toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[taikoo]

Falsify evolution?



I don't think so. Even if the dating showed that the skull actually belonged to the same strata (rather than some other weird way of winding up there), it seems to me that theorists would never be able to determine if it really was human or merely looked human. They'd find a way to alter the theory to make it fit - and I'm not faulting them for that, it just shows that this would not actually falsify the theory of evolution.


Sort of. The theory seems to be moving in the direction of many parallel and intertwining paths. I may be wrong in this, but that's what it looks like from my perspective - they've changed from a tree to a web so that it more realistically fits the data points.

Regardless, the trouble is finding a way to falsify that core. What would do that? I haven't seen any decent ideas yet, but then I'm just a mom sitting at home on a computer...


So is it falsifiable? If so, how?

That would be an argument to ignorance, or trying to prove a negative, either way, not logically possible.

you will have to explain how the discovery of a limiting mechanism is an argument from ignorance or proving a negative.

I don't think so. Even if the dating showed that the skull actually belonged to the same strata (rather than some other weird way of winding up there), it seems to me that theorists would never be able to determine if it really was human or merely looked human. They'd find a way to alter the theory to make it fit - and I'm not faulting them for that, it just shows that this would not actually falsify the theory of evolution.

Oh honestly now you are just saying that them scientists are all incompetent and dishonest. shame on you.

Sort of. The theory seems to be moving in the direction of many parallel and intertwining paths. I may be wrong in this, but that's what it looks like from my perspective - they've changed from a tree to a web so that it more realistically fits the data points

Again you are at the core, just saying that they are dishonest, or that you perceive it that way.

Regardless, the trouble is finding a way to falsify that core. What would do that? I haven't seen any decent ideas yet, but then I'm just a mom sitting at home on a computer...


So is it falsifiable? If so, how

The problem is that the vast majority of sensible looking ways to falsify it have not turned out. Like that there is no descent with modification, as we see there is just with domestic plants and animals

maybe we'd find that the earth is only 6000 years old, there goes evolution

maybe we'd see sudden emergence of new species form no where

maybe if we could show that the organ structures of various animals are not homolgous

maybe we find a cow skeleton with the dinosaurs (and yes, geologists are actually quite good at seeing if something is in situ, as are the paleontologists)

The problem with all of these is been there done that, nothing there.

ToE is potentially falsifiable, as in any theory; but since it happens to be the correct theory, and really does describe how life has developed, its gonna be, in a practical way, impossible to falsify it.

Falsifiable and able to falsify are not at all the same.

 

[nicholsmom]

You would need to provide an example of this. You are stating it as if the WHOLE picture, of the basics changes. Not at all.

Sorry, never meant that. In fact I really meant the opposite. The specifics change appropriately to match the data, but that tends to render the core untouchable.

The changes you refer to are tweaks! Like the discovery of a specimen of some species existed earlier than previously known.

Sure, for the most part. But am I wrong to point to the web-based approach to finding evolutionary paths superseding the tree-based approach? That seems a pretty big shift in the mechanism of evolution to me.

its like say, theory in aircraft flight dynamics. Flight is based on the application of the Bernouli principle to provide lift. Technicians constanly learn new little details about flight dynamics but that does not make the underlying theory a moving target; Bernouli principle holds firm.

Right, that's what makes it hard to falsify...

simplest way to express the idea is the discovery of the Cambrian bunny.

I need a bit of help with this one. I've heard it before, but I don't see this falsifying "descent with modification." Here are the problems:
1) how do we identify the fossil as that of a mammal, and more specifically a bunny? Do we need the whole skeleton?
2) How likely is it that a mammalian skeleton could survive intact for 530 million years?
3) Don't you think that such a thing would just make them go "hmm, this looks like a placental mammal ancestor? We need to re-evaluate that web..."?
4) How does it actually falsify "descent with modification?"

lets say that we find the bunny. Ok, then all of the physics that goes into radiometric dating goes out the window. With it goes atomic theory, the string pulls chemistry out the window with it, and poor old geology is left wandering around wondering how all this stuff happened.

You are going to have to show me how evidence about the limitations of radiometric dating would falsify the underlying atomic theory, etc.
Plus you'll have to show me how the old chemists who knew nothing of atoms (though some suspected something of the sort) ever got along...

