Can Evolution Theory Be Falsified?

[Moonbear]

I was a moderator of this and the philosophy forums a couple of years ago now. I am sad that I stopped coming by and lost the privledge and responsibility, but sometimes we have to move on.

Greg has done some remodelling since you left, and that seems to include stronger locks on the chains keeping us mentors from straying so far.

 

[Another God]

LOL yeah...4,482 posts... you haven't strayed far have you? :D

Is Zero stil around? He should be on about 20,000 posts by now.

 

[Evo]

LOL yeah...4,482 posts... you haven't strayed far have you? :D

Is Zero stil around? He should be on about 20,000 posts by now.

Zero disappeared , that's when I took over GD.

 

[Danniel]

For scott_alexsk

I tryed to answer the PM, but the board said that you disable the option of accepting these, so I will answer it here anyway, since it's nothing really private

I appreciate your response on the evolution thread. What you say makes sense but I am still not sure about either arguement. What keeps me agnostic(sp) is the supposed failed tests to replicate any sort of change in mice. Even if no single test is definitive the author implied that a dramatic change was suspected in 60 generations of mice (according to the theory at that time, or else they would not have been trying it ). But they ended up just killing all of the mice. So perhaps a result like this is less definitive with the current theory, but more definitive with the past theory (before the experiments). But this is most likely just an incorrect assumption of mine. If you are interested I can dredge up the passage.

Thanks,
-scott

Glad you appreciated it.

Well, I'm not very aware of studies with mice, really. I find however a bit strange the idea of expecting to see "dramatic" (which is not a very meaningful, precise term) change in a given number of generations... I just can't think of how they would come up with such number, and also is vague what they mean by "dramatic".

But it all make it seems like some relatively old stuff from when they focused much in the effects of eventual mutation alone, induced by radiation or something (since the many deaths you mentioned hardly would result from attemtps to induce change with artificial selection). Which usually ended out with a bunch of frankensteinian flies among a lot of dead ones.

More (but not so much) recently they've been making more specific studies on developmental biology and studying evolution in the context of development. So rather than aimlessly shooting radiation until pops some interesting mutation, they actually study genes linked with the development and compare it with related genes in closely related species, and with not so closely related too, there's surprisingly much in common with animals as distant as far as insects and vertebrates; for example, with these two, along with all animals that have eyes, it was found that the same gene play an important role triggering the development of eyes, even though they have different sort of eyes. The same gene, however, still exists in animals from lineages that split before the common ancestor of all animals with eyes, like sea urchin.

You might find some interesting stuff on what I maybe would call "dramatic" changes googling for evo-devo, developmental biology, or evolutionary developmental biology. But there's some interesting "dramatic" stuff with the "old fashined" natural selection too, and however, even the more drastic changes understood by evo-devo should be seen somewhat in the context of natural selection.

I think that many interesting stuff are yet to come, since just last week I saw in the news about the finding of a whole new code in the DNA, related with gene expression.

 

[Danniel]

One section of it actually bothers to criticize charles darwin for his views on racial differences in humans: As if historic figures acting in their own time can be judged by modern standards. Sorry guys, but Darwin doesn't live in our time, its not-practical to apply our beliefs/morals/judgements upon him.

I haven't seen the link, though I've seen this sort of "argument", like "Darwin was a pre-nazi bastard that hatred god, stole candy from smaller kids when he was in school, and he peed on his own pants up to when he was 12 years old".

It is interesting to note, in this thing of racial issues, that although Darwin had views of racial differences that do not stood up with further evidence (or that wouldn't stand even with a bit more of logical analysis, with the current evidence of his time), he didn't supported ideas of racism, like slavery. In fact, in some of his writings, he expressed his abhor for slavery, when he witnessed the conditions of slaves in Brazil.

Also, parts in which he says things like "the savage cultures/peoples will eventually be eliminated by the civilized peoples", do not include any judgement of moral on the event, approving it, but he says that just as they are the previsible course of events, which turned out to not be wrong in great extent.

