Question 5: Testability
Moderator: Moderators
Question 5: Testability
Post #1What evidence would convince you that evolution is false? If no such evidence exists, or indeed could exist, how can evolution be a testable scientific theory?
Post #22
that "Noahs genes where pure, ours are not anymore because of contamination.". Its English, poor grammar yes, less of english, no.Um... what does that mean?
As the population grew and continued, the genes got more and more contaminated after each generation. Simple fact baby. Noahs allelomorphs was... erh.. superior for example...... coz he was purer... then us... sorta.
Post #23
I have no idea what you are talking about, sugar. What does that mean, to say that someone's genes were 'pure'? Pure what?gf wrote:Simple fact baby.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #25
Then you dont know anything about cistrons or similar, so then its pointless to talk to you about it. (like trying to explain that the Earth is a sphere to someone not knowing what a sphere is) Just read about it, its very interesting.
Post #26
Apparently it's 'pointless' for you to answer a simple question. Please explain (if you can) what you mean by saying that Noah's genes were 'pure'. Use small words if you need to.gf wrote:Then you dont know anything about cistrons or similar, so then its pointless to talk to you about it.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #28
I doubt that you even know what it is that you mean by 'pure'. It's not a scientific term, and it's not even good theology, since we all know that nobody was pure after THE FALL. Is it because Noah was "perfect in his generations"? Is it because there were no nephilim in his family tree? Is there some good reason that you can't support your previous assertion?rf wrote:I doubt i can make them that small.
And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto His people. Exodus 32:14
Post #30
Tell ya what--let's not have a slugfest. If we can't explain something, let's say so. If we can, then let's do it, and assume that the other guy can look up the big words if they actually care about the answers to their questions.
The "Noah's alleles" problem exists in two forms, both of which have been advanced by creationists. One says that he had all of the genetic diversity that now exists on earth, and that there has been no addition of genetic information (because that's not possible, they say). In this case, how did Noah contain genetic diversity enough for a billion people?
The other version of the problem is that Noah was homozygous at all loci, and had "perfect" genes, and that there has been hypermutation and hyperevolution to account for the diversity we see now. In this case, doesn't Noah's lineage prove evolution?
[I think this may be what gf means by "pure" genes--not homozygous lethal. Obviously, at the chemical level, all genes are "pure" because they are composed of pure DNA, and nothing else. There's no such thing as contamination, except in the sense that mutations occur and change the information, or in the racist sense that "other" people are "inferior" so we shouldn't "contaminate" our genetic stock with theirs. In reality, such contamination is good, since it creates hybrid vigor, but that's another issue.]
Yeah, yeah, I know--humans are all still the same "kind" of animal, so this type of hyperevolution doesn't violate the biblical statement that all animals reproduce according to their kind, and that no new "kinds" have evolved. But really, that's just semantics, trying to allow all of evolution to occur, but call it "just" microevolution. This stance denies the possibility of speciation happening often enough that some new species in lineage A are different enough from new species in lineage B that they qualify as different kinds of animals. The trouble is, there is no definition of "kind" of animal, and no clear list of the animals that Noah had with him, so it's impossible to create a creation theory to explain the data.
The "Noah's alleles" problem exists in two forms, both of which have been advanced by creationists. One says that he had all of the genetic diversity that now exists on earth, and that there has been no addition of genetic information (because that's not possible, they say). In this case, how did Noah contain genetic diversity enough for a billion people?
The other version of the problem is that Noah was homozygous at all loci, and had "perfect" genes, and that there has been hypermutation and hyperevolution to account for the diversity we see now. In this case, doesn't Noah's lineage prove evolution?
[I think this may be what gf means by "pure" genes--not homozygous lethal. Obviously, at the chemical level, all genes are "pure" because they are composed of pure DNA, and nothing else. There's no such thing as contamination, except in the sense that mutations occur and change the information, or in the racist sense that "other" people are "inferior" so we shouldn't "contaminate" our genetic stock with theirs. In reality, such contamination is good, since it creates hybrid vigor, but that's another issue.]
Yeah, yeah, I know--humans are all still the same "kind" of animal, so this type of hyperevolution doesn't violate the biblical statement that all animals reproduce according to their kind, and that no new "kinds" have evolved. But really, that's just semantics, trying to allow all of evolution to occur, but call it "just" microevolution. This stance denies the possibility of speciation happening often enough that some new species in lineage A are different enough from new species in lineage B that they qualify as different kinds of animals. The trouble is, there is no definition of "kind" of animal, and no clear list of the animals that Noah had with him, so it's impossible to create a creation theory to explain the data.
Panza llena, corazon contento
