Changes

::::::::::::: Agreed.  And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement.  But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::: Agreed.  And the magic of falsifiable science is that you ''can'' move toward that improvement.  But with unfalsifiable hypothesis, you can just pick one error you're emotionally attached to, and stick with it 'cause it can't be tested.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 20:56, 25 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth.  The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable?  The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

::::::::::Hubble Deep Field image showed light from galaxies 12 billion light years from earth.  The estimation of the time it took the light to reach earth was based on the observed redshift values of galaxies in the image. Do you contend that this estimate is false because it is not falsifiable?  The light was emitted 12 billion years ago. Is it wrong because it is simply an ''interpretation of the evidence''?[[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::::::''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.''   

 

:::::::Using your own criteria of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not a science?<br />

:::::::''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.''  Using your own definition of falsification, would you agree that creationism is not science?

:::::::Since evolution is so ''mallable'' would it accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error? [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

:::::::Evolution is so ''malleable'', it would accept creationism if creationism decreased the margins of error!  Science rejects creationism because creationism widens, (not narrows), the error bars. '''Creationism tries to explain complexity by creating an even larger unexplainable complexity: (a creator or designer).'''  Evolution explains complexity using observable facts. For Example: We know that retroviruses insert a copy of their DNA into their host's genome; if the DNA is inserted into a sperm or egg cell, the mutation will be passed to offspring. If the mutation enhances the viability of the recipient it will be passed to future generations,if it does not, the recipient will die before pro generating (also known as natural selection).  The same mutations, across different species, indicate common descent. It is not just the commonality of the genetic code that supports common descent, it is also the differences.  The differences in the genetic code indicate accumulated mutations over time.  Common descent is not a single theory. It is a explanation of existing falsifiable theorems explaining observable facts.  ''...a common genetic code is consistent with creationism -- a creationist could say "God just used a common genetic material in all life."''  In so doing the creationist has introduced more complexity, (an unknown creator), without reducing existing complexity. 

:::::::''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."'' Absolutely.  Guess what? You just falsified an evolutionary biology theory supporting common descent!  Because science can not deal in absolutes, (with the exception of mathematics) , it is forced to make self corrections.  Disproving a theorem is just as valuable to science as proving a theorem.  Richard Feynman said it best: "If you thought that science was certain — well, that is just an error on your part."

 

:::::::Copyright laws prevent me from including the text here, but I would urge you to read '''Bold texthttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/'''  It presents 30 evidences supporting common descent ''including falsification tests''! [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]

== Evolution Is False ==

== Evolution Is False ==