Even some social darwinists, like Herbert Spencer himself, did not approved genocide and such things, but actually said things in the sense of substitution of a culture by another improved one, where peoples on the "less evolved" cultures would simply adhere the new one. The whole thing actually is something a bit in the sense of some mid-far right politics of being opposite to social assistence and such things. At least as far as I recall, the things are more or less in this sense, but I haven't read really much, and these things I've said can be a bit more "light" than reality anyway.

(BTW, "social darwinism" came before darwinism; it was a popular set of ideas of that time and place, that more likely influenced Darwin than vice-versa, even though could be a bit of vice-versa anyway, since OTOOS and other writings of him were very influential. The "social darwinsm" term was coined in the 1940's I guess)

However, more importantly, even if Darwin and all the "eevilutionists" where in fact the evil incarnated, that doesn't make any theory less valid. Moral implications means nothing in science, only evidence really matters, which doesn't mean that we should not care for morality... interestingly evolution is the more victimized area of science of this sort of confusion. I don´t recall people complaining that Newton was a freak virgin that believed astrology and occultism, and led some people for execution, or even saying that his theory of gravity supported executions by hanging and made possible to people be suicide jumpers, or is to blame for traffic accidents and such

(but actually I've recently read of a far-right christian fundamentalist (and astrologist ) self-proclaimed phylosopher, that he finds many of his ideas on physics simply imbecile and he is to blame for the rise of atheism, which is actually the most evil thing, all so-called religious wars where in fact of atheists killing people, and atheism leads to communism, abortion, darwinism, anti-smoking and leftism in general)

 

[loseyourname]

You know, there is a terrific listing of different observations that might falsify the theory of common descent in that talk.origins FAQ that Ian posted. It's long and involved, but a heck of a read.

 

[scott_alexsk]

Thanks Danniel,

I appreciate your time and the information also. I'll check it out.

-scott

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

Discovery of a fossil of a modern human who lived 3 billion years ago (etc.) would falsify the theory of evolution.

At this point, though, the evidence is so complete that such a thing would not fit with the evidence we have. There isn't really any room left for any new evidence to completely falsify it, beyond God himself announcing he's been screwing with us.

As a matter of interest The God of the Abrahimic Faiths: Islam/Christian/Jew at least is incapable of lying, it's an overarching rule of Allah/God/Yahewa, so if he is screwing with us he's also lying about not being able to lie,

Creationism and ID wise Why anyone would spend there whole career trying and failing to falsify evolution is beyond me? So much learning wasted on trying to disprove a theory from a religous perspective
any chance that philosophy belongs in a scientific framework? Nope although I will grant that scientificly picking holes in the theory is eminently scientific, at least if you can find any.

 

[Another God]

There is so much room to falsify evolution. Sooooo much room. There are like millions and millions of species and varieties out there. MILLIONS. And every single one of those varieties, species, clades is an opportunity to falsify evolution.

All it takes is something truley unique. All it would take is for you to find an organism with bird like skeletal structure, and mamallian like intestinal structure. There are millions of organisms around, surely one of them can show its intelligently designed system to not obey the obvious predictions of evolutionary theory!

 

[Evo]

There is so much room to falsify evolution. Sooooo much room. There are like millions and millions of species and varieties out there. MILLIONS. And every single one of those varieties, species, clades is an opportunity to falsify evolution.

All it takes is something truley unique. All it would take is for you to find an organism with bird like skeletal structure, and mamallian like intestinal structure. There are millions of organisms around, surely one of them can show its intelligently designed system to not obey the obvious predictions of evolutionary theory!

It wouldn't have to be intelligently designed in order to be something that changes our view on evolution. There have been a number of finds that have put into question the progression of some species. The problem is, did that particular line evolve or die out? Just because some freak of nature is found doesn't mean it had offspring, or that any offspring continued. The best we can do is to look at the examples where we can see that a certain species has survived for a period of time and then examples which show modifications of that species.

 

[Oceanborn]

Well...there was the Piltown hoax and Nebraska Man and other hoax' among other misinterpretation of evidence. I mentioned this in my first post of this forum about how I don't understand why biogenesis constitutes life arising from non-life? And the probability chemical evolution by chance? There are not enough stars in the observable universe to calculate these odds.

