Game Over - Evolution Is Falsified

[Micaiah]

In a recent thread, Mocca issued the following challenge:

How to falsify evolution


I'm annoyed by the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable. IT IS! Anyone wanna list possible falsification of evolution?

I'll name one: If ERVs were found to be shared between two organisms with distant ancestry, and not found in other descendants of said distant ancestor.

Creationists might find this thread as a useful resource. Hint, hint.

Here is a link that demonstrates just that:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys--but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

So sorry people, no further discussion required regarding evolution. It is falsified. Time to come up with a more comprehensive theory. Flying spaghetti monster .....

 

[jwu]

The article goes on:

Eichler and colleagues found over 100 copies of PTERV1 in each African ape (chimp and gorilla) and Old World monkey (baboon and macaque) species. The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

I.e. these weren't ancient infections but recent ones. If the specifics of the infections were shared, then that'd be a problem, but not that way.

Edit: The rest i wrote is outdated considering that part of the article.

 

[foreverfaithless]

What an amazing discovery you will go down in the history books for that. Don't you realise the creation myth is finished .
Why do you think it is just a big issue in the U.S? it is because Europe used to be christian and we have grown out of it, the same thing will happen in the u.s.
You beliefs are a few hundred years out of date.

 

[Oliver]

From the link:

The authors compared the sites of viral integration in each of these primates and found that few if any of these insertion sites were shared among the primates. It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

There is a difference between a sequence found at the same locus (which is evidence of common ancestry) and a sequence found at different locii in several species (which is evidence that the same virus infected those species, but not necessarilly their common ancestor).

It is my understanding that Mocca refered to the former, while the article refers to the latter.

Edit: damned: jwu was quicker with his edit!

 

[Garnett]

Anyone care to suggest how Micaiah could have left that last bit out?

Do we get censured for calling Creationists liars, ignorant, or uneducated?

 

[Micaiah]

I gave an example that meets the above requirements of one of your esteemed proponents. QED. I hope you're not suggesting his suggested falsification is wrong.

Regarding locii, I have it on good authority that this is of little consequence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2955106-endogenous-retroviruses-show-strong-evidence-for-anthropoid-evolution.html&page=4

Post 76 Q2.

 

[Oliver]

I gave an example that meets the above requirements of one of your esteemed proponents. QED. I hope you're not suggesting his suggested falsification is wrong.

No, I'm suggesting that what Mocca refered to a single insertion in the germline, while the study you linked to looked at different insertions. They're talking about different ERVs brought by the same virus, not about a single insertion event.

Regarding locii, I have it on good authority that this is of little consequence.

http://www.christianforums.com/t2955106-endogenous-retroviruses-show-strong-evidence-for-anthropoid-evolution.html&page=4

Post 76 Q2.

The location in itself is indeed not important, in the case of a unique insertion event. Here, it is not what your article is talking about.

 

[KAG]

It appears therefore that the sequences have not been conserved from a common ancestor, but are specific to each lineage.

'Nuff said.

 

[jwu]

I hope you're not suggesting his suggested falsification is wrong.

He could have been more specific. This is not the type of ERVs that he was implicitly referring to, shared sequences which are thought to be shared because they originate from the same infection event, indicated by them being found in the same location in the genome, down to the base pair.

Not shared sequences which are shared due to different independent infection events, which accordingly are found in different locations.

 

[Micaiah]

No, I'm suggesting that what Mocca refered to a single insertion in the germline, while the study you linked to looked at different insertions. They're talking about different ERVs brought by the same virus, not about a single insertion event.

I don't read any of the words

single insertion in the germline

in his post above.

The location in itself is indeed not important, in the case of a unique insertion event. Here, it is not what your article is talking about.

So it would be possible for an ERV derived from a common ancestor to turn up anyhwere on the DNA.

 

[Micaiah]

He could have been more specific. This is not the type of ERVs that he was implicitly referring to, shared sequences which are thought to be shared because they originate from the same infection event, indicated by them being found in the same location in the genome, down to the base pair.

Not shared sequences which are shared due to different independent infection events, which accordingly are found in different locations.

[/size][/color][/font]

Mocca made it sound so simple.

If ERVs were found to be shared between two organisms with distant ancestry, and not found in other descendants of said distant ancestor

Now we have:

shared sequences which are thought to be shared because they originate from the same infection event, indicated by them being found in the same location in the genome, down to the base pair.

What happens when I find an example that meets the requirements posted by JWU? What can we expect? More caveats than you'd get on a lawyers marriage certificate.

Is it really possible to falsify evolution?

 

[jwu]

What can we expect? More caveats than you'd get on a lawyers marriage certificate.

