Evolution falsified by genetics?

[PhantomLlama]

I actually believe evolution on the grand scale that most evolutionists propose has been falsified by dna and genetics

This was posted in the Creationism vs God thread. Not wanting to drag that thread off topic I started this thread to find out about this.

In what way has evolution been falsified by genetics? I thought that genetics was useful for evolution by discovering the shared heratige of things like whales and gorillas rather than whales being more similar to fish, and other similar things. Now I hear that it falsifies evolution. I would like to hear from creationists how.

 

[ardipithecus]

The claim that creationist is making is outright false.

 

[lucaspa]

2nd March 2003 at 04:26 PM PhantomLlama said this in Post #1 

I thought that genetics was useful for evolution by discovering the shared heratige of things like whales and gorillas rather than whales being more similar to fish, and other similar things. Now I hear that it falsifies evolution. I would like to hear from creationists how.

I also would like to hear from creationists how they think genetics falsifies evolution.

Historically, Mendelian genetics saved natural selection, of course. Natural selection doesn't work under the 'blended characteristics' theory of inheritance that was current in Darwin's time.  It wasn't until the 1930s that biologists truly realized that Mendelian genetics and genes fit together with natural selection like a hand in a glove or key in lock. 

Not to mention that papers come out every day indentifying the changes in genes that correspond to the morphological changes, like the "evolution of feathers" thread.

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

 

[S Walch]

Today at 05:44 PM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #4 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=689898#post689898)

That picture explains it all methinks

Anyway - Genetics can't prove it, nor can they falsify it.

I'd like to see someone post all the reasons that prove evolution is true, and to post all the reasons that prove it is false - for as far as my knowledge goes, there are non.

 

[Arikay]

If you look back a bit, there are 5 (maybe more) great posts about evolution in the "evidence for evolution" thread.

There have been two "evidence for creationism" threads that got no evidence, and a "falsify evolution" thread that had no falsifacation. So, so far, I dont think they exist.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:44 PM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #4

In the "x", which appears to be between H. erectus and H. sapiens, put Brunei man, the Broken Hill skull, Omo-1 and Omo-2 fossils, all the fossils of primitive H. sapiens at Shkul, Petraloma, Swanscombe, and several others.  The "x" exists only in an Argument from Ignorance.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:56 PM S Walch said this in Post #5

Anyway - Genetics can't prove it, nor can they falsify it.

I'd like to see someone post all the reasons that prove evolution is true, and to post all the reasons that prove it is false - for as far as my knowledge goes, there are non.

Genetics could have falsified evolution.  A couple of ways. First, every species could have had a different genetic code. That would have falsified evolution. Second, phylogenetics could have falsified evolution by showing that genes were an independent observation and finding a genetic definition of "kind". 

However, in each case genetics instead falsified creationism.  And supported evolution. Now, practically ever day a new paper comes out showing the exact genetic changes that cause the morphologies we see.

Today I see in the latest The Scientist that evolution is designing better adeno-associated virus for gene therapy.  What has creationism done lately?  Or at all?

I agree that there is no evidence falsifying evolution. 

 

[OLDoMiNiON]

In the "x", which appears to be between H. erectus and H. sapiens, put Brunei man, the Broken Hill skull, Omo-1 and Omo-2 fossils, all the fossils of primitive H. sapiens at Shkul, Petraloma, Swanscombe, and several others. The "x" exists only in an Argument from Ignorance.

..what would stop a scientist, determind to prove evolution, from just making these findings up? It's been done before!

 

[S Walch]

Today at 12:36 AM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=690699#post690699)

..what would stop a scientist, determind to prove evolution, from just making these findings up? It's been done before!

I, tis true.

 

[troodon]

Today at 04:36 PM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #9

..what would stop a scientist, determind to prove evolution, from just making these findings up? It's been done before!

So any finds linking extinct hominids to man are fraudulent?

 

[David Gould]

Today at 11:36 AM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #9

..what would stop a scientist, determind to prove evolution, from just making these findings up? It's been done before!

Many other scientists, all competing for jobs and grant money, will review the findings.

Thus, unless you are accusing the entire scientific establishment of being members of a vast conspiracy, a conspiracy to which they are fanatically loyal, fraud gets found out. And when you get caught committing fraud as a scientist your career is over. 

 

[Arikay]

none. but the same could be said for a creationist.

