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!
I feign misunderstanding to cover up my actual misunderstanding!
Mung,
Chortle!
John Harshman,
Averaging and other techniques account for the range. The low end of the range is the base accuracy of the system, the higher end of the range is using statistical techniques to improve accuracy. The best case does not get close enough to establish a mutation rate. There is no independent direct supporting evidence for the mutation rate that supports evolution.
The DNA repair mechanism at 10^-9 accuracy is averaged also with multiple passes. This makes skepticism of any real mutation rate a rational opinion.
The other techniques use common descent and as an a priori assumption.
How extensively have you studied the historical evidence for the resurrection?
colewd,
Here is an excellent opportunity to tell us what the mutation rate needs to be to support evolution.
colewd,
Sorry, that seems to have been word salad. I don’t know what you said, and I doubt you do either.
One technique assumes humans are related to chimps. Do you refuse to accept that assumption? If so, why? Another technique just counts the number of replications in a generation and takes into account the known efficiencies of replication and repair enzymes, so no common descent assumption there. And of course there are all sorts of estimates from humans and other species of rates for particular mutations.
There is no historical evidence for the resurrection, just some stories written long after the supposed event by people who wouldn’t have been there. Are you really trying to compare that with the evidence for human mutation?
It isn’t working.
Wouldn’t that be something that could be found within evolutionary theory itself?
Seems rather important to the theory.
John Harshman,
Now I understand that word salad sometimes means words and concepts you do not understand. Let me try again.
The high speed DNA sampling process has errors in it that are quite high or about 1 error per 1000 nucleotides. Averaging is a statistical technique but there are other statistical techniques that are used to try to improve accuracy. Some claim improvements of 100x using averaging and other statistical techniques. This number falls dramatically short of being able to accurately measure mutation rates.
An assumption that needs to be supported.
An assumption that looks at single pass accuracy only which is contrary to current evidence.
An assertion that needs support especially given this is not your area of expertise.
He studies birds. In the books and papers on birds he’s seen no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. In looking at actual birds and pictures of birds he’s seen no evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. therefore, there’s no evidence of the resurrection of Jesus.
Based upon his study of birds, John disbelieves a great many historical matters. 🙂
colewd,
You seem to have avoided clarifying anything at all. What is “averaging”? The usual way to correct sequence errors is to do many independent sequencings of the same site. If there’s an error rate of 1/1000, you should get the correct base all but one of those times, at worst, and it’s just a matter of picking the one that isn’t the exception.
I ask this again: Do you not accept that humans are related to chimps? If not, why?
What do you mean by “single pass accuracy” in this connection?
Is the historical evidence for the resurrection your area of expertise? Do you in fact believe that the evidence for resurrection is stronger than the evidence for mutation rates and/or a human-chimp relationship?
Second time around this simple concept goes over Billy’s head, amusing
He might only stop ticking when he follows through with his experiment and tries to breathe underwater.
Bill, in sequencing you effectively sequence the same piece of DNA many times. To prepare a sample for sequencing, you usually have a protocol that involves PCR to amplify the souce DNA many many times. You can easily end up with trillions of copies of DNA (in normal PCR at least).
So even if there is a 1 in 1000 error rate in the reading, the fact that you read an identical piece of DNA ten thousand times means the error will disappear in the signal of correct reads. Because for every 1 incorrect read, there will be 1000 correct reads so you’ll end up with a mixed signal for each base. But in that mix of signals, one will be at least 250 times stronger than the other(s) (there are four possible reads as there are four bases of course).
Assuming the amplification and sequencing protocal all went according to plan (it some times doesn’t, but then it is pretty easy to see too), it is easy to separate two signals when one is >250 times stronger than another. It usually looks like this in most sequencer software:
Mung,
Mutation rates vary enormously. I would say any mutation rate can ‘support evolution’ except zero [eta – and ‘massive’, as I can hear someone flexing their ‘gotcha-fingers’!]. Bill is categorically saying ‘it’s too low’, so he must have some idea what ‘high enough’ would be. So enough with the burden shift, already.
Yes I’d be interested in seeing Bill’s work here with a concrete example.
The mutation rate is too low for evolution to accomplish X, because in order to accomplish X it would have to be >n (Bill gives calculation), but it is <n (Bill gives reference).
Let's have a look at how that conclusion was arrived at.
Mutation rates can never be high enough in Bill’s world, dontcha know the search space is so large (almost infinite!) that it’s virtually impossible to stumble upon beneficial mutations?
Maybe it would be fast enough for Bill if it erased the evidence of common descent from all but the most recently divergent groups.
Then the complaint would be that there’s no genetic evidence of common descent except in closely-related organisms.
What matters is that something can be pressed into service for denying the possibility of evolution.
Glen Davidson
Looks like J-Mac has bailed on the “falsifying evolution” idea and moved on to his next Creationist brain fart.
A quibble: Bill was talking about Illumina sequencing, which is not generally preceded by PCR. But of course you can estimate the mutation rate by sampling a small portion of the genome with PCR and Sanger sequencing.
John Harshman,
You improve the accuracy with this technique. How much? Sequencing the human genome is 3.2 billion base pairs.
I see more evidence against this claim then for it. You need a reasonable explanation for de novo genes, proteins and alternative splicing differences.
It is not my area of expertise at all. This is a difficult question because in one case we can look a molecular data and the other is historical data. I think the evidence for the resurrection is stronger then you do.
I think there is common DNA sequences between humans and chimps with certain cases only a few differences however there are de novo genes, proteins, and different splicing sequences that are hard to explain with variation coming solely from reproduction.
colewd,
Whole genome sequencing is being used to track mutations in Mycobacterium tuberculosis. You might like to get onto them and tell them they are wasting their time.
Allan Miller,
;
The accuracy of the equipment may be fine for this application.
