Is evolution falsifiable? What would falsify evolution?

Page 1 of 10 [ 143 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 10  Next

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Dec 2009, 4:14 pm

Though as a creationist, I view evolutionism as more of a theological problem then the process of natural selection allowing for healthier creatures to propagate more than unhealthy ones, my question is this: is even biological evolution falsifiable? What would falsify biological evolution?



sartresue
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,766
Location: The Castle of Shock and Awe-tism

02 Dec 2009, 5:04 pm

True or Falsifiable topic

The Theory of Falsifying Evolution

Since evolution is a theory, it is not cast in stone. I suppose nothing really is.

Having said as much, there is a great deal of evidence to support the theory of evolution.

What I find puzzling is why there has been so much controversy about it for the last 150 years. If people are secure in their religious faith, why are they worried about science? Religion and science explain different events. Though I am an atheist, I have no problem with people believing in come what may. In other words, do not make a mountain out of a trilobite fossil. :P


_________________
Radiant Aspergian
Awe-Tistic Whirlwind

Phuture Phounder of the Philosophy Phactory

NOT a believer of Mystic Woo-Woo


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Dec 2009, 5:25 pm

sartresue wrote:
True or Falsifiable topic

The Theory of Falsifying Evolution

Since evolution is a theory, it is not cast in stone. I suppose nothing really is.

Having said as much, there is a great deal of evidence to support the theory of evolution.

What I find puzzling is why there has been so much controversy about it for the last 150 years. If people are secure in their religious faith, why are they worried about science? Religion and science explain different events. Though I am an atheist, I have no problem with people believing in come what may. In other words, do not make a mountain out of a trilobite fossil. :P


Actually, the creation versus evolution controversy has at least been going on since the time of Epicurus and Cicero, which is over 2000 years ago. The design argument didn't originate from William Paley, but rather it has been in existence from at least the time of the Stoics. And various forms of naturalistic explanations have existed since at least the time of the Epicureans.



TitusLucretiusCarus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jan 2009
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 518

02 Dec 2009, 5:34 pm

i think evolution is a serious problem for theology!

falsifiable: a tiger (or any given organism) will spontaneously becom an entirely different creature.
falsified?: hell no.

is falsifiability a basis for scientific understanding? no. see Feyerabend and i'm told Fashionable Nonesense by Sokal and Bricmont


evolution is an established truth. get over it.
what's next.



anna-banana
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,825
Location: Europe

02 Dec 2009, 5:55 pm

I guess if bones were found of species that were dated to had been alive in a totally different epoch than what we believe them to be.

sorry for the shitty syntax but i'm tired and going to sleep now :P I hope it makes some sense.


_________________
not a bug - a feature.


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Dec 2009, 6:42 pm

anna-banana wrote:
I guess if bones were found of species that were dated to had been alive in a totally different epoch than what we believe them to be.

sorry for the shitty syntax but i'm tired and going to sleep now :P I hope it makes some sense.


I know what it is like to have to compose while asleep with ones eyes open, especially so since the quarter is almost over.

Anyhow, the fossil in an epoch that it is not supposed to be criterion seems to be the common one in terms of being mainstream, and it was even in the link posted by Sartresue. Lucretius' animorph type verification criterion not really being on the radar, though the spontaneous change of tiger to tiger lily would definitely be interesting.



ImNotOk
Sea Gull
Sea Gull

User avatar

Joined: 11 Nov 2009
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 227
Location: Texas, for now

02 Dec 2009, 7:04 pm

I personally think its arrogant to believe that we (humans) are the only of our kind to exsist in only this time and in only this form. I also think its arrogant and very naive for us to believe that we know as much as we think we do about a time that we didnt exsist. I personally think that the idea of beings from other planets, evolution, and crationism actually all co-exsist and tie together to form a very broad interpretation of the same thing.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Dec 2009, 7:41 pm

ImNotOk wrote:
I personally think its arrogant to believe that we (humans) are the only of our kind to exsist in only this time and in only this form. I also think its arrogant and very naive for us to believe that we know as much as we think we do about a time that we didnt exsist. I personally think that the idea of beings from other planets, evolution, and crationism actually all co-exsist and tie together to form a very broad interpretation of the same thing.


Actually the appeal to emotion based on alleged arrogancy is not just your thought alone. It's not mine, but many other people have used it and I do wonder which popular author or script writer initially came up with it. But anyhow, I am not personally opposed to the existence of aliens and I do not see any actual biblical opposition to their existence, and neither did C.S. Lewis when he wrote Out Of The Silent Planet and Perelandra.



wesmontfan
Snowy Owl
Snowy Owl

User avatar

Joined: 29 Nov 2009
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 144
Location: Near Washington DC

02 Dec 2009, 7:49 pm

Evolution is one thing. Natural Selection is something else.

