[Kryptid]

Do you mean that ToE is unfalsifiable?

No, I'm saying that you haven't falsified it.

Now, I will give you time here: what is your best falsification criteria for ToE to be falsified? And why you use that?

The discovery of a large number of out-of-order fossils (such as a pre-Cambrian rabbit) would definitely be a big problem for evolution to explain. The fact that there is a distinct chronological pattern to the fossil record is one of the big pieces of evidence for evolution. You start off with the simplest life forms (prokaryotes) which progress to single-celled eukaryotes then to colonial organisms like sponges, then simple invertebrates like worms, then fish, then amphibians, then reptiles, then mammals then humans. If there was no pattern to the fossil record, that would be evidence against evolution.

Biogeography is also evidence for evolution. The distribution of animals across the Earth's surface isn't random, but is related to what ancestors of those animals could have reached those places in a reasonable manner. From an evolutionary perspective, you'd never expect to find an African elephant on Easter Island, for example, because they would have no way to get there.

Genetic patterns are also strong evidence for evolution. The pattern of endogenous retroviral (ERV) elements (which were inserted by viral infections in the distant past) in chimpanzees and humans are extremely similar, which indicates that both chimpanzees and humans inherited these infection remnants from the same common ancestors. So another potential falsification would come from the discovery that two distantly-related animals (such as a gila monster and a great white shark) have significantly more ERVs in common than two closely-related animals do (a gila monster and beaded lizard).

They do not normally give  a fair fight.

What makes you say that?

[Origin]

and laugh to their insanity!

What does "laugh to their insanity" mean?  You have not falsified ToE or given any compelling evidence for ID.

[Kryptid]

For those interested, this appears to be the article that puppypower is talking about: https://www.salon.com/2022/02/05/biologists-surprised-to-discover-that-some-random-mutations-may-not-be-so-random/

We do know that mutations aren't completely random. Some areas of the genome are more resistant to mutation because mutation in those sections are more likely to be significantly damaging to the organism: https://www.livescience.com/non-random-dna-mutations

I'm pretty sure I have read an article at some point suggesting that epigenetic changes caused by DNA methylation could cause a form of "directed" evolution by making those same sections of methylated DNA more likely to mutate. An article hinting at heightened mutation rates caused by methylation can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/article/10/9/3337/6060130

I think the idea was that external stresses to the organism can cause epigenetic changes via methylation of particular DNA sequences that affect gene expression. I know I made a thread about this same idea some years back, but I'm pretty sure I also saw an actual article about it more recently. At any rate, I'd say it is indeed possible that the stresses caused by malaria infections could cause methylation in certain genes that cause the sickle-cell mutation to occur more often in malaria-exposed populations. It would be an interesting study to look into that.

[Colin2B]

I think the idea was that external stresses to the organism can cause epigenetic changes ........

You might be interested in this https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/06/genetic-switches-play-big-role-human-evolution
I have read that environmental pressures and even exposure to certain chemicals can cause genes to switch on or off affecting the genes which are then passed on.
This is in no way the same as the claims made by the op or puppy

[puppypower]

The problem with a random approach to mutations for evolution is that more things can do wrong than can go right. For example, ask a student to randomly guess at the answers to an exam, without ever reading the questions. Random is blind so it cannot read or anticipate. This is not an intelligent design if the goal is an A. My guess is you would fail the majority of exams but have a winning hand every now and then, like winning a lottery.

Instead, an intelligent design to exam taking, does to play the lottery for an A, but learns the cause and affect between the subjects studied and then apply reason to the stresses created by the questions in the exam. This approach will succeed most of the time since it does not depend on winning a lottery, which does happen but not very often to you.

I'm pretty sure I have read an article at some point suggesting that epigenetic changes caused by DNA methylation could cause a form of "directed" evolution by making those same sections of methylated DNA more likely to mutate. An article hinting at heightened mutation rates caused by methylation can be found here: https://academic.oup.com/g3journal/article/10/9/3337/6060130

Methylation of genes adds a reduced moiety; -CH3, to some of the bases on the gene. This added reduction of the gene, increases the surface tension in the local water. Since water and organics need to be in local and global equilibrium, if we first increase in the surface tension in the local water, near a gene, due to an environmental stress, then methylation would be more likely there. These methylated genes create a permanent and lingering surface tension in the local water, to mark an occasion of stress, which needs to be addressed due to non equilibrium.