You'd have to rule out horizontal transfer.

Is it really possible to falsify evolution?

Yes. A single find still can overturn it. It has to stand against serious scrutiny though, and has to be less likely to occur if evolution was correct than the things which support evolution if it was not.

 

[notto]

Is it really possible to falsify evolution?

Yes. Find a line of evidence that the theory of evolution would not predict. You haven't done it here. All you've done is taken another posters statement out of context from the line of evidence it was referring to. That doesn't falsify evolution.

 

[Micaiah]

More naive than badly worded. As noted above, I suspect this is just the beginning of 'out' clauses that get invoked when the family tree theorised by evolutionists is shown wrong by analysis of pseudogenes.

 

[Garnett]

I'm not expert, so can people help me clarify:

I've drawn a diagram I hope might help.

As I understand it Mocca stated "I'll name one: If ERVs were found to be shared between two organisms with distant ancestry, and not found in other descendants of said distant ancestor."

By which I took to mean that if in my diagram an ERV was found in organisms B and F on my "evolutionary tree/bush/whatever" but not in organism E this would disprove current evolutionary theory.

He didn't mention that the "said distant ancestor" would have to be the point at which the ERV was inserted (ie, that the ERV could not have been inserted further along some evolutionary branch, as this would be in line with the ToE), since this would be inferred by those who understand the concept and who are not being deliberately or negligently obtuse.

So Maiach found an example of where an ERV was inserted say at organism C on my picture, and says that because it is found in D and E but not F this falsifies the theory. Whereas, as can be seen in the diagram this is completely in line with the current theory. (What would disprove the theory would be if there was evidence this ERV was inserted at, say, organism A, one step further back in the diagram)

The additional explanations by those who understand ToE and who have tried to further explain the concept to Maiach have been labelled "more caveats" when really they are efforts to explain the idea to someone who has misunderstood the concept either wilfully or through ignorance.

Is this basically the situation?

Funny how all Creationists have to try and muddy the waters at some point, to hopefully escape in the fog.

 

[notto]

More naive than badly worded. As noted above, I suspect this is just the beginning of 'out' clauses that get invoked when the family tree theorised by evolutionists is shown wrong by analysis of pseudogenes.

You haven't shows anything that the theory of evolution doesn't predict. That is what it would take to falsify it. It isn't an 'out' clause, it is reality. Now that the issue has been clarified and you understand what most of us originally understood about the context of the claim, you should be able to see that you have done nothing to dent the theory of evolution. It seems that you are the one looking for an 'out' clause here by trying to make something look like evidence that falsifies evolution when it clearly doesn't.

Do you now understand why the evidence you provided doesn't falsify the theory of evolution?

Do you now understand the original intent of the claim?

Do you now understand why the original intent reflects a line of evidence that would indeed falsify they theory of evolution?

Do you now understand that you have not met the intent of the original claim?

I don't think the claim was naive or even bady worded. They only mistake that the original poster made was to assume that those that read it understood the context well enough to understand the intent. The poster apparently forgot that they were dealing with creationists who often take things out of context and are often ignorant of the things they come here to discuss. I'm guessing the poster won't make that mistake again.

 

[notto]

Is this basically the situation?

For the most part.

It was also understood by those that understand the context of Mocca's claim that she was referring to an insertion at the same location.

 

[Dragar]

I'm curious; is Garnett right?

Edit: Ah, question answered.

So Micaiah utterly failed to understand why it would be a falsification? And yes, a poor choice of wording on the original poster's part, though it didn't seem too much to ask that people would understand why it would be a problem for ToE.

 

[notto]

What happens when I find an example that meets the requirements posted by JWU?

Why don't you find one and we'll find out together.

 

[TheBear]

How to falsify evolution


http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

In a new study, Evan Eichler and colleagues scanned finished chimpanzee genome sequence for endogenous retroviral elements, and found one (called PTERV1) that does not occur in humans. Searching the genomes of a subset of apes and monkeys revealed that the retrovirus had integrated into the germline of African great apes and Old World monkeys--but did not infect humans and Asian apes (orangutan, siamang, and gibbon). This undermines the notion that an ancient infection invaded an ancestral primate lineage, since great apes (including humans) share a common ancestor with Old World monkeys.

So sorry people, no further discussion required regarding evolution. It is falsified. Time to come up with a more comprehensive theory. Flying spaghetti monster .....

This is talking about an ancient infection which may or may not have infected our ancestors. Where are you getting that this article falsifies evolution? Notice the boldened and underlined portion of the quote.

Sorry to kill your party, but nowhere in that article is evolution falsified.