falsifying Natural Selection

[Psi Wavefunction]

That wasn't an argument from authority. Haven't even started arguing (or caring) yet. Just a gentle warning to potential opponents to prepare themselves. being a professional means I have a small library of references stored in my head by now ^^

[GenesForLife]

"I am a trained biologist, I have X degrees" is not an argument from authority at all, only when it goes "I'm a trained biologist therefore you are wrong, screw evidence by the way" does it become anything of an argument from authority.

[Clinton Huxley]

Don't want to derail the thread with this minor point but the professions or specialisms of the people taking part aren't strictly relevant.

[Ronja]

Is spinoza99 for real? *cracks knuckles* professional biologist at your service!

Shall we start simply by listing the questions about his claims that he has left unanswered or tried to shift the goalposts regarding the question?

Spinoza: Not answering questions posed to you, and asking new, often more or less off-topic questions in return, instead of answering the questions posed to you can easily create an unfavorable impression. In this thread you sometimes you come across as if you don't want to answer, or you don't know how, and as if you are trying to lead attention away from your unwillingness/inability. It would look better if you took the time to actually stay with one question / issue until it has been properly discussed. Did you read the Christian physicist-turned-geologist autobiographical article about psychological limitations of information handling that I linked to earlier? I think you should: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html - also Morton's longer, more detailed story of why he changed from Young Earth Creationism to Old Earth Creationism is worth a read: http://home.entouch.net/dmd/gstory.htm IMO.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's say you believe Peacocks evolved from Turkeys. How would you falsify that?

Well, first, we'd need to know what evidence you have peacocks evolved from turkeys.

A belief without evidence can't be falsified. That's why it isn't science. It's unfalsifiable. For example, let's say you believe that Mohammed rode to heaven on a winged horse. How would you falsify that? You can't. No matter what anyone says, it is a "belief." The most we could say is that there is no evidence of winged horses or heaven, right?

So, if you assert that peacocks evolved from turkeys, the most we can do is ask you for your evidence, because we don't have any.

We might advance a different theory - we might state that that the theory of evolution posits that peacocks and turkeys share a common ancestor, and then we might present the phylogeny, taxonomy and the fossil evidence, and the genetic evidence for that. The evidence for current evolutionary theory in a sense "falsifies" your peacock-from-turkey theory.

[Svartalf]

Let's admit it, peacock's bright plumage is a better female attractor, and it being all dry and much less scrumptious than a turkey, hence, not as interesting to predators, are both traits that give peacocks better ability to survive and reproduce than turkeys. Ergo, peacocks are the next step in evolution from turkeys, spinit is right.

[hackenslash]

"I am a trained biologist, I have X degrees" is not an argument from authority at all, only when it goes "I'm a trained biologist therefore you are wrong, screw evidence by the way" does it become anything of an argument from authority.

It should also be noted that it only becomes a fallacious appeal to authority when it falls outside the remit of pertinent qualifications.

[GenesForLife]

Like all the creotard medics commenting on evolutionary biology due to their degrees in Medicine. Or philosophers talking about science (Fodor, was it? with his 'selected for' circus of confusion?) or for that matter the YEC on a cricket forum thinking she can comment on evo bio because of her BSc in computer science

[mistermack]

Anybody trying to use "god of the gaps" should be roundly ridiculed at every opportunity.
They just go for it, again and again, in slightly different guise each time.
Whether it's turkeys to peacocks or lizards to mammals, it really doesn't matter.
No gap in knowledge proves, or even indicates a god.
It just indicates a gap. Gaps are being filled with knowledge and understanding all the time. Does that mean that god is being disproved all the time?
.

[Calilasseia]

Ok, next question. What canards have been erected here? I've only just arrived, and it's going to take me time to wade through this dreck, so I'd appreciate it if someone provides a precis of this.

