Evolution true or false?

[Ondoher]

If there are animals that aren't the result of evolution, then surely there can't be evidence to falsify evolution?

The trait in question: an implanted scaffolding and subsequent cartilage growth is not a heritable trait. No more than an amputated leg, or a tatoo. The mouse itself, minus these modifcations, was the product of evolution.

Any animal that doesn't match the theory could be said to be a nonevolutionary phenomena.

If one species is not the product of evolution, then we have a problem with the theory. If we consistently find that species do not fit within the standard phylogeny, we have a theory that will not hold up.

I have to say that I don't know half of what the terms you are using means. But in answering my question, you say that its possible to find for instance genes for Cytochrome C in banana that are equivalent to ours?

They are functionally equivilent, but genetically quite different. Species that are thought to be more closely related have more similar genes. In fact, the differences in genes can be used to draw family trees that match those drawn with morphological data.

What if a virus carrying the same Cytochrome C injected its code into DNA of both humans and bananas?

Cytochrome C is vital protein used in cellular respiration and is present in all eukaryotes.

We can recognize retroviral genes. In fact, retroviral genes also follow phylogenic patterns and can be used to construct consistent phylogenies: http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/18/10254

 

[Nathan Poe]

That it is not possible to find evidence against something doesn't mean that evidence to support it cannot be found, on the contrary all facts do.

Except it is possible to find evidence against Evolution. Darwin himself spelled out exactly what kind of discoveries would toss his theory out the window.

So it is possible, but it hasn't happened yet.

To disprove creationism, one must disprove God. A scientific impossibility.

 

[ForeRunner]

I have to say that I don't know half of what the terms you are using means. But in answering my question, you say that its possible to find for instance genes for Cytochrome C in banana that are equivalent to ours? What if a virus carrying the same Cytochrome C injected its code into DNA of both humans and bananas?

www.webster.com

 

[HRE]

I have to say that I don't know half of what the terms you are using means. But in answering my question, you say that its possible to find for instance genes for Cytochrome C in banana that are equivalent to ours? What if a virus carrying the same Cytochrome C injected its code into DNA of both humans and bananas?

Genetics Basics

 

[kedaman]

The trait in question: an implanted scaffolding and subsequent cartilage growth is not a heritable trait. No more than an amputated leg, or a tatoo. The mouse itself, minus these modifcations, was the product of evolution.

Let me try again. You proposed that there are animals that are not product of evolution. If I find one anomalious animal or even species, such as genetically modified food, that we know are modified, then have we proof against evolution, if not then how is finding any other anomaly proof against evolution?

They are functionally equivilent, but genetically quite different. Species that are thought to be more closely related have more similar genes. In fact, the differences in genes can be used to draw family trees that match those drawn with morphological data.

I was talking about genetical equivalence.

 

[Karl - Liberal Backslider]

There is a difference between us creating an evolutionarily anomalous creature through genetic modification, importing genes from another species, and what have you, and finding a naturall occuring population of organisms that defy evolutionary explanation.

So a banana that has been buggered around with by a bloke in a white coat, a laboratory, and a human Cyt C gene does not falsify evolution. A population of bananas on an uninhabited island in the Pacific with a human Cyt C gene puts the theory in deep trouble.

Find half a dozen such anomolies and I think the theory's sunk.

 

[Silent Bob]

To disprove creationism, one must disprove God. A scientific impossibility.

To prove it one needs to prove the existance of a particular God as well. Otherwise even if they come up with real evidence there will always be a better explaination than: God did it exactly as Jewish mythology describes it.

All in all creationism is not a science, it has nothing scientific about it.

 

[h2whoa]

What if a virus carrying the same Cytochrome C injected its code into DNA of both humans and bananas?

Yes, when will they find a cure for those poor banana farmers who are cross-contaminated by viruses from their crop? Will the scourge never end???

h2

 

[kedaman]

I withdraw my claim that evolution theory is not falsifiable, I seem to have fallen in the same hole as Popper did Well knowing that there are anomalies, I have to reject it as false though

 

[Tomk80]

I withdraw my claim that evolution theory is not falsifiable, I seem to have fallen in the same hole as Popper did Well knowing that there are anomalies, I have to reject it as false though

Such as? That is the whole point. We know evolution is falsifiable, we just haven't found the falsifications, so the theory stands. Which anomalies are you talking about?

 

[kedaman]

As I have said earlier, there are facts that no scientific theories can explain, including their own inventors.

 

[kingreaper]

Quantum mechanics and Relativity don't work together, you must be wrong somewhere..

Did I mention relativity?

No

I fully accept that both of them could possibly be wrong

In fact I hope that relativity is wrong

Do what? I know that if you say some results are probable but not necessary for a theory then there is no fact that can disprove it.

ERVs= endogenous retroviruses

ERVs produce the exact nested heirarchy that suits common descent, if they were random that would falsify common descent, as the nested heirarchies would no longer match

 

[kingreaper]

We have found a mouse with a human ear, does it violate evolution theory? No.

We didn't find it, we made it

It didn't even have the genes for a human ear

And for the latter, doesn't similarity in genes imply a closer evolutionary link?

Yes

But the nested heirarchy is established in many wayus, and if the genes contradicted the other ways then common descent would be in trouble

 

[kingreaper]

If there are animals that aren't the result of evolution, then surely there can't be evidence to falsify evolution? Any animal that doesn't match the theory could be said to be a nonevolutionary phenomena.

Not if they have the genes for features like a human ear

(please note, this test will probably be destroyed in a few years, once creationists get their hands on genetic engineering technology)

 

[Ondoher]

Let me try again. You proposed that there are animals that are not product of evolution. If I find one anomalious animal or even species, such as genetically modified food, that we know are modified, then have we proof against evolution, if not then how is finding any other anomaly proof against evolution?

I never proposed any animals that were not the product of evolution. Modifying a mouse to grow a human ear shaped bit of cartilage does not keep the mouse from being the product of evolution, any more than does amputating its legs or dressing it up like a pirate.

We know who creates genetically modified species. They are also easy to spot, due to the introduction of borrowed genes. If we started to find species with a genetically modified past, then we'd have an argument for intelligent tinkering, which would falsify evolution. Which was my basic point.

Modern tinkering does not falsify evolution because we know who is doing the tinkering.

I was talking about genetical equivalence.

So was I.

 

[h2whoa]

dressing it up like a pirate.

Great image...

h2

 

[Ondoher]

As I have said earlier, there are facts that no scientific theories can explain, including their own inventors.

Duh. How does not having an explanation for everything refute the explanations we have for some things?

 

[kedaman]

Its valid explanation for those things, not for all things, but i was talking about the people that invented a scientific theory to explain their own origin. They are the anomalies to the theory of evolution.

 

[Ondoher]

Its valid explanation for those things, not for all things, but i was talking about the people that invented a scientific theory to explain their own origin. They are the anomalies to the theory of evolution.

What does that mean? How are people anomalies to evolution? We have an evolutionary history just like every other species.

 

[kedaman]

Because they invented the theory. If there is a scientific explanation for evolution theory, then it cannot be itself, because then it would tautological. Similarly the only emulation of the universe is itself, we will always be the anomaly in any science, because there is no explanation of how we came to know what we know.