the PROOF is in the ........pudding???......

[jobob]

.......or soup .......or asteroid ......or whatever..........


New question......
this iis an EASY one too.........


LIST 10 THINGS THAT EVOLUTION THEORY TEACHES THAT CAN NEVER BE DISCREDITED / DEBUNKED / OVERTURNED / ETC......

10 THINGS THAT EVOL. THEORY TEACHES TODAY THAT CANNOT CHANGE.....EVER.....



(now I wonder how many games will be played with this one )

 

[Captain_Jack_Sparrow]

change in allele frequency over time occurs.

Ergo - EVOLUTION.

 

[trunks2k]

LIST 10 THINGS THAT EVOLUTION THEORY TEACHES THAT CAN NEVER BE DISCREDITED / DEBUNKED / OVERTURNED / ETC......

10 THINGS THAT EVOL. THEORY TEACHES TODAY THAT CANNOT CHANGE.....EVER.....

I'm not exactly sure what you are asking. Theoretically, anything in evolutionary theory can be discredited or overturned. We have a lot of stuff, like allele frequency changing over time, that happens so often that we take it as a given, but there is a possibility that under some strange set of circumstances, it doesn't happen.

I don't see how it's important or anything though. That's just how science works.

 

[danaman5]

1. Environments change over time.

2. Allele frequency changes in animals occur over time. Simple variations during meiosis are usually responsible.

3. Some of the combinations of traits resulting from allele the changes allow the animals that have the combinations to survive more frequently and procreate more frequently.

4. Through genetics, the traits that work best in the environment in question are passed down to the offspring of the animals that have them. (Offspring occur more frequently for these animals, remember)

5. Since there are now more animals alive who possess the beneficial combination of genes, they too have more offspring, and before long almost the entire population has the change.

6. If the animals are suited to the environment, no additional change will occur, because no group will procreate more frequently than the majority group that now exists.

7. If the animals are not suited well enough for their environment, positive change will continue. Lasting negative change will not occur because those members of the population who have the more negative gene combinations will not consistently outlast the members who have the positive combinations.

8. If a change is neutral, some of the population will have it but others won't. (Example: eye color in humans. There is no real advantage to having one eyecolor over another, so the trait is not selected out as people with all different eye colors can see equally well on average)

9. Positive changes will build up over time as more positive variations present themselves in the population.

10. Eventually, with so many differences between members of a species who live in one type of environment, and those members of the same species that live in a different environment, the two groups will no longer have enough in common physically to produce fertile offspring. By definition, this constitutes the formation of a new species.

Well, there you have it, ten things that will never be disproved. The reason that I can be so confident is that the ten steps listed above are really just an example of cause and effect. There is simply no way that they could not happen given the occurrence of items number 1 and 2 in the list. Unless you dispute that environments change and variations occur during procreation, the rest must logically stem from that.

 

[USincognito]

LIST 10 THINGS THAT EVOLUTION THEORY TEACHES THAT CAN NEVER BE DISCREDITED / DEBUNKED / OVERTURNED / ETC......

10 THINGS THAT EVOL. THEORY TEACHES TODAY THAT CANNOT CHANGE.....EVER.....

I think you're a troll and not a very good one at that, but just in case someone who might actually be reached is reading this I'm going to offer up a suggestion to you.

Read about Karl Popper. Read about Falsification. Then please list the one logical error in your request above.

 

[lucaspa]

danaman5 gave some pretty good examples.

I would subsume 3, 4, and 5 into a general heading of "natural selection". That natural selection happens will not be overthrown.

13. Natural selection is an algorithm to get design.

14. As another subset of natural selection: any population, left to itself, will have more organisms generated than the environment can support.

15. New species do arise from old. This is a repeated observation and so comes under the heading of "fact".

 

[Sopharos]

What's wrong with change?

 

[Arikay]

I would say the answer is 0
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that cannot be falsified. There are many things that most likely (99.9999% sure) wont be falsified, however there is always the possibility. Thats what makes it science. The fact that if new real evidence comes along that does bring evolution into question, we will question it.

 

[JohnR7]

1. Environments change over time.

That has a lot more to do with astronomy than evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution does not have much to say about why the world we live in is forever changing, just that it does.

2. Allele frequency changes in animals occur over time. Simple variations during meiosis are usually responsible.

3. Some of the combinations of traits resulting from allele the changes allow the animals that have the combinations to survive more frequently and procreate more frequently.

