614
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 71:
Line 71: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 20:23, June 27, 2007
, 20:23, June 27, 2007→Misconceptions about the Theory of Evolution
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
''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.''
: You're stating without showing that the falsification criteria are irrefutable. I believe I have refuted them. Let me reiterate: Even if the speed of light were different than we believe it to be, the stars we observe might still be 12 billion light years away -- that would just be a lot farther in kilometers. You failed to address my point. Similarly, alternative forms of genetic information were found to exist, both common descent and creationism might be true. Evolution could be true and either both forms arose separately, one arose form the other, or both diverged. Creationism could be true and either both forms were created separately, or one descended from the other. The proposed falsifications would ''not'' falsify the core propositions. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
''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.''
:The original theory ''was not falsified.'' The original theory was "common descent." A ''different'' proposition, "All life shares a common genetic structure," was falsified and replaced with "All life does ''not'' share a common genetic structure." The original theory, "common descent" was not touched. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
''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.''
:First, I did not dismiss them that way. Second, fossil evidence is not "proof" -- it is ''evidence'' that can be interpretted in a number of different ways, consistent with both evolution and creation. You haven't grasped falsification, my friend. Falsification involves ''testing''. You can't "test" fossil evidence to determine whether it evolved or was created. You can look at it, and decide what you think reasonably explains the facts. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
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''.
:You are consistently misrepresenting what I am writing. I did not say it was virtually impossible to prove -- I said "it is virtually impossible to prove something is false." I provided you with an example. You didn't respond. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
''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.''
:You are stating, without showing, that your "proofs" are perfectly valid. I am telling you they are ''not'' valid, because they do ''not'' meet the criteria of falsificationism. I have explained why above. You are ignoring my arguments. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
p.s. [http://www.google.com/search?q=virgin.birth+zoo Which came first the egg or the sperm?]
:This doesn't answer the question. Parthenogenic species have the capacity to produce both sexually and asexually. The question of how they developed the capacity for ''sexual'' reproduction remains unanswered. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
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 />
:Not yet. But a valiant effort. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 16:23, 27 June 2007 (EDT)
== Evolution Is False ==
== Evolution Is False ==