Coelacanth: Fish defying the ages, a challenge to evolution

[BGoodForGoodSake]

First of all you kind of missed what the hell I was trying to get across in the first place but that [poop] is difficult to express.

One thing is that the fossil evidence is insufficient, as has been explained here to support the theory. The timeline in which many things are said to have evolved is off and inconsistent. And I don't feel like repeating this stuff again.

...these changes take time and many creationists can't even consider the idea of the earth being billions of years old, so I wouldn't expect any consideration of the ridiculously slow pace at which these changes occur.

Again, more ignorance about creationism, you're thinking young-earth.

For some good opinions on evolution from an old-earth perspective (or just general perspective) give this site a shot: //www.reasons.org

Given that you are not YEC, if microevolution is allowed to occur over millions of years do you still expect a dog to be a dog?
Lets look at fish for instance, you seem to group them together given perhaps your infamiliarity with them. However fish come in great variety, how can they be grouped as a single group?
carplungfish
swordfishGreat White Shark
Angler FishFlounder

[Ark~Magic]

Again, not my point. The fact is that even though they may be incapable of interbreeding, it is still of the same category (a fish).

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Again, not my point. The fact is that even though they may be incapable of interbreeding, it is still of the same category (a fish).

A shark and a flounder is way more different than a dog and cat.
So are dogs and cats the same kind?

[August]

Hi Bgood and thereal,

I want to clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding between us. I never asked for a justification of evoluntionary theory, I'm familiar with the theory. My request was, in response to the statement that the theory of evolution is easly testable, to show how one of the theories building blocks, natural selection, can be tested. To date, it is my perception that we seem to be making no progress towards an answer ot my request. It may just be my stupidity, and you guys need to explain it to me again, if you feel that you have already done so.

I understand how evolution is supposed to work, and repeatedly explaining to me how it is supposed to work, does not answer my question. If I'm not mistaken, testability is closely related, even synonymous, with falsification. All I'm asking for is how natural selection can be falsified then, by implication. If natural selection is part of the mechanism that leads us to see the diversity of life today, how can that be tested, across phyla, species and through biochemical pathways? How do we reconstruct the evolutionary history of an organism step by step, showing that by small incremental changes it came to be what it is today, what were the starting points such as the common ancestor, how much and what morphological etc information was encoded in its DNA, what were the incremental changes over what time periods, what were the environmental pressures that caused those changes, what benefits did the organism gain from those changes in response, how and why did those changes survive to form more beneficial traits later on if it added no immediate benefit to the organism, and then, how can that history be falsified? What else is there that that specific history can be tested against? What would be the other options that leads us to believe that our specific history is the correct one, caused by what we say caused it, namely natural selection? Is there any way in which you can show that no conceivable biochemical pathway could have lead to that result?

Since we have had mention of the deer and mouse on this thread, please feel free to show the evolutionary pathway of either in terms of my above request, so that we can arrive at a model that can potentially be tested/falsified.

Now on to the responses I received, although due to our misunderstanding, is not related to the discussion I was hoping to have.

Bgood:

Mutations and novel combinations of existing traits provide additions to variability.

Can you maybe explain "novel combinations of existing traits" a bit more? Is this the mechanism that over time adds traits?

I am saying if something prevents the organism from passing on their genes then it will not pass onto the next generation. This includes harmful genes.

This is not what I suggested. I stated that non-harmful genes will persist in the population. I used the two examples for contrast, see next quote.

Ok, so I want to distinguish here between traits and genes. Genes can be neutral or beneficial only, while only useful traits are preserved, according to Dawkins? Harmful genes will cause that specific branch to die out within a few generations, according to what I have read.

Multiple micro-evolution events.

Uh, ok. But micro-evolution is by definition changes within species, so at least by that definition you can have millions of these events and still not have speciation or new phyla. But if it is as you propose, then we are back to how that can be tested.

New phyla do not suddenly occur. They are defined as a phyla because they are so morphologically different.

Can you perhaps point to some evidence for the gradual development of phyla?

Not if by definition harmful mutations cause mortality or infertility.

Addressed above.

Very well, however in nature are there no pressures for living animals?