This is the theory of survival of the fittest. While most people would not argue with this, it really does not line up with the teaching of the Bible.

Eccles. 9:11
I returned and saw under the sun that--
The race is not to the swift,
Nor the battle to the strong,
Nor bread to the wise,
Nor riches to men of understanding,
Nor favor to men of skill;
But time and chance happen to them all.

If the strongest was always the victor, then you should be able to pick the next supper bowl winner. As chance has it, the most fit and the best, is not always the winner. The underdog often wins out.

4. Through genetics, the traits that work best in the environment in question are passed down to the offspring of the animals that have them. (Offspring occur more frequently for these animals, remember)

Dominate traits tend to be passed to the next generation, and that has little or nothing to do with if they are best or worst. It takes selective breeding to weed out the unwanted traits.

 

[JohnR7]

There is nothing in the theory of evolution that cannot be falsified.

The observations are often valid. It is the conclusions and the man made opinions based on those observations that are often falsified.

 

[danaman5]

That has a lot more to do with astronomy than evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution does not have much to say about why the world we live in is forever changing, just that it does.

But as you say, evolutionary theory does say that environments do change. And the reasons really vary as to why. I don't think only astronomical changes are responsible.

If the strongest was always the victor, then you should be able to pick the next supper bowl winner. As chance has it, the most fit and the best, is not always the winner. The underdog often wins out.

Chance will sometimes give the underdog the edge in the short term, but we are talking about the average life expectancy and reproduction rates of a population here. And the animals that are fit to survive will usually have the higher average.

Dominate traits tend to be passed to the next generation, and that has little or nothing to do with if they are best or worst. It takes selective breeding to weed out the unwanted traits.

But natural selection is a form of selective breeding. Yes, dominant traits will appear more frequently at first. But if large percentages of the animals that have those traits die without reproducing, the only active pool left is the double recessive pool. The chance of recessive traits appearing increases in likelyhood. Think about it, you should know that if both parents have a double recessive gene, the offspring can only be recessive as well.

 

[lucaspa]

I would say the answer is 0
There is nothing in the theory of evolution that cannot be falsified. There are many things that most likely (99.9999% sure) wont be falsified, however there is always the possibility. Thats what makes it science. The fact that if new real evidence comes along that does bring evolution into question, we will question it.

Arikay, some of what Jobob is lumping under "evolution" are facts. Repeated observations. Thus, speciation won't be overthrown because that is a fact.

Can common ancestry conceivably be overthrown? Yes? That is a statement that is theory, and fossils of mammals in the Cambrian would falsify common ancestry.

However, that natural selection is an algorithm to get design is a fact. Repeated observation. That can't be overthrown.

 

[lucaspa]

That has a lot more to do with astronomy than evolutionary theory. The theory of evolution does not have much to say about why the world we live in is forever changing, just that it does.

Yes, evolution does have a lot to say why the world we live in is forever changing. "Environment" is much more than climate and weather. Environment is everything that interacts with us, including other species. So, the arms race of natural selection we see among predators and prey explains why that part of the world is changing. Eldredge has commented on how life has reworked the atmosphere when photosynthesis came along and how life influences climate and erosion.

This is the theory of survival of the fittest.

No, it's natural selection. "Survival of the fittest" is the soundbite for natural selection.

While most people would not argue with this, it really does not line up with the teaching of the Bible.

Eccles. 9:11
I returned and saw under the sun that--
The race is not to the swift,
Nor the battle to the strong,
Nor bread to the wise,
Nor riches to men of understanding,
Nor favor to men of skill;
But time and chance happen to them all.

Actually, natural selection lines up with this very well. Because different environments require different designs, the race is not always to the swift or the battle to the strong. The race may go to the one that has the surest footing and the battle to the one who cooperates. The reason you don't think it lines up with Ecclesiastes is because you have a strawman version of natural selection. Get natural selection right and the so-called problem disappears.

Dominate traits tend to be passed to the next generation, and that has little or nothing to do with if they are best or worst. It takes selective breeding to weed out the unwanted traits.

The frequency of the dominant alleles remain constant in the absence of natural selection. So the dominant allele is no more likely to be passed to the next generation than the recessive allele. Study some genetics, please, John. "Selective breeding" is natural selection!

 

[lucaspa]

It is the conclusions and the man made opinions based on those observations that are often falsified.

