Originally posted by Doug Shaver
View Post
First of all, never will you find any evolutionist admitting to "falsifying" the entire theory, this will never happen. And never once did I say science admitted to falsifying "the theory", I repeatedly said "the predictions" in the theory have failed, thats it. Quotes from science are never intended to prove "the theory" has been falsified, they are intended to prove the "specific predictions" were falsified.
Also, common ancestry (all life-forms with a single identical genetic code) has been falsified. Craig Venter briefly explains this in the video below starting at 8:45 to 11:45. And it does not surprise me that evolutionary biologists are unaware of this because even atheisms high priest Dawkins was unaware of this in 2011. Craig Venter told Dawkins and Davies that Darwin's tree of life does not exist (Venter said "there may be a bush of life") , and Dawkins was confounded and upset by this news, and Venter only laughs at Dawkins in response
I suggest you watch "The Great Debate - What is Life?" on the science network.
http://thesciencenetwork.org/program...e-what-is-life
Therefore the "specific prediction" that species believed to be closer related must also have similar genotypes, and vice versa, creating the predicted phylogenetic tree of life has failed.
No matter how many false predictions the theory makes, evolutionary science simply modifies the theory to accommodate the current evidence
"Much of the problem is that neo-Darwinism appears completely invincible to falsification by observations or by experiments, so much so that many doubt if it is a scientific theory at all. Partly, the stochastic nature of evolutionary changes must demand that there should be an unique explanation for each event, so that any difficulty raised by observations could be explained or explained away with ease, and partly, the practitioners of neo-Darwinism exhibit a great power of assimilation, incorporating any opposing viewpoint as yet another "mechanism" in the grand "synthesis". But a real synthesis should begin by identifying conflicting elements in the theory, rather than in accommodating contradictions as quickly as they arise." Beyond neo- Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution" Journal of Theoretical Biology Vol. 78,
For example the theory predicted a gradual transition in the fossil record, and when the specific prediction was falsified, evolutionary science invented punctuated equilibrium (evolution so fast it leaves no evidence it happened) as the excuse. Therefore the new prediction of P.E. is then verified by the fossil record. So the entire theory is being "verified" through Ad hoc circular reasoning, which proves its not real science, its an atheistic ideology posing as science and you allow yourself to be duped by it
"A circular argument arises: Interpret the fossil record in the terms of a particular theory of evolution, inspect the interpretation, and note that it confirms the theory. Well, it would, wouldn't it?" New Scientist, Vol.108, Dec.5, 1985, p. 67
"But the danger of circularity is still present.... The temporal ordering of biological events beyond the local section may critically involve paleontological correlation....for almost all contemporary paleontologist it rest upon the acceptance of the evolutionary hypothesis.", Evolution Vol. 28, p.466
Gould admits P.E. has no mechanism to prove its validity
"In this crucial sense, the theory of punctuated equilibrium adopts a very conservative position. The theory asserts no novel claim about modes or mechanisms of speciation; punctuated equilibrium merely takes a standard microevolutionary model and elucidates its expected expression when properly scaled into geological time. Gould * p. 778"
Next is: James A. Lake, Ravi Jain and Maria C. Rivera, "Mix and Match in the Tree of Life," Science, New Series, Vol. 283, No. 5410 (Mar. 26, 1999), pp. 2027-2028.
The clonal theory is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was a specific hypothesis about particular relationships among early lineages. The gene relationships that were discovered were inconsistent not with the general theory of common ancestry but with that hypothesis.
The clonal theory is not a prediction of evolutionary theory. It was a specific hypothesis about particular relationships among early lineages. The gene relationships that were discovered were inconsistent not with the general theory of common ancestry but with that hypothesis.
Then we come to: W. Ford Doolittle, "Phylogenetic Classification and the Universal Tree," Science,
New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5423 (Jun. 25, 1999), pp. 2124-2128.
Your quotation:
This statement does not appear in the article. If it is supposed to be a paraphrase, you had no business putting quotation marks around it. In any case, like the others, the statement is not in any way contrary to any prediction of evolutionary theory.
New Series, Vol. 284, No. 5423 (Jun. 25, 1999), pp. 2124-2128.
Your quotation:
This statement does not appear in the article. If it is supposed to be a paraphrase, you had no business putting quotation marks around it. In any case, like the others, the statement is not in any way contrary to any prediction of evolutionary theory.
My quote was... "Each new prokaryotic genome that appears contains dozens, if not hundreds, of genes not found in the genomes of its nearest sequenced relatives but found elsewhere among Bacteria or Archaea." W. Ford Doolittle Science 286, 1999."
We also have: Michael Lynch, "The Age and Relationships of the Major Animal Phyla," Evolution, Vol. 53, No. 2 (Apr., 1999), pp. 319-325
Nothing in this statement entails the falsification of common ancestry.
Nothing in this statement entails the falsification of common ancestry.
And finally: HerveŽ Philippe and Patrick Forterre, "The Rooting of the Universal Tree of Life Is Not Reliable," Journal of Molecular Evolution, Vol. 49 (1999), pp. 509-523.
The article reports no falsification of common ancestry. The sequencings reported in this article show that we do not yet know all the particular details about relationships among early taxa. They do not show that there could not have been a common ancestor for all organisms.
The article reports no falsification of common ancestry. The sequencings reported in this article show that we do not yet know all the particular details about relationships among early taxa. They do not show that there could not have been a common ancestor for all organisms.
There is not one common ancestor for all organisms, and Woese also admits this
"The high, pervasive levels of horizontal gene transfer at early times created an evolutionarily communal state of living systems in the sense that the aboriginal organismal community evolved as a collective whole, not as individual cellular lineages." -Interpreting the universal phylogenetic tree, Carl R. Woese*
Comment