I think you've made a mountain out of a molehill... but maybe it's just me

 

[Sherman]

No, not as Charles Darwin presented it. A dog will always be a dog and a Human will always be a human.

There is micro 'evolution' where certain characteristics already in the gene pool are favored by the environment. Micro evolution is the result of loss of genetic information.

Mutations are never good. They always harm the organism in some way and make it more vulnerable.

 

[Yorzhik]

Find us a few bones from tuna, a whale, a rabbit or a human alongside these critters:

Find us a mammoth or a big cat alongside these critters.

I can say it will never happen because evolution happened. But if it did happen, you'd have to throw out evolution because creatures would be appearing before they could have possibly evolved.

I tell you, I have not found such great faith even in Christianity.

 

[taikoo]

Sorry, never meant that. In fact I really meant the opposite. The specifics change appropriately to match the data, but that tends to render the core untouchable.

No, it is only untouchable because it happens that there is nothing to falsify it

Sure, for the most part. But am I wrong to point to the web-based approach to finding evolutionary paths superseding the tree-based approach? That seems a pretty big shift in the mechanism of evolution to me.

I think you misunderstand something. There is no disagreement with the concept of a progression of changes along a given path

Right, that's what makes it hard to falsify..

.

What makes sit hard to falsify is that the data to falsify it almost certainly does not exist. Extremely improbably is a gross understatement.



I need a bit of help with this one. I've heard it before, but I don't see this falsifying "descent with modification." Here are the problems:
1) how do we identify the fossil as that of a mammal, and more specifically a bunny? Do we need the whole skeleton?
2) How likely is it that a mammalian skeleton could survive intact for 530 million years?
3) Don't you think that such a thing would just make them go "hmm, this looks like a placental mammal ancestor? We need to re-evaluate that web..."?
4) How does it actually falsify "descent with modification?"


Next time you go to the dentist, ask him how big a piece of a tooth he would need in order to identify it as to exactly which tooth it is in the jaw. its as certain as it would be for a car collector to tell you this is the bumper from a .47 caddy, that is the trunk lid from a '32 Ford.

Paleontologists are really good with bones and teeth. You cannot possibly fool one with any bone you may come up with.


As for the skeleton surviving, yes. Much more delicate things have survived longer.


no it would not just make people go hmm, lets make this fit.

Any more than it would make sense to find a digital wristwatch in an unopened egyptian tomb. No way to make that fit.

The cambrian bunny would falsify descent with modification and a whole lot of other things by putting effect before cause.








You are going to have to show me how evidence about the limitations of radiometric dating would falsify the underlying atomic theory, etc.
Plus you'll have to show me how the old chemists who knew nothing of atoms (though some suspected something of the sort) ever got along...

I think you've made a mountain out of a molehill... but maybe it's just me

It is just you. A cook does simple chemistry, but they dont use a whole lot of theory. All theory in chemistry depends on atomic theory.

Falsifying evolution would be the greatest scientific discovery, possibly of all time.

I dont care to try to dwell on this, but what i said is so; that in falsifying deep time you would blow up most of physics, astronomy, biology, chemistry and geology, because its all integrated.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Falsifying evolution would be the greatest scientific discovery, possibly of all time.

What would be an example of something that could falsify evolution?

 

[Persephone66]

Believe? What a silly word to use when discussing science.

I understand the Theory of Evolution. I agree with it, it makes sense.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Believe? What a silly word to use when discussing science.

I understand the Theory of Evolution. I agree with it, it makes sense.

Is it impossible to believe in the the things you understand?

I sense an impending debate about the use of certain words. Is that really necessary? You do understand the spirit of the topic don't you? I believe that you do.

 

[taikoo]

What would be an example of something that could falsify evolution?

I did list a few already... and you didnt answer my q. Fair is fair?

anyhow...

fossils out of sequence in a way that would represent effect before cause
"cambrian bunny", cows with dinosaurs, that sort of thing.


discovery that there really was a noahs flood

discovery of a mechanism that limits the extent of genetic change possible

discovery that new types of organisms suddenly appear

discovery of organ systems with no phylogentetic connection to any other organism.

Any scientific theory is falsifiable! Why do you ask?

 

[Persephone66]

Is it impossible to believe in the the things you understand?

