Falsifiability

[pitabread]

I have never heard of patents based on evolution. If there are any, I'd like to learn more.

Sure, there are lot out there of them out there. Here are a few:

1. US6280953B1 - Methods to identify polynucleotide and polypeptide sequences which may be associated with physiological and medical conditions - Google Patents
2. US6274319B1 - Methods to identify evolutionarily significant changes in polynucleotide and polypeptide sequences in domesticated plants and animals - Google Patents
3. US8849576B2 - Phylogenetic analysis of mass spectrometry or gene array data for the diagnosis of physiological conditions - Google Patents
4. US20100044031A1 - Method for identification of novel anaerobic denitrifying bacteria utilizing petroleum components as sole carbon source - Google Patents

edited to add:

Also, here is a link to an article which is a little more practical in nature (specifically evolution, genomics, and livestock): Scientists pinpoint gene linked to fat in cow's milk

 

[Ophiolite]

But of course, inferred is not "seen."

I am presently watching the ATP1000 tournament in Rome. I can't see it. All I can see is a two dimensional screen with rapidly alternating light patterns on it, that purports to be a representation of a tennis match occuring several hundred miles away from me. I have never seen Alexander Zverev, yet I infer that his appearance on my screen is close to his "real" appearance. I also infer that he is a real person. These inferences are based on a wealth of experience and observation. If someone told me they doubted that Alexander Zverev existed, or was playing tennis in Rome, just because I thought I was viewing this on a TV, I would doubt their sanity.

Inference is as good as it gets and is often better than things "seen", since the latter are not subject to repeated tests and logical analysis. Forum rules and natural courtesy prohibit me from expressing my views on eye witness evidence. Give me solid inference every time.

Evolution is a lab sounds interesting, but that would not actually fit the theory of natural evolution- actually it's a bit more like creation.

Wrong. The evolution occurs naturally according to theory: natural variation acted upon by natural selection. The only creative act is providing a specific environment in which the organisms can evolve.

If we see evolution in the wild, how do we measure it? I have never seen a valid way to measure evolution.

Then you haven't been looking very closely. You might do it by the quantitative measurement of traits, or by the changes in alleles. What do you find inadequate about either of those approaches?

If we can't agree on units of measurement, then we can't really call this science.

No. If you can't accept current means of measuring evolution then you can't really claim to have a grasp of the science.

Maybe we should call it "The Sublime Art of Evolution- I can't define it, but I know it when I see it".

If you want to be vague, incorrect and irrelevant that would be the way to go. I'll stick with tightly constrained observations and quantitative measurements in preference.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Is there any evidence of this?



Nonsense.

Evolution: Watching Speciation Occur | Observations

Observed Instances of Speciation

Evolution in real time



Why are you are discounting the fossil record, genetic evidence, etc?

What is the genetic evidence for human evolution? - Common-questions

I have just read your link to Evolution in Real Time. It is very interesting. That is exactly what I proposed decades ago only using fruit flies (I'm sentimental about fruit flies.) His method using e Coli is much superior. This is the kind of work that every university should do.

Still, its a puff piece, so it needs to be held to strict scrutiny. We really need to dig deeper and out if there are genetic/genomic changes. Maybe it's the midichloricans!

 

[Jimmy D]

I have just read your link to Evolution in Real Time. It is very interesting. That is exactly what I proposed decades ago only using fruit flies (I'm sentimental about fruit flies.) His method using e Coli is much superior. This is the kind of work that every university should do.

Still, its a puff piece, so it needs to be held to strict scrutiny. We really need to dig deeper and out if there are genetic/genomic changes. Maybe it's the midichloricans!

Click on the links on that page and you will find the scientific papers that the article discusses.

 

[xianghua]

We can't push human evolution that far.

but according to your criteria we can push back human to about 29 my since its still after the first ape (about 30 my). right?

 

[VirOptimus]

but according to your criteria we can push back human to about 29 my since its still after the first ape (about 30 my). right?

No. I suggest a biology 101.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Sure, there are lot out there of them out there. Here are a few:

1. US6280953B1 - Methods to identify polynucleotide and polypeptide sequences which may be associated with physiological and medical conditions - Google Patents
2. US6274319B1 - Methods to identify evolutionarily significant changes in polynucleotide and polypeptide sequences in domesticated plants and animals - Google Patents
3. US8849576B2 - Phylogenetic analysis of mass spectrometry or gene array data for the diagnosis of physiological conditions - Google Patents
4. US20100044031A1 - Method for identification of novel anaerobic denitrifying bacteria utilizing petroleum components as sole carbon source - Google Patents

Thanks, I have read the abstracts to these patents. I am glad people are doing useful things. The first two do not need evolution to work. The third is a computer algorithm that classifies cancer cell according to Phylogenetics (evolutionary theory). A lot of inference there, let's see it works better than other approaches and then find out why. Number 4 patent classifies microbes in oil wells, they throw the evolution-friendly word Phylogenetics around, but they do not seem concerned with evolution. It seems like a buzzword.

