Evolution falsified

[npetreley]

Some fascinating discussions are taking place on another board. Apologies if this has already been posted somewhere, or if it is considered to be in poor taste to post URLs to another board.


Random mutation falsified:

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000053.html


Natural selection falsified:

http://www.evcforum.net/ubb/Forum5/HTML/000051.html


Many thanks to Ben for providing these links.

 

[Dark Jedi]

I see the site. It looks like the creationists aren't faring very well.

Gather your evidence and put it forth! Help your bretheren.

 

[armageddonman]

Originally posted by npetreley

Random mutation falsified:


Natural selection falsified:

 

You should read the following postings. Nothing has been falsified.

 

[chickenman]

hahah, you obviously didn't read the whole thing npeterly, peter borger's falsification has been demolished. He hasn't been able to show that mutation is non-random, he hasn't been able to propose a mechanism for said non-random mutation, and he certainly hasn't falsified selection with any of his examples. Its all merely wishful thinking on his part, coupled with some ridiculous interpretations.

 

[Ben Reid]

Originally posted by chickenman
hahah, you obviously didn't read the whole thing npeterly, peter borger's falsification has been demolished. He hasn't been able to show that mutation is non-random, he hasn't been able to propose a mechanism for said non-random mutation, and he certainly hasn't falsified selection with any of his examples. Its all merely wishful thinking on his part, coupled with some ridiculous interpretations.

That's funny. I thought the exact opposite. I guess different people interpret things differently ...

Let me ask you the following questions:

1) What do you think P Borger's arguments against NDT are?

2) Why do you think these arguments are or are not a problem to NDT?

p.s. Scarlatti, Jerry, Brim et al, yes, I'm not reneging, I am going on a sabbatical, just got sucked into one more thread

 

[chickenman]

his arguments are that because he has seen aproximately 50 bases of a strange gene in drosophila about which we actually know nothing - and because some of these bases appear to be mutational hotspots, and becuase he is assuming that there is no selection pressure on the sequence - that random mutation has been falsified, and that some mysterious protein mediated mechanism (unknown, never described, yet which he is certain must exist) is causing directed mutations. Naturally, the more educated members on that board reject the idea that his interpretation of a certain article falsifies anything, and have tried to explain to peter borger why hotspots do not falsify random mutation.

The other thread is his assumptions about a number of (alledgedly) redundant traits/genes, which he claims falsify natural selection - he completely ignores neutral theory, and makes a number of assumptions regarding the traits. Falsifications do not rest on assumptions

they aren't a problem for NDT because they do not falsify random mutation and selection, like borger claims they do.

 

[chickenman]

borgers falsification of random mutation falsified;

Large Number of Replacement Polymorphisms in Rapidly Evolving Genes of Drosophila: Implications for Genome-Wide Surveys of DNA Polymorphism

Karl J. Schmida,c, Loredana Nigrob, Charles F. Aquadroc, and Diethard Tautz1,a


No evidence for a higher mutation rate:
It has been suggested that mutation rates may be variable in the genome of Drosophila. Interspecific DNA-DNA hybridization revealed a substantial fraction of single-copy DNA in the Drosophila genome that evolves rapidly (WERMAN et al. 1990 ). Sequencing of a boundary of fast and slowly evolving genomic regions led to the notion that the differences are not due to selection but to different mutation rates (MARTIN and MEYEROWITZ 1986 ). However, a high mutation rate is not supported as a plausible explanation for the rapid sequence divergence at the loci surveyed in this study. A high mutation rate should also affect silent sites of a locus and, consequently, a high silent substitution rate (in the absence of codon usage bias, which is the case at all three loci) would be expected. Compared to the silent divergence between D. melanogaster and D. simulans in the genes surveyed by MORIYAMA and POWELL 1996 , no larger numbers of silent substitutions per site are observed in interspecific comparisons of the three loci in this study (Table 7). Additionally, in our earlier screen (SCHMID and TAUTZ1997 ), 18 pairs of homologous sequences (including the three loci of this study) were compared between D. melanogaster and D. yakuba. Among all genes, the numbers of synonymous substitutions per site varied only 4- fold, while the numbers for replacement substitutions varied 30-fold. Since the number of silent substitutions per site is similar among all genes and is not correlated with the number of nonsynonymous substitutions, it is unlikely that the rapid evolution of these genes is driven by a high locus-specific mutation rate.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Call me when this "falsification" gets published in "Science" or "Nature".

Nick, have you sent this to the Nobel prize committee yet?

 

[euphoric]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Call me when this "falsification" gets published in "Science" or "Nature".

Nick, have you sent this to the Nobel prize committee yet?

You have it all wrong.  Nick can't send his damning evidence for the falsification of evolutionary theory to scientific journals.  The God-Hating Scientist Conspiracy will find out about it and he'll have to be on the run for the rest of his life.  In fact they may be monitoring this forum.  I really can't say anymore...

-brett

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
Falsifications do not rest on assumptions

What? You mean you can't falsify intelligent design by pointing to what you ASSUME is a pseudogene and ASSUMING an intelligent creator wouldn't create it?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by LiveFreeOrDie
Nick, have you sent this to the Nobel prize committee yet?

Wow - have you considered publishing this brilliant defense of NDT?

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

Originally posted by npetreley


Wow - have you considered publishing this brilliant defense of NDT?

What defense? Reading comprehension problems again, Nick?

 

[choccy]

What? You mean you can't falsify intelligent design by pointing to what you ASSUME is a pseudogene and ASSUMING an intelligent creator wouldn't create it?

Isn't that what we've been saying all along? ID is unfalsifyable and therefore not a scientific theory.

What we have been claiming though (if you're even remotely interested) is that evolution explains the evidence a lot better than ID.

Choccy

 

[chickenman]

no, npeterly, it is a pseudogene, we don't need to assume it is.

If it is a pseudogene then its more reasonable to assume it has no function than to assume it does - for numerous reasons which I have explained to you on past occaisions

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
no, npeterly, it is a pseudogene, we don't need to assume it is.

If it is a pseudogene then its more reasonable to assume it has no function than to assume it does - for numerous reasons which I have explained to you on past occaisions

I disagree with your conclusions, but let's let that pass for now. You're still ASSUMING that a creator wouldn't design it that way. And since falsifications cannot rest on assumptions, that's not science.

 

[WinAce]

You're still ASSUMING that the creator wouldn't design the world to be flat but look round, though. So round-earthism isn't science.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by WinAce
You're still ASSUMING that the creator wouldn't design the world to be flat but look round, though. So round-earthism isn't science.

With logic like that, I think I can assume "WinAce" means you're a Windows programmer.

 

[chickenman]

no npeterly, i'm assuming an intelligent creator wouldn't create it that way. The reason I feel that way is because in order for it to be designed it must have some function, it clearly doesn't function as urate oxidase - so if its intelligently designed, it must have a new function. Until a new function is discovered, it remains functionless (its inarguably the most logical position to take), and therefore - not designed.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by chickenman
no npeterly, i'm assuming an intelligent creator wouldn't create it that way.

Big deal. As the guy said, you can'f falsify things with assumptions - it ain't science.

 

[chickenman]

i'm not falsifying anything npeterly, i'm actually supporting the current scientific paradigm in biology - its backed up by reams of other evidence. Borger, on the other hand - seems to think his assumptions and interpretations will overthrow that paradigm.