If you look at the starter zones of all coding genes, these are all rich in Adenine. If you compare the heat of formation of Adenine to the other three nucleic acids, Adenine has the most endothermic heat of formation. It absorbed energy. This means it has the highest reduction potential in water. The water near all starter zones has the highest surface tension of anywhere along the DNA. Enzymes are preferentially attracted to these starters zones due to their peak local water surface tension, and the types of equilibria that are optimize.

Methylation, by adding surface tension, makes a location on the original clean gene appear like something that it is not, in terms of its local water equilibrium. One can get a similar non-equilibrium affect in the local water by adding a typo to the duplicated DNA, to mimic the equilibrium impact of methylation on the original DNA. Carboxylation has the opposite affect since it adds a moiety that is conducive to aqueous hydrogen bonding. This is stabilizing with such genes not likely to form equilibrium typos. These will be more likely to stay perfect since anything less will not form the correct equilibrium.

Random is not a good explanation when there are changes in local potential on the DNA such as methylation. Changes like methylation loads the dice, so even random has limits placed on it, making its guesses on the exam, more rational, since lowering a potential via equilibrium, always has a sweet spot.

When evolution occurs within multicellular organisms there is always more loading of the dice compared to single cells. Individual differentiated cells, which all have the same DNA, are part of a cellular differentiation control system. This adds outside potential, beyond each cell, so the team can be more than the sum of its parts. Dice are not appropriate. Random is a better approximation for single cells.

We live in a quantum universe where reality is based on quantum states with gaps between. A quantum universe is not based on continuous functions like statistical assumptions, where there are odds even things even in the gaps. This quantum reality is seen in evolution, especially among multicellular, where missing links are do not typically appear in the quantum gaps. Evolution builds up non-equilibrium potential; epigenetic, which it addresses piecemeal, until it is time to jump to a higher integrated quantum state; humans.

[Colin2B]

The problem with a random approach to mutations for evolution is that more things can do wrong than can go right. For example, ask a student to randomly guess at the answers to an exam, without ever reading the questions. Random is blind so it cannot read or anticipate.

d
Thank you for showing us you don’t understand evolution.
What if the student writes down a series of random answers, but the only ones that are selected are the ones that work ie are correct.

[Bored chemist]

Methylation of genes adds a reduced moiety; -CH3, to some of the bases on the gene. This added reduction of the gene, increases the surface tension in the local water.

You keep making the same mistake.
Adding alkyl groups reduces the surface tension.
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/je00019a016
So, you are not just wrong, but wrong for the wrong reasons.

[Bored chemist]

The problem with a random approach to mutations for evolution is that more things can do wrong than can go right. For example, ask a student to randomly guess at the answers to an exam, without ever reading the questions. Random is blind so it cannot read or anticipate. This is not an intelligent design if the goal is an A. My guess is you would fail the majority of exams but have a winning hand every now and then, like winning a lottery.

Instead, an intelligent design to exam taking, does to play the lottery for an A, but learns the cause and affect between the subjects studied and then apply reason to the stresses created by the questions in the exam. This approach will succeed most of the time since it does not depend on winning a lottery, which does happen but not very often to you.

This is a bad analogy because, in effect, you have billions of students taking the exam and as long as one of them randomly gets an A that's good enough.

[hamdani yusuf]

If you have no differences between intentional to non-intentional, or I use "intelligence", you cannot answer that question, basically, which means, the power of ToE has gone.

Something is intentional if it's the result of prepared action by one or more conscious agents. It means the result has been thought of previously. In other words, its form has been represented in a memory space of conscious agents before they realise it in objective reality.

If you mix some chemical substances without knowing what it will become, the result is not intelligently designed, no matter how complex it is.

What is the definition that you used in your theory? You can just quote it here. It shouldn't be that difficult.

[hamdani yusuf]

We may need a new intelligent design to replace the gambling casino science aspect of evolution. Mixing gambling math with science is not intelligent. If you take gambling too seriously, it can lead to compulsion and false hope in science. Reason and science is always better. This is how you make an intelligent design.

It seems that you need to learn about statistics and probability theory.