Of course, you can use the theory of evolution to classify things. And you can classify them without evolution. It's all inference. Still, you gave me what I asked for. Thanks.

 

[pitabread]

Thanks, I have read the abstracts to these patents. I am glad people are doing useful things. The first two do not need evolution to work.

Those patents are directly based on the theory of evolution. Claiming they don't need evolution to work is a bit silly when they utilize concepts directly derived from said theory.

Number 4 patent classifies microbes in oil wells, they throw the evolution-friendly word Phylogenetics around, but they do not seem concerned with evolution. It seems like a buzzword.

Phylogenetics is the study of evolutionary relationships of organisms. It's hardly a buzzword; read up on the subject to find out more: Phylogenetics - Wikipedia

In the patent in question, it's a direct application of phylogenetics for the identification of organisms.

In fact, there is a lot of such application of phylogenetics most notably in things like pathogen tracking and tracing origins of disease outbreaks.

Of course, you can use the theory of evolution to classify things. And you can classify them without evolution. It's all inference.

Modern classification of organisms tends to be based on evolutionary relationships.

There is also a lot more than mere classification to the theory of evolution. For example, that first patent you casually dismissed utilizes synonymous and non-synonymous substitution ratios (Ka/Ks) to measure selection pressure on respective regions in genomes. And from there, identify regions of genomes that have undergone significant evolutionary changes thereof. This is all directly based on the Theory of Evolution. You won't find anything outside of said theory which describes this: Ka/Ks ratio - Wikipedia

The company in question even has a write up on their web site: Adapted Traits Platform — Evolutionary Genomics

 

[Subduction Zone]

but according to your criteria we can push back human to about 29 my since its still after the first ape (about 30 my). right?

Nope, time for you to take some biology courses. Asking foolish questions, which is what these pointless questions are, shows that you do not want to learn. If you ask proper questions I will answer them. If you ask pointless ones I will tell you to try again.

 

[Kylie]

That is correct Kylie, we are both behaving toward a world we believe is real, one of us has a reason to behave that way, and the other does not. I would like to offer you a reasonable way to go about your life, one where you can live and act consistently.

Are you actually suggesting that I don't have a reason to believe the world is real?

Please.

 

[Kylie]

Here is another passage from Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia

"Research on how life might have emerged from non-living chemicals focuses on three possible starting points: self-replication, an organism's ability to produce offspring that are very similar to itself; metabolism, its ability to feed and repair itself; and external cell membranes, which allow food to enter and waste products to leave, but exclude unwanted substances.[69] Research on abiogenesis still has a long way to go, since theoretical and empirical approaches are only beginning to make contact with each other.[70][71]"

And it makes it very clear that this formation of life is abiogenesis, not evolution.

 

[Kylie]

No direct evidence of abiogenesis, which is a key component of evolution.

No, abiogenesis is a precursor to evolution, not a key component of it.

Biological life of the kind present on earth would evolve regardless of whether it came into being due to abiogenesis or a different method.

 

[Kylie]

I can accept that there is evidence of a common ancestor. That fact is not unique to or necessary for evolution. I mean that abiogenesis could have occurred multiple times, leading to unique ancestors and that result would be fine in evolutionary theory.

But what would we see today if that were the case? Possibly we'd see that some life forms have DNA, and some other life forms have a completely different thing, not using DNA at all.

But when we look, all the life forms we see use DNA. And they use the same set of genes to make proteins. And they are put together in very similar ways. That is very strong evidence that all life forms we know of descended from a single common ancestor.

However, evolution has not been observed occurring, only described as having occurred. My point is that people use faith to connect fact A to fact B (for example apes evolving into men) because we never see the connection in real time. Apes are a fact. Men are a fact. Apes may possibly become men, but we have never observed it. Confidence without seeing is called faith.

Observed Instances of Speciation

And you seem to be under the impression that we must personally observe it before we can know that it happened. This is not true. If there is sufficient evidence to support it, then we can conclude that it is real even if we can't observe it.

 

[Sanoy]

Are you actually suggesting that I don't have a reason to believe the world is real?

Please.

Oh perhaps I am mistaken. What is your reason within the thought experiment.

 

[Kylie]

Oh perhaps I am mistaken. What is your reason within the thought experiment.

I believe the world is real because all evidence available to me indicates that it is and there is no evidence to suggest that it is not real.

