Evolution: 7. Falsifying the Evolution-The Prelude to Something Greater

  1. Does Ken Miller, the NCSE and, Dennis Venema know they are wrong? If so, what did they say? Or have you not told them yet?

  2. Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    Another tip: try and use the ‘blockquote’ tag for things other people say, rather than ‘strong’ for the things you say. It would make for greater readability.

    It doesn’t always work….

  3. Neil Rickert: That’s because creationists are always arguing “god of the gaps”.And those two are the best gaps that they can find.

    Same applies to “Darwin of the gaps…” that’s why The Mysteries of Evolution…;–)

  4. J-Mac: It doesn’t always work….

    Heh. Yeah, I must have used it 10,000 times and it’s never not worked.

    See, the trouble is J-Mac is that you think you understand how things work but the truth of the matter is you simply don’t. There’s no shame in that. It takes all sorts to make a world.

    So when people who know what they are talking about tell you you are wrong and explain why you just look like a fool when you repeat what you’ve already been corrected on.

    Just look at Salvador and his misconceptions about carbon dating and YEC. He’s been corrected many times by people who know what they are talking about and he’s unable to rebut those corrections and yet he still makes the same claims. He did it today already on this site.

    So, a real scientist would look at the blockquote issue and try and work out why sometimes it does not work. You might start to realize that HTML is just a collection of nodes, really, and it may be the case that your habit of editing other peoples comments to add your own comments in bold causes that node tree to become invalid. Perhaps you are incorrectly closing the tag or whatever.

    I am expert HTML’er

    so I can type HTML codes inline and they work!

    You on the other hand are not but as you are never wrong about anything it must therefore be that sometimes blockquotes don’t work properly. Not that you don’t understand HTML, but sometimes it does not work. Despite the fact that nearly every other commenter on the site manages to use them correctly, despite the fact that there is a “quote” button on every post that does the block quoting for you you still don’t understand the problem is you.

    And this is why your quest will fail. It’s why it has failed. You fail to comprehend that the world is more complex then you are able to understand. So you propose impossible experiments that you are then forced to admit that even you can’t carry out. You propose ideas like getting into the water and waiting for evolution to evolve you some water features seriously. You don’t seem to realize your lack of knowledge on the subject is actually a hinderance.

    As most of you know, Darwinists and post-Darwinists, for unknown reasons, are reluctant to experimentally prove their beliefs,

    Belief is not required when you have evidence. What do you have evidence for?

  5. J-Mac: Same applies to “Darwin of the gaps…” that’s why The Mysteries of Evolution…;–)

    Except it only applies in your mind. And, guess what, you don’t count. You have no track record to make your pronunciations worth caring about. You spout regurgitated creationist tropes that have been demonstrated false 1000 times.

    J-Mac, there’s a reason you are on a free to register blog that allows anyone to post almost anything instead of standing in front of a class of university students. It’s because you don’t have anything and you don’t know it.

    If your insights into why evolution is a lie are so cutting, why are they not making waves in the popular science press? Why have you not responded to me demonstrating that evolution is producing new insights daily into how we came to be and ID is producing nothing? It’s almost as if you don’t care where the evidence leads.

  6. OMagain,

    Just a tip! I no longer read your comments because they are all the same; the same accusations put in different words…

  7. newton: The test is still in progress, we certainly know more howsthan we used to.

    But the fundamental “hows” are not there…so what makes you think in the future the how is going to be the way you wanted to be?

  8. J-Mac: Just a tip! I no longer read your comments because they are all the same; the same accusations put in different words…

    You’ll find that theme recurring wherever you go. So get used to it would be my advice.

  9. J-Mac: But the fundamental “hows” are not there

    Whereas, of course, you have those answers. What are they?

    And a follow up question, if you don’t have those answers (and, of course, you don’t) then why is it a problem if a different position does not have them either? Is that not also a problem for you?

  10. J-Mac: I no longer read your comments

    Others will simply see me asking logical questions that flow from your stated positions and you ignoring them. That’s hardly going to reflect well on you.

    I’m fine with that. I’ve done it for years with some other commenters. How long can you take it is the real question?

    J-Mac: the same accusations put in different words…

    Still waiting on what rumraket said that was so terrible that you could not countenance continuing a conversation with him. Other then your baseless claims being challenged, that is.

  11. Rumraket: Yes it does. So does ending a sentence with a single punctuation.

    What else do you have on me? You don’t like what I do here?
    Grow up! Cry me a river! I’m moved to tears… pathetic…

  12. OMagain: Others will simply see me asking logical questions that flow from your stated positions and you ignoring them. That’s hardly going to reflect well on you.