Jesus did it, but a few thousand years later died and was resurrected, is just so much more sensible isn’t it?
Glen Davidson
colewd,
How convenient. Can you quantify that?
Isn’t it obvious?
Allan Miller,
If the paper was not paywalled I would look at it. I know you understand a bacterial genome is smaller then a human genome and that mutations they are tracking are probably in a targeted area.
Please make your arguments with apples and not with oranges 🙂
Wouldn’t that be something that could be found within evolutionary theory itself?
Seems rather important to the theory.
This is your last chance to propose ideas on how to falsify the theory of evolution!!!
No more distractions!!!
It’s not hard, just find out that life isn’t slavishly derivative of ancestral genetic information, with some exceptions such as HGT.
Except that it is.
Not a problem, you know, it’s “falsifiable,” it just passes the test.
Glen Davidson?
This is very simple. Find proof of design in biology. How’s that going?
Jeez! Just find a precambrian rabbit, dude!
How is this guy not Joe G?
J-Mac:
J-Mac, dear, it’s very important that you take your medications on time.
Why not do the math? Let’s assume your number of 1 error in 1000 bases, and let’s suppose the error could be any 3 of the other bases. So if you do it twice, and you get the same base twice at some site, the probability that was an error is 1 in 9 million. Do it three times and get the same base each time, the probability is 1 in 27 billion. In actual sequencing, coverage tends to be around 10x. Would you consider that good enough, or do you need more math?
And, again, what is “averaging”?
Really? You see more than 3 billion bits of evidence against common descent? And what de novo genes and proteins do you see? Name them. Do they in fact have no homologs between human and chimp? What alternative splicing? Very few genes have alternative forms that have been shown to have functions, and splicing errors are common.
We agree on your first and last sentences. Together they suggest you are no more qualified than I am to determine the strength of that evidence. And you clearly display a bias against evolutionary relationships and in favor of resurrection. Would you agree that there’s a possibility that might be coloring your judgments?
That sounds like something someone told you and that you have never actually looked at. Am I right? A quick google finds this easy reference, which should inform you that most of the supposed genes are probably non-functional, but that all of them have homologs in non-translated sequences in chimps.
Even some not particularly bright high schooler could answer that question.
If the error rate is 1/1000, the probability of having 2 errors in the same nucleotide on two passes is 1/1million. 3 passes, 1/1billion, 4 passes 1/1trillion… etc
A binomial distribution can tell you how likely it would be to get an error on 1 or more nucleotides after N passes. It’s not rocket science
If evolutionists were able to provide more than ambitious speculations equal to fairly-tales, we wouldn’t have this conversation about whether there is design in biology or not, would we? The burden of proof wouldn’t be on ID, if evolution were falsified, would it?
No precambrian rabbit will ever convince anyone who doesn’t want to be convinced!
You don’t even know what “falsified” means, do you?
Glen Davidson
There is a trick to it keiths…When you take your medications regularly, you are more less likely to have delusions and accuse others of having delusions…
Who knows…it might help you write something worth reading one day…
On the other hand…
It’s exactly the opposite. We have to put up with all this ID nonsense because evolution provides the explanations that debunked creationism, which in turn needed to be relabeled as ID, only that it lost all explanatory power in the process
Of course it would, just because you think ID is the default position it doesn’t mean it is. ID is not even a position anyway. ID is not even ambiguous, it doesn’t even begin to explain anything
The burden of proof is upon whatever positive claim is made about events that have occurred.
That’s true for a murder, evolution, the resurrection, and ID/creationism.
Anyone who cares about justice or truth recognizes the need to support the claim that something has happened. Clearly not J-Mac or the rest of the IDists/creationists here.
Glen Davidson
So…falsifying evolution should be a piece of cake shouldn’t? While refuting ID at the same time…Unfortunately as you said…it seems safer leaving the evolution to explanations that debunk creationism rather than doing the experiments that may, or may not prove, the explanations…Seems evolutionists don’t want to take the risk to prove their so-called science…Now I know why…
The two don’t go together!
Don’t you know anything about anything?
Glen Davidson
colewd,
Don’t be ridiculous. You extend arguments on humans and your favourite organism the chimp to apply to the entirety of evolution; no-one gives you that apples-and-orang-utans shit.
If WGS is not an appropriate method, it’s not an appropriate method for any organism with DNA. If it can accurately find the number of mutations in a genome x bases long, it can accurately find the number of mutations in a genome nx bases long, or n genomes x bases long. There may be an error rate in each x, but unless it’s a systematic over- or under-, there is no reason to suppose that the method gives a systematically wrong answer at the end. The tuberculosis organism’s genome is certainly more than 1000 bases long.
Anyway, here’s a non-paywalled paper anticipating many goodies from WGS. They don’t know as much about it as you, of course, so they really needed to get you as reviewer.
Of course… but every piece of evidence collected supports evolution. What are the odds?
No, ID is irrefutable, because it’s devoid of explanatory content. ID is NOT EVEN WRONG. (and no, that’s not a good thing)
Evolution debunks creationism because they’re incompatible explanations, and the evidence supports evolution. The fact that you’re unaware of this is your problem and no one else’s
Is not.
J-Mac,
It would be a lot easier if it weren’t true. The difference between not falsifiable and not falsified. You would have a hard time falsifying the hypothesis that I am currently sitting somewhere on Planet Earth. It is falsifiable, but (you’ll have to trust me on this occasion) not false.
Allan Miller,
Can you repost the link. For some reason it didn’t work. Thanks.
Blah, blah, blah… you repeat the same thing over and over …and resist falsification of your beliefs… What are you afraid of?
I don’t do that. You don’t understand what explanatory power, evidence,
or falsification means. Again, that’s your problem and no one else’s