Changes

::::::My original point was that there is no single potential falsification test for evolution, the same as there is no single falsification test for particle physics. For example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html gives a falsification test for each of its 29 predictions.  There is no single test to falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell.  Instead, you would need to refute the lines of evidence with lead to that conclusion. (See link).[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

::::::My original point was that there is no single potential falsification test for evolution, the same as there is no single falsification test for particle physics. For example, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html gives a falsification test for each of its 29 predictions.  There is no single test to falsify the proposition that all life evolved from a single protocell.  Instead, you would need to refute the lines of evidence with lead to that conclusion. (See link).[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::::::I agree that evolutionists present "a number of lines of evidence that reasonably lead to a conclusion."  But I submit that this doesn't comply with a meaningful falsificationism.  When you have a number of different lines of evidence that "lead to a conclusion," you still have room for interpretation.  For example, "I believe Joe murdered Jane because he was seen running away from the scene, covered in blood."  A reasonable conclusion -- but ''not'' a falsifiable conclusion.  And the reason is this: Somebody else might look at the same facts (Joe running away covered in blood), but interpret the facts differently, saying, "Joe was walking with Jane when she was murdered by somebody else, got covered in blood trying to do CPR, and was running for help when he was seen."  The same facts can reasonably lead to either conclusion -- and that's why it's not science.  Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.  The force of gravity is 32 ft/second squared.  The earth revolves relative to the sun.  The human heart pumps blood through blood vessels.  There's no doubt.  There's no interpretation.  The answers are right up there for us to see and test.  ''That's'' what falsifiable science is.  The same problem applies to the "potential falsification" provided by the link you cited.  Consider, for example, the section in the article you linked on "Common metabolism."  They say that evolution predicts that "we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the 'standard genetic code' or a close derivative thereof."  But there are two problems with this.  First, even if a phylum was found with a non-nucleic acid genetic material, the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."  Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."  In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution.  In sum, I submit that '''falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence."  Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'''  What do you think?  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::I agree that evolutionists present "a number of lines of evidence that reasonably lead to a conclusion."  But I submit that this doesn't comply with a meaningful falsificationism.  When you have a number of different lines of evidence that "lead to a conclusion," you still have room for interpretation.  For example, "I believe Joe murdered Jane because he was seen running away from the scene, covered in blood."  A reasonable conclusion -- but ''not'' a falsifiable conclusion.  And the reason is this: Somebody else might look at the same facts (Joe running away covered in blood), but interpret the facts differently, saying, "Joe was walking with Jane when she was murdered by somebody else, got covered in blood trying to do CPR, and was running for help when he was seen."  The same facts can reasonably lead to either conclusion -- and that's why it's not science.  Falsifiable science leaves no room for alternative explanations.  The force of gravity is 32 ft/second squared.  The earth revolves relative to the sun.  The human heart pumps blood through blood vessels.  There's no doubt.  There's no interpretation.  The answers are right up there for us to see and test.  ''That's'' what falsifiable science is.  The same problem applies to the "potential falsification" provided by the link you cited.  Consider, for example, the section in the article you linked on "Common metabolism."  They say that evolution predicts that "we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nucleic acid genetic material. We also make the strong prediction that all newly discovered species that belong to the known phyla will use the 'standard genetic code' or a close derivative thereof."  But there are two problems with this.  First, even if a phylum was found with a non-nucleic acid genetic material, the theory of evolution could be altered to say "Well, early in our evolution, life evolved two different types of genetic material by variation and natural selection."  Second, a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."  In other words, falsifying that prediction would only alter, not discredit, evolution; and the facts as we observe them are consistent with both creationism and evolution.  In sum, I submit that '''falsifiable science is not science where there are "lines of evidence that lead to a conclusion, but which still require interpretation of the evidence."  Falsifiable science consists of specific propositions that can be specifically and experimentally tested.'''  What do you think?  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 13:09, 23 June 2007 (EDT)