Evolution is a fact. The evidence is so overwhelming that no one piece of evidence could disprove it anymore than one piece of evidence could prove the world is flat.

Natural selection is a theory.

Evolution means simply "change over time", as opposed to the biblical portrayal of species being immutable.

That life is immutable is thoroughly disproven.
Evolution happened- and continues to happen. Organisms change over time, and continue to.

But the mechanism that fuels evolution -natural selection- is in fact - still a theory.

Its never really been proven that a species can evolve into another species by natural selection alone. Although its never been disproven either.

We observe evolution everyday in the wolrds of antibiotics and in thw world of insecticides. But though we cause bugs to evolve we havent seen a bug change into a another species of bug yet- but we havent had the requisite thousands years to observe such an event either.


So you have to take evolution. But you do have the option of keeping, or chucking natural selection.
Why not chuck natural selection?
Could there be supernatural selection? Suppose that God traffics in and guides the process of evolution to some greater or lesser degree? Lets call this "theistic evolution".

Most christians I encounter consider theistic evolution to be even more abomnible than straight ahead materialistic Darwinism! The main reason being that it interfers with the doctrine of original sin. So its a heresy. ( Youre probably familiar with Teilhard De Chardin- the radical priest and rock-hound -branded by Rome).

Trouble is theistic evolution has not been disproven either (indeed its hard to imagine how it could be either proven or disproven).

So creationism (of the biblical literealist kind) is not an option because its disproven.

Evolution is proven.
But the exact mechanism that powers evolution is up for grabs.
You might concievably be able to disprove Natural Selection.
But look where that leaves you! Evolution linked to God!

So name your poison: materialistic evolution. Or theistic evolution?

Niether is disproven!

If youre a christian I would recomend the lesser of two evils- Darwin- straight-no-chaser!



phil777
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 May 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,825
Location: Montreal, Québec

02 Dec 2009, 8:02 pm

Well, while browsing on my ethnology teacher's website (which is in French, or at least the PDFs are) i stumbled upon a PDF regarding incompetence. But before that, i had read one regarding what would be loosely translated as "plot"ology. It was rather interesting to know that some people are purposefully incompetent in order to try and obtain some kind of "power". <.<



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Dec 2009, 12:14 am

wesmontfan wrote:
biblical portrayal of species being immutable.


I'm too tired to address the rest of your argument, but I wanted to point out that this statement is absolutely the excrement of masculine bovines.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,069
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Dec 2009, 12:37 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
wesmontfan wrote:
biblical portrayal of species being immutable.


I'm too tired to address the rest of your argument, but I wanted to point out that this statement is absolutely the excrement of masculine bovines.


More so than creationism? I think not


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,257
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

03 Dec 2009, 1:15 am

DentArthurDent wrote:
I think not


De hoc, dubitationem non habeo.



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,765
Location: Room 101

03 Dec 2009, 1:48 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
wesmontfan wrote:
biblical portrayal of species being immutable.


I'm too tired to address the rest of your argument, but I wanted to point out that this statement is absolutely the excrement of masculine bovines.

Plenty of creationists do hold such beliefs. From what I can tell based on the hints you've given, you basically accept evolution up to a point but reject the generalization to larger-scale changes over longer time periods. That really is no more tenable or intellectually honest than the more common and simple-minded "God made everything exactly as it is today."


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 54
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,069
Location: Victoria, Australia

03 Dec 2009, 2:31 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
DentArthurDent wrote:
I think not


De hoc, dubitationem non habeo.


HAW HAW HAW HAW HAW :roll:

Typical for a person who is so wilfully obtuse that in an era of such scientific advances they still believe in creationism to take a comment and place it so out of context.

I for the most part believe that it is important to debate ideas that I do not agree with. Creationists fall into two camps, 1. Those that believe this nonsense because they have not looked past what their religious teachers have told them about evolution and are genuinely ignorant of the truth, these I see a point in debating.

The second camp are people like yourself. They have studied evolution, do have a working understanding of the science (in some cases they have a remarkable knowledge on the subject) and still hang doggedly to their religious beliefs in absolute denial of everything that they have learned. Whether these people have an IQ in the 150's or the 70's when it come to this subject they are utter fools and nothing they are shown will drag them away from their precious dogma. I see absolutely no point discussing evolution with them and instead prefer to simply state that the biblical portrayal of creation has been disproven and have little rants like this one.

Edit: Therefore if you cannot debate a creationist because they distort and deny accepted scientific facts what is left but to ridicule them.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Last edited by DentArthurDent on 03 Dec 2009, 2:49 am, edited 1 time in total.