chrstphr

Can someone provide a list (preferably a very long one) naming which ways evolution is verifiable through testing?

Kevin Dorner

As requested, it's long.

<a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/" target="_blank">29+ Evidences for Macroevolution</a>

scigirl

Hello chrstphr,

Welcome to infidels, and you can introduce yourself here if you like:

<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=forum&f=43</a>

Enjoy talk origins - note that for each of the 29 pieces of evidence, there is a way for evolution to be 'falsified.'

scigirl

Amos

Here's a very short one:

Sterilize creation and evolution will stop.

wade-w

Another interesting tidbit is the <a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/19926/text/tour/06.htm" target="_blank">Hardy-Weinberg Law</a>. I have never heard a creationist refer to it, probably because its called a law, and not "just a theory". It is relatively easy to demonstrate using a short lived species such as the oft cited fruit fly.

Simply ensure that at least one of these conditions is not met, then look for changes in gene frequencies.

"Reason is the greatest enemy that faith has..."
-- Martin Luther

[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: wadew ]</p>

Valentine Pontifex

Creationists do not deny the Hardly-Weinberg Law. Why would they since it does not contradict anything they believe in. I have seen them mention it though don't ask me where at the moment.

I might point out that it might be better described as a theorem since it really is a trivial result of some simple mathematical
assumptions. If there is the population is
infinite, no migration in or out of the population, and there is no natural selection are two assumptions that are really ways of saying that the frequencies of the genes will not change. We also assume that any individual is just as likely to mate with any individual with the population, i.e. no prefered matings with any genotypes.

If there are two genes with frequence p and q then:


p + q = 1
(p + q)^2 = 1^2
p^2 + 2pq + q^2 = 1

Q.E.D.

wade-w

Evolution is defined as a change in gene frequencies in a poulation over time. Thus Hardy-Weinberg pretty much proves that evolution occurs, since I can't imagine ANY popualtion that could possibly fit all of the criteria.

davidH

Evolution should be testable.

Bacterial populations multiply at incredibly high rates - in only a matter of a few years bacteria can go through a massive number of generations, equivalent to millions of years in human terms.

I'm sure with all the high tech equipement available today, scientists should be able to acomplish this and look and see if evolution has occured.

Mutation and natural selection would occur (if not naturally I'm sure scientists could figure out a way).

Though maybe this has already been done - I'm not sure.

Camaban

It has

apparently the results weren't relevant because "They're still bacteria" though. (apparently Microevolution is possible, but no Macro)

[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Camaban ]</p>

scigirl

I want to make a quick clarification about the word "prediction."

This word has a different connotation in everyday usage. A person who makes predictions is strictly talking about future events occuring.

However, in science, you can make predictions about the past, present, or future! For example, Darwin's theory of evolution predicted the existence of genes. Obviously the genes already existed (yes Darwin had genes, he wasn't the spawn of Satan! )

Evolutionary theory made many many predictions about what the sequence patterns would look like if you compared closely related species. By and large these "predictions" came true.

Or a paleontologist might "predict" the existence of a transitional fossil with certain features. But unlike the molecular biologist who can just go sequence some DNA, he or she has to wait around until that fossil is found!

Hope that helps,

scigirl