Can Evolution Theory Be Falsified?

[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.

 

[metacristi]

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"...

"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."

Well while I agree that currently we cannot accept that ID is on a par with natural evolution I cannot agree with the hidden assumption that the methodologies used by current science cannot change in non-trivial ways.

The above quotes seems to advocate either the idea that hypothesis God is not a subject for science (as fideists, among others, say) or that such a hypothesis is never a reasonable solution for science so we can always ignore it safely (as some atheists claim; a stance basically indistinguishable, at the practical level, from metaphysical naturalism: there is no transcedental intelligent creator).

But methodological naturalism does not reject the possibility of 'supernatural' and 'supernatural science'. Naturalism is considered merely a fallible assumption of science, we have currently much more reasons to keep it as the first choice methodology in science but without rejecting (underestimating) the possibility to find later evidence for super-naturalism (of course the supernatural needs extraordinary arguments / evidence, anyway much more than what exists currently).

Methodological naturalism fully acknowledges the possibility of important revisions in the future; in other words the possibility of 'miracles', extraordinary evidence pro God, which to basically oblige us to introduce a transcedental God (and the supernatural) inside science (at least provisionally) is never underestimated.



Niall Shanks points well to this fact in his book "God, the Devil, and Darwin - A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory":


"methodological naturalism = Long experience shows that all we seem to bump into in science is nature, and so all causes and effects are, with very high probability, natural, and thus the bio-psycho-social model is most probably adequate for the phenomena under analysis. Extraordinary evidence will be needed to make a case for supernatural spiritual causes in medicine, and hence an extension of the model to the bio-psycho-social-spiritual model. The methodological naturalist is thus skeptical of claims about supernatural causes but also recognizes, since all claims in science are potentially revisable in the light of new evidence, that it is at least conceivable that all that long experience of nature has not told the whole story."


I may agree that probably we will never have a ‘proof’ (involving certitudes or quasi-certitudes) of God but I cannot agree with the conclusion that an important paradigm shift (which to make hypothesis God a provisional part of science) is never possible.

Indeed for example when people all over the world are told by a fire in the sky - pretending to be the omni-all Creator of our universe and of human race - that the usual laws of nature will be changed on Earth for 48 hours, that the Andromeda Galaxy will suddenly disappear forever or that a new race of animals will be created (and things happen exactly) then it's clear that 'God hypothesis' should become the first choice program (the 'normal paradigm' of those days, provisionally accepted) in science.

Naturalism is the first choice methodology of current science because we do not have at the moment sufficient reasons pro supernatural but not because supernatural cannot be a part of science.

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

"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)

 

[Rade]

...Naturalism is the first choice methodology of current science because we do not have at the moment sufficient reasons pro supernatural but not because supernatural cannot be a part of science...

You are welcome to your belief--but I hold it to be false, for if a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it can no longer be considered supernatural.