 

[Schrodinger's Dog]

It would take a very brave man to assert that there are not enough stars in the universe to calculate those odds, as far as I'm aware their are is not enough data or understanding of the Earth 3.5 billion years ago to calculate what the real chances were, in fact we know little about a lot of the conditions on early Earth not suprisingly. Just saying in a lab it can't happen or we can't do it, or it's possible because of A is just not going to cut it, you need to know precisely what the conditions were over the first billion or so years of Earths history, without it your just guessing really.

For all we know aliens came down and accidently left some bacteria from their home world that became us, it's just as far fetched as saying God did it if you think logically, do you want to work backwards and ask how alien life evolved on the alien planet, this is akin to working with God as the intiator, absolute suposition based on suposition. And people wonder why science doesn't bother? Becasue it can't answer that question, all it can do is look at what we do know and make educated guesses, wrong or right that's the best you can expect from any theory.

It seems to me most people who want to combine religion with science either come to a happy medium or compromise or simply do not bother trying to combine them. To me the later makes the most sense, although not to some Christians obviously, but I do wonder about their ability for scientific rationality, basically if you don't want to believe the science, don't that's your prerogative, if you do then you'll have to do better than using God to discuss the subject or just claiming life is impossible after all their are a little over 6 billion people that would beg to differ.

 

[Phobos]

Well...there was the Piltown hoax

...a hoax played ON the scientific community which was later identified and rejected BY the scientific community

and Nebraska Man

...not a hoax (rather, it was an over-hype of a fossil by the popular media and not by scientists)

and other hoax'...

such as? relevance? (hoaxes happen in every walk of life...the scientific method has the benefit of systematically weeding them out)

And the probability chemical evolution by chance? There are not enough stars in the observable universe to calculate these odds.

Note that the laws of physics and chemistry are non-random. You can point to aspects of randomness in whatever process, but that's very different than characterizing something as pure chance. Also, theories on biogenesis and evolution do not invoke pure chance in the first place. The "calculation of odds" typically cited, refers to a pure chance process (false model) that leads to what we have today (false premise that today's conditions are the only possible outcome). And as previously noted, there's not a strong theory for biogenesis available (much is unknown), as opposed to evolution, which has a very strong/robust theory. So one must wonder how the "odds" are being calculated at all.

 

[Oceanborn]

Note that the laws of physics and chemistry are non-random. You can point to aspects of randomness in whatever process, but that's very different than characterizing something as pure chance. Also, theories on biogenesis and evolution do not invoke pure chance in the first place. The "calculation of odds" typically cited, refers to a pure chance process (false model) that leads to what we have today (false premise that today's conditions are the only possible outcome). And as previously noted, there's not a strong theory for biogenesis available (much is unknown), as opposed to evolution, which has a very strong/robust theory. So one must wonder how the "odds" are being calculated at all.

To may understanding biogenesis has been proven through observation and reliable has an established scientific fact. However, there is this assumption that life is an accident, a theory I was tought in school has evolution. All this seems interesting when we look at all the movies that have catered to the theories imagination--good movies! I was always a dinosaur fan, who, has a child, loved to play with my toy dinosaurs and read up on their mysterious existence and extinction. However, has the years progressed, I've learned new information that lead me to the question has to just how the dinosaurs died? Such a mass fossil record must have a logical explanation that goes beyond guess-work. I do not believe that an asteroid impact killed them simply because the evolution timeline should logically decline, or devolve--indeed, crocodiles should not exist if such a theory is true! The timeline should not continue to upscale into more complex forms of life! And did you know that linguistically speaking that the term "dinosaur" was not coined until 1841 by Sir Richard Owens? This may seem funny but the dinosaurs were ancient legends known has "dragons" and other titles known to the ancients by legend. Such legends found in the Bible and Sumerian literature like the Gilgamesh Epic describe such beast has we know them today has dinos. So the question lingers: What happened to the dinosaurs?

What are your thoughts on this?

 

[KnightTemplar]

Can the asteroid extinction theory explain the dinosaur fossil record better than the flood (which was accepted has fact before the Darwinian invasion on the scientific community)? The Flood was written in all ancient rap songs and there have been marine fossils found at the peaks of every mountain top, including the ones in my hallucinations! Yeah I know, evolutionist's have made up assumptions that attempt to use grammar properly and explain-away the evidence with theories that are mere theories at best.

