60
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
mLine 265:
Line 265: − − − A lack of clear definition is certainly a problem, and I agree that natural selection is distinct from evolution (although many evolutionists conflate the two), but common ancestry is a key part of the definition of evolution. Without it, you don't have evolution, but something else, such as creation. On the other hand, this is one of the problems with evolution: The term is so flexible that it can cover almost everything, whether that be descent from a single common ancestor or descent from multiple common ancestors, descent with modification or merely a change in allele frequencies. The term is so flexible that everything (except creation) comes under the umbrella. Thus you can potentially falsify key parts of evolution, such as descent form a common ancestor, and you still haven't falsified evolution, because it can mean something else quite different! In other words, the concept cannot even be nailed down enough to be able to falsify it. −
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 15:46, June 7, 2008
, 15:46, June 7, 2008→Edit summary
:::::: Er, the only person named there is Darwin, who is hardly representative of current evolutionary science. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
:::::: Er, the only person named there is Darwin, who is hardly representative of current evolutionary science. [[User:Wandering|Wandering]] 11:12, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, he's the only one ''named'', but they also refer to the promotion of the peppered moth example of natural selection being used by evolutionists as evidence of ''evolution''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
::::::: Yes, he's the only one ''named'', but they also refer to the promotion of the peppered moth example of natural selection being used by evolutionists as evidence of ''evolution''. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:31, 7 June 2008 (EDT)
-
-