 

[Peter J Barban]

But what would we see today if that were the case? Possibly we'd see that some life forms have DNA, and some other life forms have a completely different thing, not using DNA at all.

But when we look, all the life forms we see use DNA. And they use the same set of genes to make proteins. And they are put together in very similar ways. That is very strong evidence that all life forms we know of descended from a single common ancestor.



Observed Instances of Speciation

And you seem to be under the impression that we must personally observe it before we can know that it happened. This is not true. If there is sufficient evidence to support it, then we can conclude that it is real even if we can't observe it.

A common ancestor is one possibility, so is a common creator. At this point, it's impossible to prove one or the other.

I understand the difference between observation and conclusion. My point is always the same; evolution is a belief. The distinctive tenets of evolution such as abiogenesis and common ancestor have not been observed anywhere, at any time, by anyone. Yet it is believed. That's OK, believe if you want. And as a belief, it is nearly unfalsifiable.

Likewise, Atheism is the mirror image of Theism. Both are believers.

 

[Jimmy D]

A common ancestor is one possibility, so is a common creator. At this point, it's impossible to prove one or the other

Please.

There is zero evidence of a "common creator", whatever that means.

There is over a century's worth of conclusive evidence for the TOE from paleontology, molecular biology, anatomy, biogeography, phylogenies, direct observation, medicine, etc, etc, etc. (Not to mention the practical applications you've conveniently forgotten about).

To make the above statement you are either ignorant of the evidence, have been duped by creationist propaganda, or are just lying to yourself.

I understand the difference between observation and conclusion. My point is always the same; evolution is a belief.

See above.

The distinctive tenets of evolution such as abiogenesis and common ancestor have not been observed anywhere, at any time, by anyone. Yet it is believed. That's OK, believe if you want. And as a belief, it is nearly unfalsifiable.

Abiogenesis is not a "tenet of evolution", have you learnt nothing from this thread?

If you are interested in learning about what you're arguing against the four "principles" of evolution would be... variation, inheritance, selection and time.

Likewise, Atheism is the mirror image of Theism. Both are believers.

Irrelevant.

 

[Sanoy]

I believe the world is real because all evidence available to me indicates that it is and there is no evidence to suggest that it is not real.

But that is circular Kylie. The evidence in the world tells you the world is real. And why think that world would have given you the noetic faculties to accomplish a correct conclusion on this.

 

[Peter J Barban]

Please.

There is zero evidence of a "common creator", whatever that means.

There is over a century's worth of conclusive evidence for the TOE from paleontology, molecular biology, anatomy, biogeography, phylogenies, direct observation, medicine, etc, etc, etc. (Not to mention the practical applications you've conveniently forgotten about).

To make the above statement you are either ignorant of the evidence, have been duped by creationist propaganda, or are just lying to yourself.



See above.



Abiogenesis is not a "tenet of evolution", have you learnt nothing from this thread?

If you are interested in learning about what you're arguing against the four "principles" of evolution would be... variation, inheritance, selection and time.



Irrelevant.

As I have quoted before from Wikipedia, life from non-life is a major tenet of evolutionary theory. Should I trust you are Wikipedia?

"The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organismsevolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years (Ga) ago and evidence suggests life emerged prior to 3.7 Ga....
Research on how life might have emerged from non-living chemicals focuses on three possible starting points: self-replication, an organism's ability to produce offspring that are very similar to itself; metabolism, its ability to feed and repair itself; and external cell membranes, which allow food to enter and waste products to leave, but exclude unwanted substances.[69] Research on abiogenesis still has a long way to go, since theoretical and empirical approaches are only beginning to make contact with each other."

Any evolutionists with integrity willing to admit that evolutionary theory includes abiogenesis? Is there even 1 on this thread?

 

[VirOptimus]

As I have quoted before from Wikipedia, life from non-life is a major tenet of evolutionary theory. Should I trust you are Wikipedia?

"The evolutionary history of life on Earth traces the processes by which living and fossil organismsevolved, from the earliest emergence of life to the present. Earth formed about 4.5 billion years (Ga) ago and evidence suggests life emerged prior to 3.7 Ga....
Research on how life might have emerged from non-living chemicals focuses on three possible starting points: self-replication, an organism's ability to produce offspring that are very similar to itself; metabolism, its ability to feed and repair itself; and external cell membranes, which allow food to enter and waste products to leave, but exclude unwanted substances.[69] Research on abiogenesis still has a long way to go, since theoretical and empirical approaches are only beginning to make contact with each other."

Any evolutionists with integrity willing to admit that evolutionary theory includes abiogenesis? Is there even 1 on this thread?

Why would anyone say that when its not true?

Didnt you claim you have scientific education?

Also, your claim is not supported by your quote.