You've said this several times but never listed specifically what these opinions that are falsified are.

Please list them here. Thank you.

 

[JohnR7]

But as you say, evolutionary theory does say that environments do change.

Some may consider that the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. That we live in a world that is always in a state of change. Change is what makes for evolutionary theory, because they deny that anything is steadfast and consistant. Yet God does not change, as we sing in church: "His love endures forever" The Bible tells us that Jesus will rule and reign forever and ever. So, once again, your claim that there are points that can not be refuted, have indeed been refuted.

Chance will sometimes give the underdog the edge in the short term, but we are talking about the average life expectancy and reproduction rates of a population here. And the animals that are fit to survive will usually have the higher average.

I think that you misrepresent your own theory, or you state a theory that has indeed already been refuted. Look at the Amish population where there is so much inbreeding. Here "evolution" is working againt the amish people and actually weakening them from a genetic view point, because of diseases that pass from generation to generation.

I have a friend who has a PHD in animal physiology. He is Swedish and his wife is from the Philippines. It is his educated opinion that the best thing for mate selection is to get someone as far away from your genes pool as you can. This reduces the chance of two dominate genes getting together to form a disease.

But natural selection is a form of selective breeding. Yes, dominant traits will appear more frequently at first. But if large percentages of the animals that have those traits die without reproducing, the only active pool left is the double recessive pool. The chance of recessive traits appearing increases in likelyhood. Think about it, you should know that if both parents have a double recessive gene, the offspring can only be recessive as well.

Where in the world does this come from that "large percentages of the animals that have those traits die without reproducing". That does not seem to be happening with the Amish. Time and again it has been proven that when you have a closed gene pool the species will all but die off. They will hang on by a thread untell a outside gene source comes along and once that happens the species will again begin to prosper.

 

[JohnR7]

You've said this several times but never listed specifically what these opinions that are falsified are.

Did you put your blinders on this morning? I refute them all the time. I did not know you wanted me to keep a running list of the things I have refuted but I suppose I could if that is what you require.

I have been at this to long. As a teacher you should know that you can not teach people, they have to discover the truth for themselves. So, your claim that I have not falsifed anything is really a compliment. It shows that I am not out trying to win converts to my way of thinking. But I am helping people on their own, to come to a better understanding.

 

[JohnR7]

The reason you don't think it lines up with Ecclesiastes is because you have a strawman version of natural selection. Get natural selection right and the so-called problem disappears.

Oh, *** for tat. You also have a stawman version of the GAP theory. When you get it right, the so-called problems will disappear.

I do not actually disagree with you. But to weed though all the theorys to seperate fact from fiction, truth from error, takes time and effort.

Actually, it is only something a christian can do, to seperate truth from error. A lot of scientific discovery began with Christians. In some cases, error has been mixed in with truth and I agree that we can not throw the baby out with the bath water.

Eccles. 10:1
Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment,
And cause it to give off a foul odor;
So does a little folly to one respected for wisdom and honor.

It only takes a little bit of error to create a foul oder that will destory the whole theory, no matter how much truth maybe in it. Jesus is coming (soon) for a pure people, without error, without spot, blemish or wrinkle.

 

[Tomk80]

[/font]

Some may consider that the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. That we live in a world that is always in a state of change. Change is what makes for evolutionary theory, because they deny that anything is steadfast and consistant. Yet God does not change, as we sing in church: "His love endures forever" The Bible tells us that Jesus will rule and reign forever and ever. So, once again, your claim that there are points that can not be refuted, have indeed been refuted.

Look for a moment at your own argument here John:
We state that environments change. This is an observation (in case you don't believe the observation, look for example at the Sahara desert which is moving south).
Next, you come with your argument that God does not change.
Your conclusion: because God does not change, environments do not change.

Logically, this conclusion is already false. Whether God changes or not has nothing to do with a changing environment. It is entirely possible that God created a changing world.
Besides this, for me as an agnostic, an argument based on God does not make a very big impression.

I think that you misrepresent your own theory, or you state a theory that has indeed already been refuted. Look at the Amish population where there is so much inbreeding. Here "evolution" is working againt the amish people and actually weakening them from a genetic view point, because of diseases that pass from generation to generation.