Sure, but how is that similar to you artificially selecting something that is selectively advantageous? Selection can only act on what is present, both in genetic and environmental terms, for the current generation. With you selecting, you have purposely decided that a trait would be beneficial, but natural selection is blind in that regard, it can only preserve what is present and therefore cannot select to breed bigfoot mice.

That brings another question to mind, at what point during an individuals lifespan does mutation take place? If mice with big feet were advantaged, did the first one with big feet just happen by chance, and its offspring spread the trait? Or was it born with small feet and then was subject to some environmental pressure that caused a mutation that gave it big feet that it passed on? The second option sounds a little Lamarckian to me, can any of you explain that to me a bit more?

No, selection only works for existing traits within a population.

So how do new traits come into existence?

Above you wrote:

Mutations and novel combinations of existing traits provide additions to variability.

If it can only select for existing traits, it will never select mutations and novel combinations?

May I ask given a large number of microevlution events why won't speciation not occur?

You may ask anything, of course . I addressed this before, but in short, the definition of microevolution is changes within species, so multiple events cannot create new species. The observed changes in microevolution substitutes or decreases information, but does not add information so as to create new species, is the theory.

This can be speculated but given that the fossil record is majority hard material like bones we cannot know how an eye developed. However the variety of eyes within the natural world can give us clues. The inability to explain how specific things evolved only shows the limitations of our knowledge.

Since you are putting our lack of knowledge down to the limitations in understanding the specifics, you are arguing from ignorance, and the variety of eyes is mere speculation.

thereal wrote:

You are exactly right in assuming natural selection is a blind process in the sense that an organism is not changing to reach a certain "perfect form"; the changes are random in the sense that they are dictated by such things as environmental condition, sexual selection strategy, etc. This is a common misconception by many that animals are evolving "towards" something. The predictive value of natural selection does not lie in determining what the animal should look like in 1000 years given its present form, but how features of an animal should be expected to respond to a certain change in its environment. First comes change in environment, then the change in the organism.

Ok, that is how I understood the theory too.

This is not a circular argument as you insinuate, as the first meaning of "successful" and the second are not the same. This definition would be more clearly stated "the successful individuals (those that pass on the most genetic material to the next generation) are the ones that procreate best, while the ones that procreate best are the successful ones (those that possess characteristics that make them best suited to the current environment).

I'm not insinuating anything, I'm stating it. Your wordplay does not change the statement. What is the difference between those that pass on the most genetic material to the next generation and those that are best suited to the environment? Are they two different sets of organisms? That would defeat the theory of evolution, since by definition, those that are best suited to the environment has the best and most chance to pass on their genetic material.

Why can morphological characters not be used to this end, such as fur length, color, defenses. You do not need to introduce new mutations to test natural selection...existing characteristics can be examined for this purpose.

How does that test natural selection? You are merely observing physical traits, while speculating as to how those traits came to be. If you want to test natural selection, you cannot merely look at existing traits, you have to account for how they were selected at the point of development.

It would be great to examine the whole process from beginning to end (introduce mutation that is beneficial given the current environment, see those individuals with that mutation reproducing relatively more than those without, watch it spread in the population while other forms of that gene either remain static or decrease, etc.) This would show both natural selection and evolution (as evolution is simply a change in allele frequency over time). To see this in nature would be incredibly difficult and time consuming, as mutations occur randomly, you would need to be lucky to find the right population, response to environmental change lags behind the actual changes, etc.

So it has never been observed?

Although many of these separate components have been tested in the lab, for some reason I can't understand, this seems inadequate to those who don't believe these processes happen.

So we are to inductively believe that the whole complex process that you described above happens, based on the testing of seperate components. Since you were not specific as to which components they were, I cannot answer your question.

I have a real problem when people identify something as microevolution while not believing in macroevolution. These are one in the same, just different degrees of evolution.

They are the same, just different? Why do you not give us the definitions of both, so that we can see where they are the same?

It's like saying I believe in an embryo developing into the gastrula stage, then the gastrula eventually developing into a fetus, etc...but I don't believe that an embryo can develop into an adult. How can many microevolutionary events not lead to macroevolution? Maybe it's due to the impatience of humans that they want to see this process in their lifetime, but it's not going to happen....this process takes time.