[camoguard]

@spinoza99,
Among other problems with your approach here, there is one more I'd like to point out. Suppose you were correct in suspecting that the folks here at Ratz are not up to date on their theory of evolution. The theory of evolution isn't up for dispute at all. It's not my opinion to believe in evolution, it's the correct textbook answer that I can double check by emailing a biologist type anywhere. The University of California has a nice introduction to evolution page up now. The University of Wisconsin (home of the first Genetics program, I think) has been funneling resources into the JF Crow institute because scientists in the know are aware that there is controversy among the laypeople leading to huge oversights by the uniformed such as with the Louisiana State Education Act.

I feel like there are a lot of smart people here at Ratz, but even if I couldn't defend evolution, I wouldn't retreat because I've been emailing Ph.Ds and chairpeople of these various universities to double check whether there is a controversy and I've spoken to Dr. Mara McDonald and Dr. David Baum of the University of Wisconsin (names used with permission) because the last anti-evolution person I talked to laid claim to a degree from UW. And they continue to assure me this is not a controversial issue to the knowledgeable people. Why would I think differently?

[JimC]

What is strange about your position, spinoza99, is that, in an earlier post, you implied that it wasn't evolution that you said could not be falsified, but natural selection. From this, and other things you have said, I take it that you agree that life on Earth is billions of years old, and has a common ancestry (at least back to abiogenesis for biologists, and some act of deistic creation for theists). Or have I read you wrong, and you really are a part of your 6000 year old Earth loony brigade?

Given the former, are you clearly saying that natural selection has played no part in the evolution of life on Earth? Or are you simply asserting that, for some philosophical reason, the mechanism of natural selection is not testable or in any way falsifiable? There is, in fact, a large literature of studies on many organisms with short generation times which demonstrate selection very clearly. Studies in the Galapagos by ornthologists have tracked changes in beak size over many years which correlate with a variety selective pressures. Many biogeographic studies (including ones on Victorian treefrogs of the genus Litoria that I had some involvement in as a graduate student) have demonstrated a snapshot of a species complex actively showing speciation.

There are many current arguments within biology about the relative importance of various evolutionary mechanisms, but no biologist worthy of the name would deny that natural selection is a vital component of our current model of evolutionary change.

[Feck]

@ Cali Oh the usual ones ..impossible odds of it happening by chance ...Bla bla no one understands this Bla Bla Science will never Know EVERYTHING bla bla Intelligent design ..Bla Bla ..Atheists are nasty and use Profanity

He got Genes for Life to say 'fuck' a lot that was the best bit

[JimC]

@ Cali Oh the usual ones ..impossible odds of it happening by chance ...Bla bla no one understands this Bla Bla Science will never Know EVERYTHING bla bla Intelligent design ..Bla Bla ..Atheists are nasty and use Profanity

He got Genes for Life to say 'fuck' a lot that was the best bit

[GenesForLife]

Ok, next question. What canards have been erected here? I've only just arrived, and it's going to take me time to wade through this dreck, so I'd appreciate it if someone provides a precis of this.

Canards

1) Mutations are controlled by an intelligent entity who pokes his nose into everything.
2) False dichotomy between randomness and intelligence when dealing with protein synthesis.
3) The idea that to have a functional protein, one must expect randomness to arrange amino acids together. Without intelligence, apparently, amino acids cannot "know" which ones to bind to.
4) Randomness cannot form the components of the translational machinery.
5) Genes couldn't have evolved without proteins, which had to be put together by random chance, the odds of which are so high that they had to require intelligent design, despite being shown that riboZYmes don't need proteins for replication or for peptide bond synthesis, and the argument is the consistently persistent "ribosome has 22 proteins, random chance cannot put together a ribosome"
6) Specious probability assertions, therefore design.
7) Assertion that evolutionary fitness doesn't exist, i.e. protein function is binary.
8) Assertion that all the components involved in protein synthesis require the components to be transported to a "precise 3 dimensional location, ergo design",
9) The idea that odds should indicate if something is designed or not, including the premise that if something appears to be unlikely by random chance, design has to take place, false dichotomy there.
10) Conflation of modern cells with abiogenetic and primitive replicator systems.
11) God of the gaps.
12) One True Sequence assertion for protein sequence.
13) The DNA is a code, ergo intelligence involved assertion.

Just a few off the top of my head.