72
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 50:
Line 50: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 16:59, June 27, 2007
, 16:59, June 27, 2007no edit summary
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] closing remarks:
The problem is not that common descent is potentially falsifiable, the problem is that the level of proof requested in this forum is impossible meet.
The first clue came with the discussion of the falsifiability of the age of galaxies in the Hubble Deep Space photograph. After reading irrefutable falsification criteria, Ungst made the argument that if two of the criteria were falsified, the proposition would still be theoretically possible. This level of falsification far beyond normal levels of proof. For the theoretical possibility to be true, two alternative theories would have to be proved.
When presented with the potential falsification of unified genetic code, Ungst argues that is invalid because evolution will adapt it's theories to accommodate the falsification. ''the theory of evolution could be altered to say...'' Falsification results invalidate the original theory. Arguing that an alternative theory might be the presented to explain the data points, does not negate the original falsification. That a new theory might be proposed is completely irrelevant.
Again, when faced with a link containing 29+ falsification tests, it was summarily dismissed because ''they do not provide experiments''. Not all proofs are performed in a laboratory. For example, fossil evidence.
Again, when presented with the single-cell the multiple-cell falsification proof, which would unequivocally refute common descent, it was dismissed as ''virtually impossible to prove''.
Why summarily dismiss perfectly valid proofs? Ungst answers this question with two statements. First, ''It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable.'' Second, ''I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions'' Given that creationism is not falsifiable, it removes itself from the realm of science. The only way left for creationism to compete with evolution is to try to also remove common descent from the realm of science by claiming there are no valid falsification arguments for evolution.
As demonstrated, there are multiple valid potential falsification proofs for common descent.
Quod erat demonstrandum [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]] 10:00, 27 Jun 2007 (PDT)<br />
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
== Evolution Is False ==
== Evolution Is False ==