Ok, how long does it take? How many generations, by order of magnitude, thousands, millions?

[thereal]

I doubt I can tackle everything you've just brought up in a concise manner, so I'll try and address what you stated are your original questions. First,

My request was, in response to the statement that the theory of evolution is easly testable, to show how one of the theories building blocks, natural selection, can be tested.

Natural selection can be tested by examining how traits with a genetic basis change over time in response to some stimulus. For example, if a certain form of sexual selection results in the male individuals with the longest tails reproducing the most often, and tail size is a heritable trait, then natural selection would predict that over time average tail size should increase. This only works if tail size is a genetic trait, for if an individual simply grows a longer tail but can't pass on this trait then it has no chance of becoming a more prevalent trend in the population. Whether or not traits are genetic is easily tested by examining whether that beneficial trait appears in the progeny of those "long-tailed" individuals. This specific example has been performed with the weaver birds of Africa. When long-tailed males have long-tailed offspring (showing it has a genetic basis) and the trait becomes more dominant in the population due to more successful reproduction...that is natural selection, end of story. This type of investigation can be performed with any heritable trait, including such things as coloration, behavior, etc....that is how natural selection can be tested.

All I'm asking for is how natural selection can be falsified then, by implication. If natural selection is part of the mechanism that leads us to see the diversity of life today, how can that be tested, across phyla, species and through biochemical pathways? How do we reconstruct the evolutionary history of an organism step by step, showing that by small incremental changes it came to be what it is today, what were the starting points such as the common ancestor, how much and what morphological etc information was encoded in its DNA, what were the incremental changes over what time periods, what were the environmental pressures that caused those changes, what benefits did the organism gain from those changes in response, how and why did those changes survive to form more beneficial traits later on if it added no immediate benefit to the organism, and then, how can that history be falsified? What else is there that that specific history can be tested against? What would be the other options that leads us to believe that our specific history is the correct one, caused by what we say caused it, namely natural selection? Is there any way in which you can show that no conceivable biochemical pathway could have lead to that result?

Wow, that's a lot to handle, but from some of your remarks it seems you're attempting to find a way to "prove" evolution can't happen. If this in incorrect, I apologize, but if this is a fair assumption I hate to be the spoiler for you, but you can never disprove a theory, you can only provide support for it or provide support for an alternate theory. As there is no testable alternative theory (I can hear the cries of ID proponents), I'll address the above question.

First off, to show the step-by-step changes from one species to another we would need fossil evidence of every stage between one species and another. For example, to show the change between lizards and snakes you would need to find a fossil with slightly reduced limbs, then another with more reduced limbs, then one with no limbs, then one with no limbs and reduced ear structures, etc. along the whole continuum between the two groups. Due to the rarity of fossils in general this is unlikely, but many fossils that have a mixture of features from two groups do exist. When you ask about molecular and biochemical approaches to a topic such as this...well, these things are dead and fossilized, so any statements made on physiological characteristics or gene flow are not directly observeable...they are inferred from either observations of living organisms or from estimates of prehistoric environments. The same is true for predicting what environments existed then and how those species, families, phyla, etc. that survived were best suited. In addition, to determine the genetic basis of certain beneficial traits would first require identifying the genes responsible for that trait and then seeing how they change over time...considering we have decoded the genomes of so few organisms, this is a lofty endeavor.

What else is there that that specific history can be tested against? What would be the other options that leads us to believe that our specific history is the correct one, caused by what we say caused it, namely natural selection? Is there any way in which you can show that no conceivable biochemical pathway could have lead to that result?

If you're asking for alternate, testable hypotheses to offer next to evolution, it's like I stated above...there are none. Intelligent design is based on a subjective decision that certain things are "too complex" to have evolved, like saying something is "too big" or "too small"...subjective and not testable. So I guess you could say, if you're not a believer in evolution, that given ToE is our only testable hypothesis (regardless of the support I feel we already have for it) for the way things are, it is both the best explanation and the worst explanation. I don't know if that helped anything, but I tried my best. It's my opinion that since we are now recording things such as genomes, we are now in the best position to start seeing macroevolution firsthand, but we are at the the starting line of a long, long race. This will all be settled in a mere 100,000 years!

