Is evolution falsifiable? What would falsify evolution?

Post Reply New Topic

That's a theory with no way to falsify it. Since precursors to present animal populations exist it seems reasonable to assume a process exists to cause changes to current forms. DNA seems to be pretty universal on Earth life and relationships between current forms seem valid. Why deny it?

A mechanism which was never proven and looks to be disproven soon enough. Variation-selection just doesn't work the way that it should if Darwin's idea was correct. Especially the hierarchical modular organization (hmo) of life has never been observed in any way as a result of a variation-selection-process.

This does not mean that there is no variation-selection process. It is. Just that this process is way more limited then what is needed to explain all observations. The proposed mechanism of variation-selection is just not powerful enough.

A that is a huge problem for some because they don't have any (for them acceptable) alternatives. Others are not that limited by their convictions or philosophies and can see some very obvious alternatives.

Last edited by Meta on 07 Dec 2009, 12:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

That might be true, but no everyone finds falsifiability all that important? Some value consistency with available evidence more.

No one is denying that there is a relationship. The nature of this relationship is what is put in question.

The theory of evolution is not considered questionable within the scientific community.


I am going to have to ask if those alternatives are scientifically valid alternatives, as I don't see the distinction you are drawing as scientific theories are scientific theories for all scientists.

The argument that something always existed is merely a cop out to the effect that you don't want to think about it.

What is the nature of the relationship you so vaguely put forth?

Which is often the case when older theories which where well establish became obsolete. It often takes a few generations before the scientific community has the chance to adjust accordingly. Historically the opinion if the scientific community has often been wrong. In the end, science is about the evidence not about the popularity of an opinion. Popularity may in the short run obstruct progress but in the long run science will prevail.

"Maybe not " is not a scientific argument and merely a license to fantasize.

The same can be said of "maybe".

A theory that is based on a "if pig could fly" hypotheses is less then useless. The variation-selection mechanism does not work the way it should. The pigs do in fact not fly. Where does that leave the theory then?

Don't agree? Demonstrate that a variation-selection process can result in a functional system which has a hmo.

Every theory is an approximation and every theory is wrong even if we haven't discovered yet in which way it is wrong. This is the nature of scientific progress: To prove theories wrong. This is the only certainty: All science is wrong, but it's less wrong then it was yesterday.

Further more. If you are unable to see quite obvious alternatives then this might be an indication of closed minded stagnation. Instead of following the evidence you may have become convinced with a certainty which science just can't provide.

Are you proposing that pigs should fly? I don't get your point.
What's an "hmo"?
To declare all theories wrong absolutely means you know something others don't. I doubt that. Evidence is required.
To declare me unimaginative with no offering of plausible alternatives seems to me a bit overbearing.

Ok, historically speaking, the opinion of the scientific community has often been wrong, however, historically speaking few of the cranks outside of it have been right.

I just bring up the point of mainstream opinion simply because for outsiders of the scientific community, the authority of the scientific community is actually important because without sufficient training, the ability to satisfactorily criticize the evidence does not really exist.

In any case, the second question, about the existence of scientifically valid alternatives is also valid, as scientists are unlikely to just give up on a theory without another possible theory to investigate, and I believe this fact is also evidenced over time as well.

how wonderfully convenient, when events, science or otherwise put into question the voracity of ideas regarding your supernatural creator, invent another supernatural being to blame the inconsistencies on.

here is an inconsistency for you

god is all powerful right? god created the universe and everything in it correct? god created heaven yep? where the f**k did the devil come from and why is it that god was unable to vanquish him.

How anyone can believe this kind of BS never ceases to amaze me. I am hopeful for the day when the virus / bacteria that causes a person to think like this is identified

You have already quoted me on that:

Well, I was being philosophical when I said it. Its extremely unlikely that we are the ones who find out the absolute truth about the universe. It's very likely that future generation will (at best) smile and shake their heads at our foolishness, and wonder why we thought such stupid things and just did not see the evidence right in front of our eyes.

Well, if I name only two, panspermia and intelligent design, you will dismiss them out of hand because your mind is still in not ready to even consider such theories within the realm of science.

Whereas you don't have any problem with magical thinking when you're assuming, without any evidence -- against observation, that a process of variation and selection can cause all of the features we see in life. Until you see the problem and set yourself free from this delusion you will not be able to rationally consider alternatives. In stead you will see it as heresy against the principles of science. (Consider What you can't say)

I feel myself very comfortable in my delusions about evolution along with the overwhelming majority of professionals in the several scientific biological fields who use the principles continuously in verifying and extending their very productive work.

That you consider intelligent design as a scientific possibility nicely places you mentally beyond all consideration to be taken seriously. It defines your mental capabilities to the extent that no rational exchange is worth any furher effort.

Last edited by Sand on 07 Dec 2009, 4:24 am, edited 1 time in total.

And the majority can never be wrong?

If the majority was convinced of Intelligent Design you would be convinced of that too? So, is it the evidence (science) or the majority (politics) that has convinced you?
So instead of providing evidence that a process of variation-selection can indeed result in a system with HMO, which would be the scientifically sound way to resolve this issue, you do indeed do as I just said, in the process proving my point for me.

Nobody "operates from the position that there can be no God."
Scientist dont reject God, they just ignore God, and spirits, demons, banshees, and all other supernatural entities because they have to study nature based on the assumtion that nature operates through natural laws- and not through supernatural lawlessness.

you're saying that embracing evolution is UNscientific because you're excluding the possibilty -of- what?
In essence you're saying that its unscientific to be scientific.

You ARE speaking double talk!

instead of long winded double talk- just make your point.
Your claim is that scientists who believe in creationism are oppressed by the scientific establishment. They may not get broken on the rack nor hung by the wrists from the ceiling like folks who ran afoul of the Catholic Inquisition, but they are oppressed none the less.

That claim may well be true.

The problem is that believers in a flat earth , and believers that disease is not caused by germs but by evil spirits, Lysenkian biologists, astrologers, and alchemists, also fail to get tenure.

So your real task is to demonstrate that Creationism deserves more respect than does alchemy, astrology and the rest of the above outdated theories- something you havent done yet.

@wesmontfan: What does "supernatural" mean?

Do you mean with supernatural that it is never observed? In which case, wouldn't "never observed" not be a better term?

What do you call a computer? Is this the result of natural processes or does it require supernatural influence?

Can you give a definition of the word "nature"? What is nature? Was electricity supernatural when we had not knowledge about it?

Contrasting with "artificial": Is artificial the opposite of natural or does natural contain among others the artificial? Is artificial perhaps a proper subset of the natural? Might then "supernatural" be the inverse of the natural? U-natural=supernatural?

Let say I observe an unexpected event E, which I record and measure the best I can under the circumstances. How do I now test if this is a (1) natural event or (2) a supernatural event or (3) artificial event?