The asteroid theory does a terrible job explaining the dream I had last night. The continual upscale of the evolutionary timeline is totally unscientific; only a child would fall for that one and I'm pretty sure that none of you will be there to catch me! Opps, children are taught this in school! I must have been sick that day. No wonder they believe this lie, they're taught it at a young age on days when they're not sick. I was taught this lie too and believed it until I realized that I didn't understand it. Like was said earlier, crocodiles etc. would not have survived the calamity because they cannot survive the steady stream of nonsense spewing from my keyboard, or the intense cold I feel when I forget to pay my electricity bill! All plant-life is dead. The entire world of nature is disrupted by the amount of nonsense I produce. Hence the evolution of life would have to rebegin with simple living organisms, much like myself.

And no, Dan Brown knows nothing about the "Knights Templar." My many personalities are all oblivious to one another! His Marxist scheme is well known and his factions refuted! Duh Da Vinchi Code is how my 13-year-old cousin refers to a popular movie. He has my blood, he should be flunked! I'm a (fruity) Knight Templar, but I don't carry a steel sword; my sword is not long enough. The Knights Templar never hid any secrets like the Dan the clown Brown falsely assumes. All Christian Knights reveal everything out in the open, especially to young boys. There are no secrets among us.

The word SUBTLE: The "b" in Subtle is so silent you have to pay attention! Reading is hard.

Do any of you have the constitutional right to believe in the religion of evolution? The simple answer is Cheese. Do we Christians have the right to confess our faith publically as well? The answer is a loud MAYONNAISE! Had it not been for Christianity we would have never had the Salem Witch Trials.

If science is to continue with objective research its going to have to be objective and self-servicing. If indeed the truth of the world is found in rap songs, and evolutionist's reject it out of political bias, what has this so-called world of science gained by denying Bobcat? (Britany Spears1:18-32).

 

[KnightTemplar]

Lets please keep our conversation in conduct with good manners
After all, I'm evading my multiple bans and deserve all the rights accorded to ordinary users because my mom used to tell me I was special. We can share our ideas together without cheating by fabricating my post or dodging bans by creating new email accounts.

 

[KnightTemplar]

Question: Will a mutaion between a human and and monkey/ape happen through the process of the medical process of artificial insemination? Or, is the DNA code too fixed for such mutation to just happen?

Oh, and, remember the curse that God made to the serpent in the garden in Genesis 3:14? The curse to the serpent involved God removing the DNA code that produced legs on the snake. Ironically, scientist have discovered ancient fossils of snakes with legs! Such evidence is proof of the Genesis narrative! All this should be very very good news to you atheist since it overwhelmingly favors Christianity (since mondern Judaism denies original sin). What this scientific discovery tells us is that God did curse creation after the fall of man. Now this curse produced degeneration in our gene pool because of sin (which is the result of disobeying God). God made His promise to redeem mankind in Gen.3:15 and so on through the Old Testament of the Bible. Jesus came and regeneration of the spirit is the free gift which leads to eternal life. All this is the seed of Love that must continue to grow through the love of Christ. It is this love that saves us in the end when Christ returns. Maybe I'm moving too fast for those of you who have never heard the good news of our salvation through the Cross and resurrection of Christ, who died and paid the ransom for humanity that was promised since Eden.

Jesus Christ is prophecied throughout the Old Testament of the Bible. I've studied them for some time and am convinced that Jesus is the Messiah. Modern Jewish leaders today have altered the meaning of prophecy because of their rejection. Ancient Jews agree with ancient and modern Christians. I speak with Jews regularly and they are a good people, just misled by the Sanhedrin who rejected Christ --also has prophecy had spoken.

I hope I'm not pushing myself too hard on you unbelieving folks. I'm just excited because I know that the Lord is coming soon and I want all of you to understand that the ancient promise had everything to do with the origin of everything --and the promise of eternity (Rev.21:1-7).

