Is evolution falsifiable? What would falsify evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

Huh?
By 'immutable' I mean that all organisms were created at once exactly as they are now only a few thousand years ago.

Are you saying that the Bible DOESNT say that?
That the Bible itsself implies 'change over time' (ie evolution)?
Fine.
Then what are we arguing about?

The currently fashionable view among YECs like parakeet is that there are "kinds" or "baramin" (as far as I can tell, this is roughly equivalent to the normal taxonomic categories of family or genus) and while there can be change within a baramin, there is no crossing that boundary. So lions and tigers have a common ancestor, chimpanzees and orangutans have a common ancestor, but chimpanzees and tigers do not have a common ancestor.

To me, it seems like accepting all the basic principles of evolution, and just rejecting the obvious generalization of those principles.

It is not the scientific community's fault that creationism is BS.

Science is not about freedom. it is about... science. If you think that "a god/some gods/aliens" did it is an actual answer to any question you are not doing science and hence you are not qualified enough and do not deserve any credential whatsoever. If you want to do science and then go to your church/synagogue/mosque/whatever to pray, go ahead. There are plenty of scientists that do belong to a religion but do not mess with trying to make creationism look like such.

It is ultimately a moot point. The whole matter of religion is faith. Trying to come up with 'scientific' arguments to demonstrate what your religion says shows only that you have no faith. So the guys pushing for 'intelligent design' seriously fail both at science AND religion. It is like that guy in AiG that was playing that massive version of connect the dots, using genetic 'evidence' to prove all dogs descended of two animals in the ark...

Last edited by Vexcalibur on 05 Dec 2009, 10:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.

So if you mention God, you're NOT being religious. But if you ignore God you ARE being religous.

Thanks for reminding me of this "evolution within basic types' theory.
But that doesnt explain why the least contraversial thing I said was "BS".

Genisis does say God created all the birds animals etc. all at once in their present forms and doesnt mention them changing once they were created. Nor does it mention creatures becoming extinct. Nor does it allow enough time for even sibling species (like lions and tigers) to branch apart (about a million years rather than the 6000 years alowed by Genisis). So how is that line BS?

Maybe this is my mistake: assuming that Creationists are all Biblical literalists.
I guess Im wrong. After all- this theory you said is the vogue among YECs freely rewrites the Bible, and is lot closer to Darwin than it is to Genisis.
Maybe they have the same willingness to abandon the Bible(or atleast a litereal reading thereof) as the do to abandon scientific evidence.

If you think that creationists are just modifying their ideas to be more like Darwinism, then you might find this youtube video by comedian Robin Ince amusing.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KdocQHsPCNM[/youtube]

Evidently digested Ursus maritimus (Polar bear) fossils in the rib cage of a Liopleurodon would falisfy, if not modify evolutionary timelines beyond any sensible recognition.

That reminds me of Gary McKinnon's convient little cop out for having found no evidence of UFOs - "I was caught just before I could take a screenshot!" Same fundamental and ingenius intellectual dishonesty there as here.

I'm willing to wager that every one of these alleged points would've been dealt with a million times already by the fine people at Talk Origins, No Answers in Genesis, or the NCSE.

PS: This debate on "evolution" and "falsifiability" has become muddled due tot the ambiguities with "impartiality", "evidence", and credentialed versus unworthy authorities. I think a discussion of coherentism versus naive evidentialism and foundationalism would be cathargic.

Unless you personally have dug up a bone, found a fossil, etc etc, I wouldnt belive what scientists tell you as they can lie as easily as polititions, especially when thier grants or carreers depend on it. Dont belive me?, Google "Climate gate"

Christians, Satan is god of this world, he puts his people in positions of power and influence, rewarding them with money and sex, why even bother listening to them?
Listen to God, hes not a lier when he claims to have created everything.

I keep listening. God seems to be totally quiet. Lots of people try to tell me what they think God says but God? Sorry. Hasn't spoken in millenniums. And certainly not to me.

No. When you operate from the position that there can be no God rather than there is a possibility of a God, you are imposing an absolute you cannot prove which taints your research. All possibilities must be on the table until you can positively prove they cannot be possible. This allows you to see how evidence you find fits all of the different theories.

Evolution is a theory. When a scientist chooses to embrace it as the only theory and will not consider other possible theories, conclusions affirming their lone theory are less credible because they dismiss other possibilities out of bias.

Evolution is an observation, not a theory. The evolution of life is obvious if one looks at fossils. Populations evolve over time, adapting to their environment. We know this as long as we breed animals. Even the bible mentions this?

The observation of evolution does not tell us how (the actual process) occurred. E.g. cars and computers evolve as well. So evidence of evolution is not evidence of any particular process, therefor all hypotheses are about process.

What we call the theory of evolution is really a collection of hypotheses about processes and supporting assumptions.

To begin with it takes a lot of assumptions about the universe, this planet, life, etc. Some may seem obvious. Some may seem odd. Some may very well turn out to be wrong. Some may even turn out to be irrelevant. In most cases we just don't know really. Most assumptions are never made explicit, they remain implicit.