    I’m fine with that. I’ve done it for years with some other commenters. How long can you take it is the real question?

    Still waiting on what rumraket said that was so terrible that you could not countenance continuing a conversation with him. Other then your baseless claims being challenged, that is.

    Thanks you!
    I have not time to waste…so why should you…
    Goodbye!

  13. J-Mac: Grow up! Cry me a river! I’m moved to tears… pathetic…

    Grow up said the person trying to poke holes in something they don’t even have the beginnings of an understanding of.

    Just as an example, let’s say I would like to evolve some aquatic functions…
    How long would it take for me to see some evolutionary changes, if I spend most of the day in the water and what would they be? How about several generations of water-lovers? Can someone make a prediction, as evolutionists often do?

    If you cry yourself a river, does that mean you would be self-evolving in your self-created niche?

    Honestly, telling someone else to grow up on a thread where you said the above is a great example of low self-awareness. The child in the room is telling the adults to shut up!

  14. J-Mac: Thanks you!

    My pleasure.

    J-Mac: I have not time to waste…so why should you…

    And yet you seem to have wasted a lot of time memorising creationist claims so you can repeat them here. Why bother? Why don’t you learn just the tiniest amount about what you are claiming to be able to demonstrate as wrong? Arrogant much?

    Tell me J-Mac, what do you do for a living?

  15. stcordova:

    On the other hand, if a poof was the origin of many species, your insistence on seeing such a miracle with your own eyes would prevent you from seeing the truth.So, I take it, no gap of inference short of a miracle before your eyes would convince you of creation and/or intelligent design.

    No miracle with ones eyes has and will convince anyone of anything if he doesn’t want to be convinced…

    You are a bible believer, right? Why so many people acknowledged Jesus’ miracles and so few followed him? People who acknowledged Jesus’s miracles actually conspired kill him…Why? Didn’t they see the same miracles as the others? So, why would they do that?

  16. J-mac:

    So, why would they do that?

    They don’t like the way God does business. Allan Miller illustrates the sentiment:

    That God is a petty idiot.

    Or someone name Amanda who said:

    The Overconfidence of Modern Day Atheism

    If a hell exists, and by simply rejecting creationism I deserve to go there, then I will HAPPILY go to hell.

    PS
    I think someone who believes in evolution and in Christ can go to heaven. When I became a Christian, I believed in evolution for year or so after becoming a Christian, I accepted OEC for a long time thereafter before becoming a YLC/YEC.

    But Amanda does represent a sentiment I see floating around.

  17. colewd: Monitoring Error Rates In Illumina Sequencing

    You have shown that you can use Google to find the titles of papers with particular words. But have you made any kind of point? No. Nor have you addressed any of the issues you were supposedly responding to.

  18. J-Mac: You are a bible believer, right? Why so many people acknowledged Jesus’ miracles and so few followed him? People who acknowledged Jesus’s miracles actually conspired kill him…Why? Didn’t they see the same miracles as the others? So, why would they do that?

  19. J-Mac: No miracle with ones eyes has and will convinces anyone of anything if he doesn’t want to be convinced…

    Quite so. Evolution, even speciation, can be demonstrated in ways that make it amenable to observation even with our limited lifespans. But of course if you were interested in such data you’d have found it already. It’s not hard to find, nor is it a secret.

    But you are not actually interested in the truth are you J-Mac?

  20. OMagain: Why don’t you learn just the tiniest amount about what you are claiming to be able to demonstrate as wrong? Arrogant much?

    He knows more about evolution than you know about ID, lol.

  21. Having a set of misunderstandings (i.e. how long would I have to be in the sea before I started to evolve fins) about evolution is actually net negative knowledge.

    So even if I knew nothing at all about ID I’d still know more about it (zero) then J-Mac knows about evolution (-1).

    The thing is J-Mac, Mung is laughing at you also. You just don’t realize it yet.

  22. Allan Miller: That doesn’t follow. It could easily be the case, logically, that I am wrong about the Creator and you are wrong about the ‘gaps’.

    🙂

  23. stcordova: So what would persuade you there is a Creator (aka God the Creator) if not a miracle or several miracles before your eyes?

    A miracle isn’t necessarily a creation. And why would miracles point to “God,” and not a wizard or some such thing? We’d simply have to figure things out if we saw miracles, which we don’t.

    If no amount of miracles would persuade you, then no amount gaps which I demonstrate in the biological world would persuade you.

