There is no scientific theory of evolution

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@GJDS

but from your comment, I would conclude that it is data fitting and not, strictly speaking, scientific predictions.

False. Comment when you get a chance to read it.

@GJDS

To reiterate past exchanges, if DNA differs by 2%, 5%, 10% etc., and you claim this proves some type of connection between species and descent, such a theory must quantify these similarities, and also quantify the differences (otherwise how would anyone classify these as distinct species?).

I don’t know what to tell you @GJDS, that is exactly what the theory does. I’ve even worked out the math for people here. All of this is easily found on the internet too. How many times do you want it to be repeated?

@GJDS

prominent biologists have considered these questions, and some appear to question the definition of species, and others say the genotype and phenotype ‘linkage’ may be too hard to elucidate.

Exactly, because most changes are neutral and have no effect on phenotype. This is a pretty important pieces of information you appear to be missing.

@GJDS

If you have a sound theoretical basis for equating a change in DNA with a (next) species in a hierarchy, than I would think you have something substantial to your idea of CD.

And this is exactly what we have.

[GJDS]

@Swamidass

I don’t know what to tell you @GJDS, that is exactly what the theory does

I don’t know what to say in reply Joshua - educate me in that case, since you are so confident, provide a publication that directly links the 2% difference, and 98% similarity, with the characteristics of chimps and humans (genotype and phenotype).

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

The only criteria that definitively separates one population from another as distinct species is a failure to produce fertile offspring.

But the problem of such a definition becomes apparent when two creatures who are traditionally seen as different species CAN mate and sometimes produce fertile offspring.

We’ve all heard of Ligers by now… offspring of Lions and Tigers… and so on. Some are more fertile than others.

But what we can conclude from this is sometimes populations are separate from each other due to geography and climate … which leads to some dramatic changes in phenotype (stripes? spots? colors? size? etc.)… when the genotype is still relatively similar!

The flip side of the coin?!?!?
A very small change in the sex chromosome of a population or individual is all you really need to break a population into two separately evolving gene pools…

This makes a lot more sense than to think God deliberately intended two KINDS of creatures to be able to mate and breed, don’t you think?

Liger

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@GJDS

I don’t know what to say in reply Joshua - educate me in that case, since you are so confident, provide a publication that directly links the 2% difference, and 98% similarity, with the characteristics of chimps and humans (genotype and phenotype).

I’m trying.

Let’s start with that last link and see how it goes. After that, you can read this about humans and chimps: http://www.pnas.org/content/113/38/10607. From that basis, you should be able to see why asking for the genotype-phenotype connection is a non-sequitur.

[Cornelius_Hunter]

@Swamidass

once by @Cornelius_Hunter at Darwin’s Blog

Please provide the URL.

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@JoeG

“There is no theory of evolution”- cytologist Jerome Lejeune at the 1982 close of the meeting of the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (no one disagreed and the meeting ended)

@Swamidass

This quote appears exactly 3 times on the internet. Two times in the comments of other articles (once by you!), and once by @Cornelius_Hunter at Darwin’s Blog.

@Cornelius_Hunter

Please provide the URL.

Here you go. Darwin's God: Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert Of course, if you can produce the source of the quote, that would be great. Like I said, it only appears 3 times on Google. Good luck.

EDIT: This was to a comment on @Cornelius_Hunter’s blog by @JoeG. My mistake.

[Swamidass (Peaceful Science)]

@Swamidass

Here you go. Darwin's God: Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert Of course, if you can produce the source of the quote, that would be great. Like I said, it only appears 3 times on Google. Good luck.

@Cornelius_Hunter my apologies. That was @JoeG commenting on your blog. You did not write that quote, and I am very sorry for the mistake there. Very sorry. You have absolutely no responsibility here.

So it looks like two of the three internet mentions of this quote are from @JoeG, and the other is uncited in a random blog post. http://www.darwinthenandnow.com/2010/08/butterfly-nightmare/

Perhaps, Jerome Lejeune did say this. Who knows. But just repeating it does not make it so. I want the reference.