[August]

Gents, I have split the meaning of life discussion to another thread, it's off topic here.

New thread here:
http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 3444#23444

[BGoodForGoodSake]

Hi Bgood and thereal,

I want to clear up what seems to be a misunderstanding between us. I never asked for a justification of evoluntionary theory, I'm familiar with the theory. My request was, in response to the statement that the theory of evolution is easly testable, to show how one of the theories building blocks, natural selection, can be tested. To date, it is my perception that we seem to be making no progress towards an answer ot my request. It may just be my stupidity, and you guys need to explain it to me again, if you feel that you have already done so.

All I'm asking for is how natural selection can be falsified then, by implication.

Lets say we have a hypothesis, that the environment effects the development of a species. We can then test this idea using a controled experiment.
We have two groups one is the control group and the other is the experimental group.
To simulate selection we will select for any observable trait.
The selection is performed on the experimental group only, and done through several generations.
If the hypothesis is false we will expect the control group and the experimental group to show no marked differences at the end of the experiment.

If natural selection is part of the mechanism that leads us to see the diversity of life today, how can that be tested, across phyla, species and through biochemical pathways?

Not sure what you mean here?

How do we reconstruct the evolutionary history of an organism step by step, showing that by small incremental changes it came to be what it is today

Whoa hold on here, it seems you have higher standards for evolutionary standards than you do for other sciences.

what were the starting points such as the common ancestor

Common ancestor is inferred through gene analysis. Not identified.

how much and what morphological etc information was encoded in its DNA

We are beginning to discover how morphological information is encoded in the DNA.

what were the incremental changes over what time periods

Again what does this have to do with proving a process exists. Proving a process exists and describing the exact path the process takes are two entirely different things.

what were the environmental pressures that caused those changes

Again we can conduct experiments which show that pressures do effect a species development. That alone proves that selection does occur.

what benefits did the organism gain from those changes in response, how and why did those changes survive to form more beneficial traits later on if it added no immediate benefit to the organism,

Changes in environment changes the pressures on an organism and each individual is forced to adapt or perish.

and then, how can that history be falsified?

Show that selection cannot work, and you have falsified it.
Example, we have some rats genetically related, however one is an exceptionally good swimmer and the other is just average. The swimming rats are beleived to have resulted from normal rats who found themselves on a group of islands which were slowly submerging. If If natural selection is shown to be false then this would be false as well.

What else is there that that specific history can be tested against?

I don't understand.

What would be the other options that leads us to believe that our specific history is the correct one

Again I am not sure what you are saying.

caused by what we say caused it, namely natural selection? Is there any way in which you can show that no conceivable biochemical pathway could have lead to that result?

No, of course not, but I am always open to suggestions.

Mutations and novel combinations of existing traits provide additions to variability.

Can you maybe explain "novel combinations of existing traits" a bit more? Is this the mechanism that over time adds traits?

Not only mutations add traits, lets say we have a mouse which has a modified blood heme group. And another which has larger lung capacity.
Alone these traits don't give a mouse any advantages. However together this rat can spend much more time underwater than a normal rat.

I am saying if something prevents the organism from passing on their genes then it will not pass onto the next generation. This includes harmful genes.

This is not what I suggested. I stated that non-harmful genes will persist in the population. I used the two examples for contrast, see next quote.

Ok, so I want to distinguish here between traits and genes. Genes can be neutral or beneficial only, while only useful traits are preserved, according to Dawkins? Harmful genes will cause that specific branch to die out within a few generations, according to what I have read.

Not sure what your point is.

Multiple micro-evolution events.

Uh, ok. But micro-evolution is by definition changes within species, so at least by that definition you can have millions of these events and still not have speciation or new phyla. But if it is as you propose, then we are back to how that can be tested.

What exactly is the difference between a rat and deer? Can you tell me?
Larger body size? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely
Changes in teeth shape? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
Changes in vision acuity? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
Changes in appendage length? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
As you can see many microevolution events can lead to a different body plan.

New phyla do not suddenly occur. They are defined as a phyla because they are so morphologically different.

Can you perhaps point to some evidence for the gradual development of phyla?