However, because there is more than one scientist working on advancing biology and genetics, etc. And there isnt a big giant conspiracy. Someone would find the evidence to be false and make the corrections.
A couple examples of this, are the human foot prints found along side dino foot prints in texas. Or the skeleton found in the 1930's (I cant remember what it was called) that was then proven to be false in the 1950's.

However, a single piece of evidence wont completly prove evolution, so it makes no sense for a scientist to try to fact evidence for evolution.
It does make sense for a scientist to fake evidence for fame. However, if it was later found that they purposly faked the evidence, their scientific career would go down the drain very fast.

Today at 04:36 PM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #9 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=690699#post690699)

..what would stop a scientist, determind to prove evolution, from just making these findings up? It's been done before!

 

[David Gould]

Today at 11:36 AM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #9

..what would stop a scientist, determind to prove evolution, from just making these findings up? It's been done before!

Name and provide references to a similar fraud that has been perpetrated in the last 30 years in paleontology.

I can think of the Cold Fusion fraud (1991 i think), which was uncovered within a year, and that physicist who was caught earlier this year.

I cannot think of any relatively recent ones in paleontology.




 

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Today at 12:59 AM David Gould said this in Post #14

Name and provide references to a similar fraud that has been perpetrated in the last 30 years in paleontology.

I can think of the Cold Fusion fraud (1991 i think), which was uncovered within a year, and that physicist who was caught earlier this year.

I cannot think of any relatively recent ones in paleontology.




 

Well there was the archeoraptor or whatever it was called but that was caught before it was published in a peer reviewed journal.

I spent some time investigating cold fusion for a journal club I was in at the time. In my opinion it was not really a fraud as such. The authors believed their conclusions were right but were greatly over interpreting their results and maybe fudged some of the data a little by throwing out "outliers" and may have had some contamination problems IIRC.  Polywater was the result of similar blunders in the 60's. These things seem to eventually get caught by other scientists trying to repeat the results.  That is one purpose of publication and peer review.

Best Regards

Frumious Bandersnatch

 

[David Gould]

Today at 12:15 PM Frumious Bandersnatch said this in Post #15

Well there was the archeoraptor or whatever it was called but that was caught before it was published in a peer reviewed journal.

I spent some time investigating cold fusion for a journal club I was in at the time. In my opinion it was not really a fraud as such. The authors believed their conclusions were right but were greatly over interpreting their results and maybe fudged some of the data a little by throwing out "outliers" and may have had some contamination problems IIRC.  Polywater was the result of similar blunders in the 60's. These things seem to eventually get caught by other scientists trying to repeat the results.  That is one purpose of publication and peer review.

Best Regards

Frumious Bandersnatch

Hmm. The official investigation of the cold fusion affair was not as generous as you ...

 

[Eddie]

Answer: nothing.

Naturally this begs the issue of "why"?  You, clearly, confuse the persuit of science with religious belief.  Naturally, too, there are examples of scientists that lie but science utilizes peer review and replication to filter out the bad and pass the good.  If you are suggesting a massive conspiracy it is too silly to even respond to.  The point is this: if there is bad science, refute it then we can all learn.  If facts interfere with your beliefs you might reexamine your beliefs rather than write calumny about hard working professionals.  Not very christian old chap.

 

 

Today at 07:36 PM OLDoMiNiON said this in Post #9

..what would stop a scientist, determind to prove evolution, from just making these findings up? It's been done before!

 

[caley]

Is evolution falsifiable? It seems tautological to me (so does creation).

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Hmm. The official investigation of the cold fusion affair was not as generous as you ...

Maybe so. I actually did my "investigation" before the official investigation and before the official refutations of cold fusion were published. IIRC some people were finding heat but no neutrons and others neutrons with no heat so I figured the whole thing was probably bogus. I don't understand how anyone could think they could get away with this type of fraud (if it was fraud and maybe it was) for long enough to do any good in an area that was bound to be so high profile.  They were sure to get found out soon and they did.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 05:32 PM caley said this in Post #18 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=690850#post690850)

Is evolution falsifiable? It seems tautological to me (so does creation).

Evolution as in things changing over time? That is pretty much set in stone as any thing can get in science (about a 99.999% confidence). Even most creationists have to agree, they tend to call it "micro-evolution" though.

As in common ancestry of humans and apes? Sure that would be easy.

Find modern human fossils in rock layers older that 3 million years old. That shouldn't be too hard.

If you found a human or a horse or a rhino or just about any modern mammal fossil mixed in with the dinosaur fossils it would seriously call common descent into question.

The problem for creationists is that we don't find any.