At the moment there is no explanation for the origin of life. We don't even have a clue about the nature of the very first organisms. Origin of life is not part of any relevant hypotheses.

natural selection: We observe that there is naturally occurring variation in features in a population, natural selection preserves the best variations for the next generation.

The hypotheses of natural selection actually solves a problem with the laws of hereditary? The laws are just simple combinatorics really and it predicted that with a large enough population one should see on average the same variation generation after generation. Observation showed that this was not the case. The hypotheses of natural selection solved this by pointing out that not every variation has the same chance of reproduction. The evidence for this hypotheses is very good

universal common descent: That all life shares one common ancestor. This hypotheses is more based on logic, mostly inspired by naturalistic philosophy, then actual observations or hard evidence. This is mostly a matter of conviction, not one of evidence. As far as there is any evidence it does not distinguish between alternative hypotheses.

There is however very strong evidence for some common descent: Lions and tigers, horses and donkeys, sheep and goats, etc. Some consider this to be only a matter of degree, other consider it more then that. This is where the terms micro-evolution and macro-evolution come in handy.

It's called micro-evolution when its about lions and tigers having a common ancestor. It's macro-evolution for anything at genus level and above. Some have suggested that the processes which drive micro-evolution can not work for macro-evolution, others disagree. Evidence is mostly absent for macro-evolution, while it's very strong for micro-evolution.

Note that one can accept the hypotheses of natural selection, and still reject universal common descent, while accepting common descent. The differences are the assumptions one has, not in the available scientific evidence. One can even accept macro-evolution on basis of some assumptions, logic and the evidence for micro-evolution.

Then we have the modern syntheses aka The (modern) theory of evolution which takes the above and adds genetic mutations as a natural occurring, continuous source of new variation. If this is possible/plausible remains to be proven. At the moment it does not look good.

Last edited by Meta on 06 Dec 2009, 11:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Well, to be honest, it seems either you are being literal, or everyone's research is tainted. Richard Dawkins is an atheist agnostic, he is willing to admit that God "could" exist, but he ranks it with fairies. In any case, scientific research is partially distinguished by the kinds of questions asked and how they are answered, and this limitation does pretty much prevent scientists from including God as a scientific possibility. There is nothing wrong with this though, as science is a study of nature, while God is a supernatural entity and thus a metaphysical hypothesis for philosophers to address.


Well, evolution is one of the best supported theories in science. It explains large amounts of data, can be witnessed across the fossil records, and extrapolates from experimental data, and explains phenomena that have even been occurring in the present. Not only that, but it is not methodologically questionable. At this point in time, there are no other theories. So, to embrace evolution as the only theory and not to consider other theories is not a problem because evolution is the only theory, and there are not other theories. This isn't even a matter of bias, but rather this is just rational.

Let's put it this way, does intelligent design do the following things:
1) Provide explanation for the variation in life?
2) Have empirical data supporting it?
3) Avoid ad-hoc hypotheses and supernatural entities?

For the most part, I don't see many of these questions answered. There is no empirical evidence for a designer, but rather an attempted inference is made, and the problem with this inference is that it is parasitic on current formulations of evolutionary theory, as seen with the previously posted Robin Ince comedy youtube. There is no real explanation for the variation in life. And the entire beginning hypothesis is ad-hoc, where a supernatural entity is often something that people attempt to insert, despite the methdological naturalism that is considered a major element of modern science. So, no, not a theory.

If Intelligent Design is a good theory, then why not historical alien intervention?

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp86gsHschQ&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7IRRiVUmMI[/youtube]

Should our treks into human history neglect the possibility that ET reached across the lightyears to alter the workings of human societies? Or does untainted research require that we take this matter seriously as well?

The basic argument circles around how did all things begin. To push the beginning to another planet merely indicates that whatever self-priming development of life there might be, it took place somewhere else and didn't originate on Earth. This satisfies nobody. It harks back to the old question of where God originated and the dismissal that He always existed also is no real answer.

Ok, here's the issues:
1) We didn't have all of those fossils when the idea was first put forward by Darwin.
2) Many people, throughout the years, have denied evolution.
3) Darwinian evolution includes a mechanism, the breeding of animals.
4) Whether the Bible accepts evolution by descent could be questioned given an example of change by strange behaviors rather than descent.
Gen 30:37-39 Then Jacob took fresh sticks of poplar and almond and plane trees, and peeled white streaks in them, exposing the white of the sticks. (38) He set the sticks that he had peeled in front of the flocks in the troughs, that is, the watering places, where the flocks came to drink. And since they bred when they came to drink, (39) the flocks bred in front of the sticks and so the flocks brought forth striped, speckled, and spotted.


Umm..... ok? That's why there have been multiple theories. Darwin's idea won partially because a mechanism was found.


There is evidence for macro-evolution, such as the growing process of dolphin fetuses, the vestigial former limbs of whales, feathered lizards such as archaeopterix, etc. Not only that, but the field of cladistics depends upon macroevolution to some extent.


Ok. I don't really see a massive problem here, and certainly I don't see another viable theory.

One could question the basic assumptions: Did life have a beginning?

Perhaps life has always existed? Maybe the universe isn't a closed system? Perhaps life was always just as complex as it it now?

Whether one assumption seems more obvious to us then other does not prove much, reality has often proven to be different from what we expected.