Given the fossil evidence can you show any evidence against the early branching of diversity? Diversification is the logical extension of microevolution. Isolation allows each branch to develop independantly. Take languages for instance. English spoken in the U.K. the east coast and the west coast has developed independantly and can now be distinguished.

Very well, however in nature are there no pressures for living animals?

Sure, but how is that similar to you artificially selecting something that is selectively advantageous? Selection can only act on what is present, both in genetic and environmental terms, for the current generation. With you selecting, you have purposely decided that a trait would be beneficial, but natural selection is blind in that regard, it can only preserve what is present and therefore cannot select to breed bigfoot mice.

I don't know how you are making a disctinction. In the lab the trait larger feet exists and is being selected. In the wild any selection would likewise be on existing traits. This is how experimentation works, do you see a flaw in this experiment?
The problem is many of the ecosystems have been under the same selective pressures for many generations, and that is why you see animals supremely adapted to their environment, however we know that environments change. Changes such as new predators, changes in weather, or the introduction of new fauna and flora can and do happen. In these cases each species is under pressure to adapt to these new conditions, and the resulting surviving population will have a reduced gene pool.

That brings another question to mind, at what point during an individuals lifespan does mutation take place? If mice with big feet were advantaged, did the first one with big feet just happen by chance, and its offspring spread the trait? Or was it born with small feet and then was subject to some environmental pressure that caused a mutation that gave it big feet that it passed on? The second option sounds a little Lamarckian to me, can any of you explain that to me a bit more?

We both know that there have been experiments disproving Lamarkian ideas to an extent. Obviously animals do have the ability to respond to their environment. However in the experiment above, the trait already existed. Selection only works on existing traits.

No, selection only works for existing traits within a population.

So how do new traits come into existenceAbove you wrote:

Mutations and novel combinations of existing traits provide additions to variability.

If it can only select for existing traits, it will never select mutations and novel combinations?

Once a mutation or novel combination occurs it is now an existing trait.

May I ask given a large number of microevlution events why won't speciation not occur?

You may ask anything, of course . I addressed this before, but in short, the definition of microevolution is changes within species, so multiple events cannot create new species.

You're playing with definitions. Because given enough changes within a species it will no longer be the same as the original species. Just because the definition states that the change is within the species does not mean that given enough changes it will not become a new species.

The observed changes in microevolution substitutes or decreases information, but does not add information so as to create new species, is the theory.

Substituting information is the creation of new information. Example we have a type of cow which only has brown eyes. A substitution causes the eyes to be blue. In this individual we have substituted the brown for blue, but in the gene pool we have added information.

This can be speculated but given that the fossil record is majority hard material like bones we cannot know how an eye developed. However the variety of eyes within the natural world can give us clues. The inability to explain how specific things evolved only shows the limitations of our knowledge.

Since you are putting our lack of knowledge down to the limitations in understanding the specifics, you are arguing from ignorance, and the variety of eyes is mere speculation.

It is speculation, it was never stated otherwise. We cannot know how the eye has actually developed.

[August]

I was going to post another long reply here, but having yet another go-around on the same topics won't get us far.

I asked an honest question, and it was assumed by both of you that I was trying to disprove evolution, while I was after how natural selection can be falsified. After all, I did not dispute that micro-evolution happens, and natural selection is part of that. I'm sure that we are in disagreement at this point, and I'm perfectly happy to leave it there. I still have not seen how natural selection can be falsified, all I saw was that you argued that if we look at organisms today, we come to the conclusion that they are best suited to their environment, and that is the result of natural selection. It still does not show how it can be falsified.

There was a couple of contentious points I wanted to address:
thereal wrote:

If this in incorrect, I apologize, but if this is a fair assumption I hate to be the spoiler for you, but you can never disprove a theory, you can only provide support for it or provide support for an alternate theory.

I'm afraid that Karl Popper, the first person to describe the scientific method, disagress with that. He argued that theories can never be proven, but can always be disproven. And how is showing support for an alternative theory not disproving the first one? Both cannot substantially fit the evidence, can they? For example, is Lamarkian evolution true?

Bgood wrote:

What exactly is the difference between a rat and deer? Can you tell me?
Larger body size? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely
Changes in teeth shape? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
Changes in vision acuity? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
Changes in appendage length? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
As you can see many microevolution events can lead to a different body plan.