 

[Genius404]

KnightTemplar, Oh my god, you have to be kidding me! Look around, the evidence for evolution is everywhere! I mean, it's SO OBVIOUS that it can't be wrong! And science isn't about proving things that are SO OBVIOUS anyway!

 

[Genius404]

OMG! EVERYONE knows that snakes don't have legs! It didn't take Jesus Christ to tell us that!

 

[Genius404]

And, the Bible PROVES evolution is right! Noah had to fit all the animals on one little boat! There HAS to be evolution, because no way do all the animals now fit on one boat. It doesn't get more OBVIOUS!

 

[KnightTemplar]

"By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible" (Heb.11:3).

Is there any evidence for advance life beyond our human realm of understanding? Are their angels created by God before mankind?

"As I looked at the living creatures, I saw a wheel on the ground beside each creature with its four faces. This was the appearance and structure of the wheels: They sparkled like chrysolite, and all four looked alike. Each appeared to be made like a wheel intersecting a wheel" (Ezekiel 1:15-16).

Ezekiel chapters 1--3:15 speak about Ezekiel's call to prophethood. The descriptions of this calling involve angels called Cherubim (Eze.10:20). The Bible is full of such verses that indicated that God has created angelic being who have remained faithful to God and do not sin.

"He stretches out the North over empty space,
and suspends the Earth over nothing at all" (Job 26:7).

 

[metacristi]

Exactly how can evolution theory be falsified?

You can find here some (still feasible) ways of attack.

From the beginning it has to be said that what really make the evolution through natural selection be the 'normal science' of our days is not the fossil record (or the number of corroborated / not corroborated yet 'forward' predictions) but the fact that it has the greatest coherence with other parts of accepted scientific theories (naturalism included).

We have here what the philosophers of science name 'convergent evidence' (for example humans and chimpanzees have nearly the same pseudogenes hinting a common ancestor, geology hints that the Earth is very old, hypothesis God / aliens / multidimensional beings is not necessary currently to explain the observed facts etc).

Thus, in spite of the relative scarcity of transitional fossils (and scarcity of future predictions) evolution through natural selection fully deserves the status of 'normal' science of today, at least the first choice research program deserving to be pursued further.

But this approach does not discard the possible replacement in the future of the actual form of evolution theory with some form of ID, basically no known fact really impose on us to discard ID (though we do not have sufficient reasons for this today we must let the door open for non-trivial paradigm shifts in the future). Methodological naturalism is still, for the moment at least, the best approach to avoid all forms of dogmatism.


There are other ways in which Darwinian Evolutionism (implying also super-macroevolution) could be attacked:

For example, assuming ceteris paribus, if no super-macroevolution (implying more than mere speciation involving only limited change - which some identify as macroevolution) is observed by our far off successors (living at least tenths of thousands of years from now on) then I don’t think that the actual privileged status of natural selection can be maintained in the absence of a very strong argumentation explaining why super-macroevolution took place in the remote past but not in those days (of course this does not mean that a form of ID will become automatically the normal science, the first choice research program, of those days but only that we could consider at least some forms of ID as being on a par with evolution through natural selection).

Also in the context of the so called 'problem of induction' there is no sufficient reason now to think (assuming ceteris paribus at the level of other known 'laws' of science) that microevolution for example should hold at all future times (though today it is well corroborated). Thus if we could somehow find relevant statistical support against microevolution in the case of many practical cases then we could conclude that microevolution is severely discredited at least at that time.

In conclusion evolution through natural selection is our best way to make sense of observed facts at the moment but we should, still, consider it fallible; the possibility to be ammended in non-trivial trivial ways in the future should not be underestimated (at least at this time).

 

[Another God]

From the beginning it has to be said that what really make the evolution through natural selection be the 'normal science' of our days is not the fossil record (or the number of corroborated / not corroborated yet 'forward' predictions) but the fact that it has the greatest coherence with other parts of accepted scientific theories (naturalism included).

In my attempt to write an article about evolution I plan on having a section dedicated to the "Evolution isn't Science" claim so often made by creationists. My first draft is published in my blog (http://shanegreenup.blogspot.com/2006/08/evolution-as-scientific-theory.html) and the basic goal is to show that Evolution is clearly a science by all definitions of a science and follows the same pattern as all sciences do.