    “Gaps” shouldn’t persuade anybody at all. You just won’t deal properly with these things, you won’t show real miracles, and your “gaps” are just unknowns (if that). Stuffing your favorite mental creation into the gap is just so much nonsense. Your “epistemology” is nothing but you trying very hard to believe what has no meaningful evidence for it at all.

    I respect that, but I’m only point out, you’ve then adopted an epistemology that will give you the wrong answer about truth if indeed there is a Creator.

    You really have a false dilemma here. We’re waiting for evidence for your claims, and all you do is babble on about “gaps” in the only model that actually has evidence, and call that “creation” and “miracles.” There is nothing sound about your approach at all.

    The weird thing is that you swallowed the nonsense of ID early on, the fallacy that ID is some sort of “default,” and nothing seems able to shake your belief in it. Defaults don’t exist in science or in judicial matters, they are simply the results of bias.

    Glen Davidson

  24. OMagain: The thing is J-Mac, Mung is laughing at you also. You just don’t realize it yet.

    Actually, no. I am not laughing at J-Mac.

    If he’s wrong about something there are far better ways to convince him of it than the methods you and your co-scoffers here at TSZ employ.

  25. stcordova: But as Darwin wrote in Origin of Species, the Creator could still use evolution.

    I call BS on this. Darwin never wrote any such thing.

  26. Mung: Actually, no. I am not laughing at J-Mac.

    If he’s wrong about something there are far better ways to convince him of it than the methods you and your co-scoffers here at TSZ employ.

    I think OMGagain is running out of arguments…not that he ever had any…lol

  27. stcordova: Under the hypothesis there is a Creator, it seems far more reasonable to assert special creation than evolution.

    More nonsense. You may as well say that every organism is specially created by God. And whatever happened to genetic entropy? Is it a myth?

  28. John Harshman,

    You have shown that you can use Google to find the titles of papers with particular words. But have you made any kind of point? No. Nor have you addressed any of the issues you were supposedly responding to.

    From another paper trying to improve error rates. How can you accurately measure 100 (1 error per 30000000)mutations per generation with equipment that ranges 1 error per 1000 nucleotides to 1 error in 100000 nucleotides?

    A major limitation of high-throughput DNA sequencing is the high rate of erroneous base calls produced. For instance, Illumina sequencing machines produce errors at a rate of ∼0.1–1 × 10−2 per base sequenced. These technologies typically produce billions of base calls per experiment, translating to millions of errors. We have developed a unique library preparation strategy, “circle se- quencing,” which allows for robust downstream computational correction of these errors. In this strategy, DNA templates are circularized, copied multiple times in tandem with a rolling circle polymerase, and then sequenced on any high-throughput se- quencing machine. Each read produced is computationally pro- cessed to obtain a consensus sequence of all linked copies of the original molecule. Physically linking the copies ensures that each copy is independently derived from the original molecule and allows for efficient formation of consensus sequences. The circle- sequencing protocol precedes standard library preparations and is therefore suitable for a broad range of sequencing applica- tions. We tested our method using the Illumina MiSeq platform and obtained errors in our processed sequencing reads at a rate as low as 7.6 × 10−6 per base sequenced, dramatically improving the error rate of Illumina sequencing and putting error on par with low-throughput, but highly accurate, Sanger sequencing. Circle sequencing also had substantially higher efficiency and lower cost than existing barcode-based schemes for correcting sequencing errors.

  29. Allan Miller: 1 instance of special creation would not invalidate evolution, any more than 1 J-Mac-satisfying example of evolution in the lab would invalidate special creation. Either, both or neither could be present in the history of life. What people are doing, badly, is trying to falsify something in a rather peculiar way, and then saying that, having eliminated A, all that’s left is B. Yet the B in your case is Creation; in J-Mac’s some kind of Force, in others occasional tinkering … well, whatever, first, eliminate your A, for which you need to prove the negative.

    Well said.

  30. Corneel: I know you feel more comfortable criticising others, but I’d like to learn what makes you tick.

    Aren’t you concerned about what happens when he stops ticking?

  31. stcordova,

    I also find the question of C14 and other YLC/YEC friendly anomalies compelling. They become more compelling every day.

    And yet you simply brush aside the issue of where all the carbon atoms in limestone come from. Brown’s answer makes no chemical sense.

    Like a lot of people, I’m curious to test the limits of what evidence is available.

    Honestly, I don’t see the analogy with the excitement of betting at all. The more stuff you shove under the carpet, the more fun it is? Is it the risk of being found out?

