nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 286:
Line 286: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 05:43, June 8, 2008
, 05:43, June 8, 2008→Edit summary: THANK YOU for agreeing!! So why are you still disputing it?
While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded, with the exception of an observation that refutes the most basic definition of change in a population over time. Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution. This new synthesis would still retain the aspects of the previous one that were not affected by the implications of the observation. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded, with the exception of an observation that refutes the most basic definition of change in a population over time. Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution. This new synthesis would still retain the aspects of the previous one that were not affected by the implications of the observation. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 11:44, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:"''The concept CAN be nailed down enough to falsify it, because every one of the definitions is falsifiable!''": Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not. As you said, "While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...Instead, the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.". And that's precisely the point: Evolution would ''not'' be discarded, because it would not be considered falsified. All that would be falsified are specific versions of the idea, not the idea itself. Even if ''all'' past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory. You've admitted it yourself! As for your exception, again, you are basically saying that the only thing that could possibly falsify it is something that we already know not to be the case. You failed, by the way, to directly answer my point about creation being falsifiable ''because we exist'' (more on that below), as well as my question about it being falsifiable by time travel.
:"''The discovery of wheels, magnets, or even nuclear reactors would not disprove evolution unless no evolutionary path could possibly account for them.''": Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalised away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalised away? You've already admitted that they would be ("...the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution.").
:"''...this is a really weak falsification, because it presupposes that we never will discover such a path in the future.''": Again, my point: ''nothing'' can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalisation that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.
:"''6-day creation 6,000 years ago is eminently falsifiable;...''": Thank you for agreeing that young-Earth creationism is falsifiable, and therefore should not be classified as inherently unscientific.
:"''...the discovery of anything over 6000 years old logically falsifies this.''": Assuming the dates are correct, but that's a separate issue.
:"''The reason creationism is unfalsifiable is because it relies on supernatural causes.''": Huh? What has the cause got to do with its falsifiability? Falsifiability is, according to you, based on being able to test predictions made by the theory, not according to its causes.
:"''Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existance of God, which is not even hypothetically falsifiable.''": Again, what does the cause, or presupposition, have to do with its falsifiability? Nothing. So if it makes a testable and correct prediction, it should be accepted as a valid scientific theory, shouldn't it?
:"''To qualify as a true chimera to a degree sufficient to disprove evolution...''": But would it disprove evolution? Again, "... the current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''...it's perfectly normal for two organisms facing the same pressures to develop the same adaptations''": Sorry, but that's begging the question. You are ''presuming'' that evolution is capable of doing this in order to argue that evolution can do this. Have you (or any scientist) ever ''observed'' two organisms develop the same adaptations? No.
:"''If two blondes had a brown haired child together, evolution would be disproven, as no possible combination of genes from two blonde haired persons combine to form a genotype for brown hair (this is of course discounting mutation)...''": Huh? Why "discount mutations"? Mutations are an integral part of evolution. You are basically saying that evolution can't explain it without invoking a key feature of evolution! Duh! That's the point, evolutionists could simply invoke mutations! You don't even have to go as far as "...current theory would be modified to account for the new observation, synthesising a new theory of evolution".
:"''While rearrangments have occured, and continue to occur, these are generally due to errors in taxonomy.''": Isn't that what I said to you? You put in the article, "Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms". I replied that they would simply rearrange the tree. You now say that rearrangements are due to error. Of course it would be called "error"! The point is, such things would ''not'' disprove evolution, but just cause someone to say "we got that part of the tree wrong (i.e. an "error"), so we will rearrange it".
:"''While the current theory of evolution could be falsified by any of these observations, such a falsification wouldn't mean evolution would be discarded...''": Thank you. That's the whole point of all this. Unless you are trying to say that evolution would continue to be accepted in full knowledge that is had been falsified, what you are essentially doing is ''agreeing'' that any falsifications of particular aspects or versions ''would not (because they could not) falsify evolution itself''!! Hence evolution itself is inherently unfalsifiable. If you agree with this, why do you keep disputing it? Is it due to being so philosophically opposed to the only real alternative, special creation, that you have to cling to evolution no matter what? That's the view of many, including, for example, Sir Arthur Keith, who said, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable.", or D.M.S. Watson who said, "Evolution itself is accepted by zoologists, not because it has been observed to occur or can be proved by logical coherent evidence, but because the only alternative -- special creation -- is clearly incredible"
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)