All at the same time?

Given the fossil evidence can you show any evidence against the early branching of diversity?

I'm not sure how that relates to my question. I asked for evidence of gradual development of phyla, which you mentioned many times.

I don't know how you are making a disctinction. In the lab the trait larger feet exists and is being selected. In the wild any selection would likewise be on existing traits. This is how experimentation works, do you see a flaw in this experiment?

I don't have a problem with experimentation. I differ from you in that I don't believe that you can compare selection of a trait in the lab to selection in nature. In the lab, you select with a purpose, namely to develop a specific trait. In nature there is no purpose for selection beyond the current generation.

You're playing with definitions.

C'mon, Bgood. You know better than that.
"Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

Because given enough changes within a species it will no longer be the same as the original species. Just because the definition states that the change is within the species does not mean that given enough changes it will not become a new species.

I stand to be convinced of that, but it is off-topic for our discussion.

Substituting information is the creation of new information. Example we have a type of cow which only has brown eyes. A substitution causes the eyes to be blue. In this individual we have substituted the brown for blue, but in the gene pool we have added information.

No, you have not added information. The brown gene is broken and replaced, so there has been no net addition of information. Cows still contain the same amount of genetic information.

Then something that thereal said that actually renders the whole discussion rather pointless, in my opinion:
thereal said:

If you're asking for alternate, testable hypotheses to offer next to evolution, it's like I stated above...there are none.

The evidence is then always interpreted in terms of the evolutionary hypothesis, and there are no other possible theories against which the evidence is tested. If there is only one theory by which evidence is interpreted, the theory cannot be falsified, and remains untestable.

[BGoodForGoodSake]

After all, I did not dispute that micro-evolution happens, and natural selection is part of that. I'm sure that we are in disagreement at this point, and I'm perfectly happy to leave it there. I still have not seen how natural selection can be falsified, all I saw was that you argued that if we look at organisms today, we come to the conclusion that they are best suited to their environment, and that is the result of natural selection. It still does not show how it can be falsified.

Bgood wrote:

What exactly is the difference between a rat and deer? Can you tell me?
Larger body size? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely
Changes in teeth shape? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
Changes in vision acuity? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
Changes in appendage length? Can that occur through micro evolution? Absolutely.
As you can see many microevolution events can lead to a different body plan.

All at the same time?

I understand how you could be incredulous. However that may be because you are seeing the outcome and seeing what changes must occur in order to reach the outcome.
However evolutionary theory does not state this.
It states what changes must have occurred so that we have what we see today.
There is a variety within a population not just of one trait but of all traits.
In the lab we may select for a single trait, because that way it is more controlled easily measurable, however in the natural world, the selection is for an organism as a whole. If the selection is for individuals with the ability to evade predators the survivors will be those who are swifter. This may include longer appendages better eyesight, etc...

Given the fossil evidence can you show any evidence against the early branching of diversity?

I'm not sure how that relates to my question. I asked for evidence of gradual development of phyla, which you mentioned many times.

I don't understand how you can agree to small scale changes but then fail to see how small changes can accumulate.

I don't know how you are making a disctinction. In the lab the trait larger feet exists and is being selected. In the wild any selection would likewise be on existing traits. This is how experimentation works, do you see a flaw in this experiment?

I don't have a problem with experimentation. I differ from you in that I don't believe that you can compare selection of a trait in the lab to selection in nature. In the lab, you select with a purpose, namely to develop a specific trait. In nature there is no purpose for selection beyond the current generation.

The point of a lab experiment is to see if a process exists. If you have no problems with it existing what problems do you have with it existing in nature? And what do you mean there is no purpose for selection in nature? Are you saying that the individuals which happen to survive do so randomly?

If selection fails to work in a controlled environment then it is safe to say that it does not exist in nature as well.
That is how you disprove natural selction.
Another way is to disprove that it happens in nature.
Although we cannot control natural events as we can in a lab some events allow us to study how an ecosystem adapts to change.

For example a volcanic eruption or introduction of a new species of plant or animal life.

Introduction of dogs in australia is an example.
Introduction of africanized bees into the environment in the Americas is another.

You're playing with definitions.