So i don't just talk about falsification points, which is only an idealised version of science IMO.

 

[metacristi]

So i don't just talk about falsification points, which is only an idealised version of science IMO.

In an 'eclectic' account of scientific practice (which I prefer) falsification is just one of the methodologies used by current science, far from being decisive; it cannot make a clear demarcation between science and pseudo-science. So even if the requirement of falsifiability is not met this does not automatically mean that we have the right to marginalize a theory, especially if it is otherwise very progressive (and explaining more than its alternatives).

In the case of Natural Selection the idea is that the different parts of the 'net' of accepted scientific knowledge, having methodological naturalism among the basic assumptions, form a very coherent 'compound' with Natural Selection, the different parts of this 'net' support each other indirectly (also the theoretical constructs posited as existing are absolutely necessary to explain the empirical success of the system, basically no redundant parts exist).

This cannot be said currently about the system having hypothesis God / an Intelligent Designer in the place of methodological naturalism but preserving the vast majority of accepted scientific knowledge and a modified evolution theory; here 'God' is a theoretical construct which does not make at the moment potentially testable future predictions in conjunction with other accepted scientific enunciations and it is very difficult to interpret from currently observed facts, unambiguously enough, God's (aliens / multidimensional intelligent creatures) intervention in Nature (the creation of new species included). This (and the fact that all existing 'irreducible complexity' arguments are weak now) is why ID cannot be considered currently on a par with Natural Selection.

Of course from the fact that hypothesis God is ad-hoc, rather redundant and basically non falsifiable does not automatically result that such an alternative system (having God as a basic assumption + the rest of accepted scientific enunciations less natural selection) is false or disproved. We should be rather very cautious here the old problem of epistemological infinite regress is far from being really solved, in a unique manner, once and forever (see this for example), at most we can say that currently a system based on methodological naturalism has more arguments 'pros' and thus deserves to be, provisionally, at the basis of current science.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I know the questions in the minds of many of you who have followed me to this point: "Does not science prove that there is no Creator?" Emphatically, science does not prove that!"
(Paul A. Moody, PhD. (zoology) (Emeritus Professor of Natural History and Zoology, University of Vermont) in Introduction to Evolution, Harper & Row, New York, second edition, 1962, p 513)

"Certainly science has moved forward. But when science progresses, it often opens vaster mysteries to our gaze. Moreover, science frequently discovers that it must abandon or modify what it once believed. Sometimes it ends by accepting what it has previously scorned."
(Eiseley, Loren C., [Professor of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania], "The Firmament of Time," The Scientific Book
Club: London, 1960, p.5)

"There must be no barriers for freedom of inquiry. There is no place for dogma in science. The scientist is free, and must be free to ask any question, to doubt any assertion, to seek for any evidence, to correct any errors." (J. Robert Oppenheimer)

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

I think the existence of an animal like the "Babelfish" would falsify evolution enough.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babel_Fish

 

[Rade]

...at most we can say that currently a system based on methodological naturalism has more arguments 'pros' and thus deserves to be, provisionally, at the basis of current science...

We can also recognize that all arguments from ID derive from "outside science", that is, by definition ID is an argument derived from the "supernatural". Even a Republican appointed federal judge in PA recognized that ID arguments on origin of species derive from "supernatural" as path to knowledge, not science. Here then the text of the PA lawsuit claim: "Although it may not require a literal reading of Genesis, [ID] is creationism because it requires that an intelligent designer started or created and intervened in a natural process," Leshner said. "ID is trying to drag science into the supernatural and redefine what science is and isn't."--and see this link to read what National Academy of Science has to say about ID:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design. Also, of course all must have an open mind--perhaps someday natural selection will be found to be wanting as primary mechanism of organic evolution--but let us not then suggest that the alternative scientific explanation will obtain from supernatural (ID), not a very logical approach to the issue IMO.

 

[O Great One]

It's a waste of time debating evolution on this board. If anybody falsifies evolution (which isn't that hard to do), the moderator will simply delete the post. The year is 1600. Evolution is the equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, intelligent design is the equivalent of the Copernicun model of the solar system, and the moderator gets to play the role of the Church. Shame! Shame! Shame!