    I’m pretty risk-tolerant, as it goes. I left a steady job to form my own company; I self-invest rather than leave it managed; I stick my neck out over some aspects of evolution at the risk of chastisement by the mainstream; I get up on stage and run the risk of making a complete tit of myself in public. Grovelling to deities just ain’t in my nature. Anyone wants to judge me, they can go to hell! One of the reasons I left my job was a hatred of appraisals …

    So, I’m more than happy to take the risk that some fucknut is going to stick a fork in me for getting it wrong on YEC. Bring it on!

  32. J-Mac,

    Me: It would make for greater readability.

    J-Mac: It doesn’t always work….

    I know, you need to work on your content too, but it’s a start.

  33. stcordova,

    Sal: They don’t like the way God does business. Allan Miller illustrates the sentiment:

    Me: That God is a petty idiot.

    Nuh-uh. That God. The God you are peddling; the one that would punish me for all eternity for an honest evaluation of the evidence. Are you sure that’s the way he does business? Based on what?

  34. colewd: From another paper trying to improve error rates. How can you accurately measure 100 (1 error per 30000000)mutations per generation with equipment that ranges 1 error per 1000 nucleotides to 1 error in 100000 nucleotides?

    That’s simple enough: you cover the same sequence many times. As is the standard practice. I will also point out that other estimates of mutation rate come up with similar numbers. This is all many orders of magnitude better evidence than the evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. And yet you believe the one but reject the other.

  35. Allan Miller:
    J-Mac,

    I know, you need to work on your content too, but it’s a start.

    I think you got my comment out context…I was referring to “Quote in reply” not working on my side… Can you see it?

  36. J-Mac: I think you got my comment out context…

    Yes, those three periods to end a sentence do look weird.

    I was referring to “Quote in reply” not working on my side…

    It is working fine here.

    Can you see it?

    Yes, I see that you don’t know how to do it.

    For this reply, I used “Quote in reply”. That put everything from you into a single block.

    I didn’t want a single block. So, at the end of your first sentence, I inserted
    </blockquote>
    to terminate that block. Then I added my comment. And finally, I inserted
    <blockquote>
    to start the next block. And, after your second sentence, I did the same insertions. It works pretty well.

  37. stcordova: They don’t like the way God does business.Allan Miller illustrates the sentiment:

    Or someone name Amanda who said:
    https://shadowtolight.wordpress.com/2017/08/14/the-overconfidence-of-modern-day-atheism/#comment-19596

    PS
    I think someone who believes in evolution and in Christ can go to heaven.When I became a Christian, I believed in evolution for year or so after becoming a Christian, I accepted OEC for a long time thereafter before becoming a YLC/YEC.

    But Amanda does represent a sentiment I see floating around.

    For the record, I don’t believe in hell as the everlasting place of torment…It doesn’t make sense for many reasons…
    So, I do sympathize with Amanda on that point only…

    I have already done and OP on a similar subject:

    What is consciousness? The soul vs the quantum state of particles in human brain

    and I’m working on doing an OP on a theme that will touch on the dogma of hell…I just need more info on that…

  38. Neil Rickert: Yes, those three periods to end a sentence do look weird.

    It is working fine here.

    Yes, I see that you don’t know how to do it.

    For this reply, I used “Quote in reply”.That put everything from you into a single block.

    I didn’t want a single block.So, at the end of your first sentence, I inserted
    </blockquote>
    to terminate that block.Then I added my comment.And finally, I inserted
    <blockquote>
    to start the next block.And, after your second sentence, I did the same insertions.It works pretty well.

    Thanks! I wasn’t quoting and I couldn’t bother doing html… I know html… at least basic…which is more than enough here…

  39. J-Mac: Thanks! I wasn’t quoting and I couldn’t bother doing html… I know html… at least basic…which is more than enough here…

    The available evidence suggests otherwise.

  40. J-Mac: and I’m working on doing an OP on a theme that will touch on the dogma of hell…I just need more info on that…

    And where will you be getting that “more information”? The bible does not talk much, arguably at all about Hell. So where are you getting your current information and where will you be getting this “more” information?

    Going to sit in a cardboard pyramid and hope for divine inspiration?

  41. Allan Miller: Based on what?

    You couldn’t even pass the “name the animals” test. No way are you getting into heaven with the poor and downtrodden.

  42. Mung,

    You couldn’t even pass the “name the animals” test. No way are you getting into heaven with the poor and downtrodden.

    I wouldn’t join a club that would have me as a member. The theists can all sit on their clouds and laugh at the tortured. Maybe they’ll give you first dibs with the toasting fork. 🙂

  43. J-Mac,

    I think you got my comment out context

    No, I got it. I feigned misunderstanding for humorous purposes. A lot of what I say is tongue in cheek. Like the Yoda thing.

Leave a Reply