C'mon, Bgood. You know better than that.
"Microevolution is evolution on a small scale—within a single population. That means narrowing our focus to one branch of the tree of life."
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/e ... tion.shtml

Because given enough changes within a species it will no longer be the same as the original species. Just because the definition states that the change is within the species does not mean that given enough changes it will not become a new species.

I stand to be convinced of that, but it is off-topic for our discussion.

Substituting information is the creation of new information. Example we have a type of cow which only has brown eyes. A substitution causes the eyes to be blue. In this individual we have substituted the brown for blue, but in the gene pool we have added information.

No, you have not added information. The brown gene is broken and replaced, so there has been no net addition of information. Cows still contain the same amount of genetic information.

No the gene pool as a whole now has additional information. Selection works across individuals, variety exists within a population not an individual.

[Yehren]

How to falsify evolution....

1. Show that speciation is impossible.

2. Show that there is no such thing as natural selection

3. Show the fossil of a mammal in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.

Among many, many others.

[August]

How to falsify evolution....

1. Show that speciation is impossible.

2. Show that there is no such thing as natural selection

3. Show the fossil of a mammal in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.

Among many, many others.

How do any of those falsify evolution? Against what alternative hypothesis are you going to test any of those?

[Jbuza]

2. Show that there is no such thing as natural selection

Since [bacteria] reproduce themselves, in favourable conditions, every twenty minutes, they might be expected to evolve faster than any other organism -- but fossil bacteria going back three and a half billion years, to the threshold of life itself, have been recovered and are virtually identical with modern forms."

http://www.creationfoundation.co.uk/Evolution/g11.htm

[Yehren]

How to falsify evolution....

1. Show that speciation is impossible.

2. Show that there is no such thing as natural selection

3. Show the fossil of a mammal in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.

Among many, many others.

How do any of those falsify evolution?

1. Show that speciation is impossible.

With macroevolution proven impossible, common descent no longer possible.

2. Show that there is no such thing as natural selection.

Without natural selection, evolution would have no direction, and therefore could not account for life's diversity.

3. Show the fossil of a mammal in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.

It would overturn the entire basis for fossil evidence.

Against what alternative hypothesis are you going to test any of those?

Testability is not a competition, but a testing of hypotheses to see if they can account for the evidence. A theory can be refuted, without any alternative confirmed.

[Yehren]

Since [bacteria] reproduce themselves, in favourable conditions, every twenty minutes, they might be expected to evolve faster than any other organism

That's what we see. They evolve much faster than eukaryotes in general and metazoans in particular. Most of the evidence for evolution of new features, irreducible compexity, etc. has been through bacteria. They have much, much more diversity than other forms of life.

-- but fossil bacteria going back three and a half billion years, to the threshold of life itself, have been recovered and are virtually identical with modern forms."

Well, they are shaped something similar (although there are many modern bacteria that look nothing like any fossil bacteria. But bacteria vary biochemically, since they are single celled organisms. (for the most part; some modern forms are essentially multicellular)

As evolutionary theory predicts, evolution moves much faster in bacteria than in humans.

[August]

How to falsify evolution....

1. Show that speciation is impossible.

2. Show that there is no such thing as natural selection

3. Show the fossil of a mammal in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.

Among many, many others.

How do any of those falsify evolution?

1. Show that speciation is impossible.

With macroevolution proven impossible, common descent no longer possible.

2. Show that there is no such thing as natural selection.

Without natural selection, evolution would have no direction, and therefore could not account for life's diversity.

3. Show the fossil of a mammal in undisturbed Cambrian deposits.

It would overturn the entire basis for fossil evidence.

Against what alternative hypothesis are you going to test any of those?

Testability is not a competition, but a testing of hypotheses to see if they can account for the evidence. A theory can be refuted, without any alternative confirmed.

Sorry, nope.

1. Common descent is shown phylogenic congruency, and that cannot be falsified nor tested. If it can, please show what amount of incongruency would show common descent to be untrue.
2. So are you saying that evolution is a directed process, and that natural selection is the force that provides that guiding? How can that be tested or falsified?
3. Fossil evidence for evolution is shown in fossil lineage, not by individual fossils. Please show how fossil lineage can be falsified.