 

[Another God]

It's a waste of time debating evolution on this board. If anybody falsifies evolution (which isn't that hard to do), the moderator will simply delete the post. The year is 1600. Evolution is the equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, intelligent design is the equivalent of the Copernicun model of the solar system, and the moderator gets to play the role of the Church. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Hahahahahahahaha

Hahahahahahahaha

Hahahahaha

*sigh*

your analogy is an amusing one, particularly since you are 150 years to late, and you have got yoru sides mixed up. Evolution is the galilean view of the solar system and creationism is the ptolomaic.

The Church CLINGS to the old view, that the Earth is the center of the universe : The Church CLINGS to the old view, that God created everything as it is.

Galileo is outcase by the church for daring to challenge the accepted notions : Darwin was outcast by most religious people in society for daring to challenge the accepted notions.

Only through time and accumulating evidence was the sun centered view accepted. Similarly, its only over time that all of science has absolutely accepted evolutionary theory.

There is no debate. Only the old-school fundamentalists believe there is a debate, and it is only amongst themselves they fund support.

The moderators delete new topics in this forum because there is no room for Creationism in a scientific forum. try to get it. Creation isn't science. ID = Creationism.

If you want to try to present your point of view on the matter, try the Evolution Vs Creation forums...they will happily talk about it. But even there it is quite clear that Evolutionary theory is undeniably scientifically true, and creationism is just a religious belief.

Shane

 

[selfAdjoint]

It's a waste of time debating evolution on this board. If anybody falsifies evolution (which isn't that hard to do), the moderator will simply delete the post. The year is 1600. Evolution is the equivalent of the Ptolemaic model of the solar system, intelligent design is the equivalent of the Copernicun model of the solar system, and the moderator gets to play the role of the Church. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Crackpot points for comparisons to Galileo or Copernicus. If it "isn't hard to do", why have all the creationists and ID mavens failed to do it?

 

[Another God]

If it "isn't hard to do", why have all the creationists and ID mavens failed to do it?

And for anyone who hasn't seen this yet, this is the COOLEST page ont he internet when it comes to Evolution discussion:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

A COMPLETE list of every argument against evolution, for Creation, For ID, etc etc.

All of them. you name the crackpot claim, and its there and already addressed.

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

Isn't falsification something that someone would strive to do to a theory in order to improve it? Why would creationists want to falsify evolution if that is the case, since it is my understanding that just because something is falsified doesn't mean it's false. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Edit: I looked it up on wikipedia and it said "Falsifiable does not mean false. For a proposition to be falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an observation that would show the proposition to fall short of being a tautology, even if that observation is not actually made" which is the main gripe that Evolutionists (or scientists if you prefer) have with creationists, is that in creation everything can be explained by "God made it that way".

 

[Another God]

No, falsifying something does indeed make it 'false' or 'wrong'...but does the point of falsification make the whol theory wrong, or just an attribute of the theory?

For instance, one potential point of falisification would be "Show that the world is NOT millions + year old". This would falsify the claim that evolution has created all of the diversity of life on Earth because without an Earth billions of years old, there is not enough time for evolution to craft all of that variety. This falsification point however does not contradict the ample evidence collected on variation, genetic drift, selective rpesure etc etc. The main body of the theory would stand, but the element falsified would need a new explanation... (maybe many species were 'seeded' on Earth by aliens..?)

 

[Gelsamel Epsilon]

So basically my misunderstanding is that something that is falsified IS false but being falsifiABLE makes something a valid theory since it would be able to be disproved by specific observations.

 

[MeJennifer]

When a theory is falsifiable it means that at least in principle there is a way where it could be shown to be wrong.
A theory that is not falsifiable is not a theory at all but instead a dogma or a belief.

 

[selfAdjoint]

A theory that is falsified is false; some fact has been shown to contradict it. A theory that it is possible to falsify is falsifiable; all scientific theories should be falsifiable, according to Popper's followers, but they should not actually be falsified, or why would they be useful?

It's just like the difference between being mortal and being dead. All people are mortal, but none of us is dead yet.