I sense an impending debate about the use of certain words. Is that really necessary? You do understand the spirit of the topic don't you? I believe that you do.

Well if I accept it, and I agree with it, I guess one could say I believe in it. I just don't like to used the word "believe" when discussing science. Would you ask if one believed gravity or weak nuclear force?

 

[Guyver]

Partially.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Would you ask if one believed gravity or weak nuclear force?

If gravity were just a theory we might indeed ask that question.

 

[GuySmiley]

No, because I've never seen convincing evidence for it. All we ever get are moths that are still moths, salamanders that are still salamanders, dogs that are still dogs, and fossils that look similar to each other.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I did list a few already... and you didnt answer my q. Fair is fair?

I didn't know that you had done that.

anyhow...

fossils out of sequence in a way that would represent effect before cause
"cambrian bunny", cows with dinosaurs, that sort of thing.

We already see that sort of thing.

discovery that there really was a noahs flood

discovery of a mechanism that limits the extent of genetic change possible

discovery that new types of organisms suddenly appear

discovery of organ systems with no phylogentetic connection to any other organism.

Any scientific theory is falsifiable! Why do you ask?

I don't believe that you would accept any evidence presented to you that demonstrated the things that you claim would falsify evolution.

 

[no avatar]

i always say the only way you can find objections to the ToE is by using misinformation..

so lets look at this:

1) Science, nor anything else can prove that kind of negative.

You cannot prove i dont have an alien spaceport in my molars, for example. You can indicate its real unlikely but you cant prove it.

2) Science is big on disproving things, like the old theory of 'spontaneous generation" that maggots arise from rotting meat, for example.

Science does not propose to prove any theory. Cant be done.

3) Nobody in science says that life just popped out of nowhere. That is actually what the theists say.

There is little to go on regarding how life started. Obviously there had to be plenty of material to work with. All manner of very complex organic molecules are known to self assemble. Nobody knows what all is possible in this regard.

Of course you can't prove a negative, but life is a positive. They have not been able to show any models wherein life was created (without divine influence) unless artificial means were employed.

As for #3, that is true, that is the claim of Christians, and that is the only thing that has proven true thus far. But evolutionists would have you believe that life popped in out of nowhere, also (since their models don't hold up under scrutiny), just without a creator.

 

[no avatar]

The origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is about the origin of species. In other words, it is about the diversification of species from a (or a few) common ancestor(s) through a process of genetic mutation and natural selection..

There are several icons of evolution, one being the origin of life, the various models of which don't support giving rise to life without artificial means being employed. The other icons of evolution also fall apart under scrutiny. The fossil record doesn't support it, the chicken eggs don't either. There might be some support for microevolution within species, but there isn't support for macroevolution (one species to another).

 

[no avatar]

What would be an example of something that could falsify evolution?

Darwin, himself, listed several things that, in his opinion, would falsify evolution. Interestingly enough, they have all been shown to be formidable forces to be reckoned with.

Do you know that Darwin said that the eye on a peacock's feather scared him? He said that about a year after he published The Origin of Species.

 

[taikoo]

I didn't know that you had done that.

We already see that sort of thing.


I don't believe that you would accept any evidence presented to you that demonstrated the things that you claim would falsify evolution.

A list of moldy pratts is all you have there. it would be news of the first magnitude if any of those happened to be true.

As for your unjust and uncalled for insult to my intellectual integrity, shame on you.

 

[taikoo]

Darwin, himself, listed several things that, in his opinion, would falsify evolution. Interestingly enough, they have all been shown to be formidable forces to be reckoned with.

Do you know that Darwin said that the eye on a peacock's feather scared him? He said that about a year after he published The Origin of Species.

What does any of this mean, specifically?

maybe he was scared of the dark, too.

 

[taikoo]

There are several icons of evolution, one being the origin of life, the various models of which don't support giving rise to life without artificial means being employed. The other icons of evolution also fall apart under scrutiny. The fossil record doesn't support it, the chicken eggs don't either. There might be some support for microevolution within species, but there isn't support for macroevolution (one species to another).

ToE is NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF LIFE!!!!!!!!
it is religion uses icons, not science. Dont mix your terms.

Two false concepts in the first sentence!

You made some false assertions, vague ones at that.

Why dont you name something specific?