[Cornelius_Hunter]

@Swamidass

Here you go. Darwin's God: Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert Of course, if you can produce the source of the quote, that would be great. Like I said, it only appears 3 times on Google. Good luck.

That quote did not come from me as you falsley claimed, it came from a comment on my blog. The URL is here for anyone to see:

Michael Skinner on Epigenetics: Stage Three Alert

[GJDS]

I have glanced at the abstract, and I think this is the part that gives you comfort:

Thus, not only the total rate, but also the mutational spectrum, varies among primates. This finding suggests that events in primate evolution are most reliably dated using CpG transitions. Taking this approach, we estimate the human and chimpanzee divergence time is 12.1 million years,​ and the human and gorilla divergence time is 15.1 million years​.

My question goes to the phenotype (the product we call a species). All that I see from a quick look at both your references is that mutations do occur, geneticists have differed on this subject over the past, and now you favour a theory of neutral drift. My glance at your first paper shows me nothing related to the phenotype, and a lot of ‘imagine if this occurred’, and based on some data we can eliminate some terms, and we arrive at a mutation rate (which means any change in sequence, without any reference to its importance or functional impact).

During the season of good will, I am disinclined to enter into a heated debate - my question is clear enough, and it does not require trolling through the biologist literature base - I have spent (wasted) enough time downloading papers on this area to be satisfied that the question I ask is debated amongst specialists, and I will leave it at that.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@GJDS

My question goes to the phenotype (the product we call a species). All that I see from a quick look at both your references is that mutations do occur, geneticists have differed on this subject over the past, and now you favour a theory of neutral drift.

There is no coherent definition of species based on phenotype.

Liger

[Cornelius_Hunter]

@Swamidass

@Cornelius_Hunter my apologies

Thank you for the correction. Not sure how that could have been confused with me, but thank you for correcting that incorrect attribution.

[JoeG (Joe Gallien)]

@gbrooks9

So this is your only test of whether Evolution is a testable theory?

Nope, but if there is a scientific ToE it would say as quantification is fundamental to science. You say the equation is for natural selection- what does it show NS can do?

BTW no one knows what makes a human a human which is just one reason universal common descent is untestable

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@JoeG

BTW no one knows what makes a human a human which is just one reason universal common descent is untestable

@JoeG

You would have some credibility if you acknowledged that ID is at least as untestable as TOE…

But you can’t bring yourself to say it… while ignoring all the testable parts of TOE.

[JoeG (Joe Gallien)]

George, what ToE? No one has been able to link to it. ID is testable and IDists have said exactly how to test it.

[gbrooks9 (George Brooks)]

@JoeG

George, what ToE? No one has been able to link to it. ID is testable and IDists have said exactly how to test it.

This thread is for you, @JoeG

Discussions on Successful Predictions of Evoluton!

I thought this excellent post would provide a good start for listing the various SUCCESSFUL predictions that the various parts of Evolutionary theory has made possible! Thank you @Aceofspades25 Continuing the discussion from There is no scientific theory of evolution: So what successful predictions has the theory of evolution made? For one thing, it was predicted that we must have a fusion on one of our chromosomes because we have one fewer pair than other great apes do. Well long after that…

[JoeG (Joe Gallien)]

Strange that no one can link to this alleged theory which means whatever they say about it is useless and meaningless.

[Casper_Hesp]

@JoeG

Strange that no one can link to this alleged theory which means whatever they say about it is useless and meaningless.

What are you looking for? Is this seminal work by Darwin himself not good enough for you?

http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf

On the Origin of Species

[Jonathan_Burke (Jon)]

@JoeG

Strange that no one can link to this alleged theory which means whatever they say about it is useless and meaningless.

Several people have already shown it to you. Here it is again. You can find more detail here.

[JoeG (Joe Gallien)]

That isn’t a scientific theory. He never says how to test his claims and he was ignorant of most of biology.

[JoeG (Joe Gallien)]

Wikipedia isn’t even a valid academic resource. Try again
People talking about “evolution” doesn’t make it a scientific theory. Neither Wikipedia nor talk origins have a citation for the actual theory- gee why is that?