That sometimes the underdog has better survival chances has also been observed, for example in resistance in bacteria. Resistant bacteria often have a lower chance of survival in an environment which does not contain penicillin. The resistant bacteria are weaker in every respect, except in the resistance aspect. If the penicillin is removed from the environment the normal bacteria gain the upper hand again.
Deciding which species is the 'fittest' is often unpredictable, because we don't know exactly what the selection pressure will be. It might favor the slower over the faster, in stead of vice versa, because the slower has some other trait which is more beneficial then being fast.

I have a friend who has a PHD in animal physiology. He is Swedish and his wife is from the Philippines. It is his educated opinion that the best thing for mate selection is to get someone as far away from your genes pool as you can. This reduces the chance of two dominate genes getting together to form a disease.

I'd say going to the Netherlands (yay, the Netherlands!!!) would have sufficed for him.
He might be wrong here. For example, his children might be less resistant to diseases which are present in his home country, but are unheard of in the philippines. Again, the problem is that you never know exactly to which influences you will be exposed in your own environment.

Where in the world does this come from that "large percentages of the animals that have those traits die without reproducing". That does not seem to be happening with the Amish. Time and again it has been proven that when you have a closed gene pool the species will all but die off. They will hang on by a thread untell a outside gene source comes along and once that happens the species will again begin to prosper.

No, that's not what Danaman5 said John. Read carefully before you post. He said 'if' large percentages of the animals that have those traits die without reproducing'. This makes your entire argument useless. In the Amish, the diseased Amish die off. Not all the amish are born with a disease, and those are able to keep the population stable.

 

[Tomk80]

Actually, it is only something a christian can do, to seperate truth from error. A lot of scientific discovery began with Christians. In some cases, error has been mixed in with truth and I agree that we can not throw the baby out with the bath water.

John, my apologies for not responding to your entire post, but I couldn't resist throwing in a small sarcastic remark here. Ready?
Indeed a lot of scientific discovery began with Christians. Unfortunately, a lot of scientific discovery also has been condemned by Christians (flat earth ring a bell? ).

 

[lucaspa]

Some may consider that the cornerstone of evolutionary theory. That we live in a world that is always in a state of change. Change is what makes for evolutionary theory, because they deny that anything is steadfast and consistant.

This is not evolutionary theory. Change is not one of the core statements of evolutionary theory. Ever hear of stabilizing selection?

Yet God does not change, as we sing in church: "His love endures forever" The Bible tells us that Jesus will rule and reign forever and ever. So, once again, your claim that there are points that can not be refuted, have indeed been refuted.

John, as others have pointed out, this does not follow. We were talking about environments changing. Above you seemed to acknowledge that. What happens to environments has nothing to do with God. So saying "God does not change" doesn't refute the statements about changing environments.

I would dispute the assertion that God does not change. Acts 10, for example. To say there are aspects of God -- such as love -- that do not change is one thing. But there are other aspects of God that do change.

I think that you misrepresent your own theory, or you state a theory that has indeed already been refuted. Look at the Amish population where there is so much inbreeding. Here "evolution" is working againt the amish people and actually weakening them from a genetic view point, because of diseases that pass from generation to generation. [/quote]Those diseases that you mention are actually natural selection at work that will weed out the less fit. Evolution is not working "against" the Amish, but working for them in selecting the fit -- healthy -- individuals

I have a friend who has a PHD in animal physiology. He is Swedish and his wife is from the Philippines. It is his educated opinion that the best thing for mate selection is to get someone as far away from your genes pool as you can. This reduces the chance of two dominate genes getting together to form a disease.

This is good advice for the individual that doesn't want his kids to die. BTW, it's the combination of recessive genes. However, evolution cares nothing for our sensibilities on whether our personal kids live or die. Remember, evolution is about populations. Having siblings marry may mean that 50% of the offspring die, but those offspring take the alleles out of the gene pool with them.

Where in the world does this come from that "large percentages of the animals that have those traits die without reproducing". That does not seem to be happening with the Amish. Time and again it has been proven that when you have a closed gene pool the species will all but die off. They will hang on by a thread untell a outside gene source comes along and once that happens the species will again begin to prosper.

1. Remember that the Amish aren't really under natural selection. Very few human populations are, because of our technology.
2. Please cite your sources for "time and again it has been proven". I ask because all the data on founder studies -- where you start with just a single breeding pair -- shows that the species prospers quite well. It turns out that any two individuals will have about 75% of the variation of the entire population. Weeding out the recessives is tough on the individuals involved, but for most species reproduction rates are so high that losing a few individuals is not a problem.