60
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 300:
Line 300: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 14:48, June 12, 2008
, 14:48, June 12, 2008→Edit summary
:"''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"
:"''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)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:43, 8 June 2008 (EDT)
''Including definitions (versions) that we've yet to propose? Of course not.''
This is a straw man argument; you're saying the theory of evolution can't be falsified because we can't falsify formulations of the theory that nobody has thought of yet. No theory could ever be falsifiable by this definition!
''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.''
Why on earth would falsifying a theory mean we discard it entirely? Until the discovery of the electron 1897, atomic theory held that atoms were indivisible, the smallest possible form of matter. When the discovery of the electron falsified this, the theory was adjusted to reflect this new information. However, the concept of the atom was not abandoned, simply an untrue proposition about its properties.
''Even if all past and current versions are falsified, evolutionists will just invent a new version. Hence falsification is illusory.''
You're making a critical error here; theories are not static things. Scientists will continue refining the theory of evolution unless it reaches a dead end.
''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.''
But this is still a valid grounds to establish falsifiability. The test of falsifiability isn't whether a theory can be falsified in light of other things we know, or even if it can be falsified with a plausible test. To establish falsifiability, we only need establish that a hypothetical test or observation
exists in the realm of logical possibility that would disprove the particular formulation of the theory we're evaluating, not logistical possibility.
''Again, my point is that a proposed falsification of evolution was put to the test, evolution failed, but the failure is rationalized away. So why couldn't any future failures be rationalized away? You've already admitted that they would be''
A theory's falsification does not mean the theory is to be discarded unless the theory can't be modified to account for the results. Science is based on the concept of empirical knowledge. The theories we consider true today stand on the shoulders of those disproven in the past. See the example of the atom above.
''Again, my point: nothing can falsify evolution, because there's always the rationalization that an evolutionary mechanism will be found. And it could be too, given how flexible the idea is.''
This doesn't make sense. You appear to have misunderstood what falsification is. Older syntheses of the theory of evolution have been falsified already, and the current synthesis is as falsifiable as they were.
''"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.''
The theory that the earth was created by some natural process over 6 days 6000 years ago is falsifiable. It's falsifiable because of the dates; they are the proposition that can be tested. The theory that the earth was created by an omnipotent being such as God is unfalsifiable, because it allows the possibility that said being changed the properties of things to the point that measurement is meaningless. Tools like radiocarbon dating work because we understand the decay of matter as a predictable, natural process. If we add an omnipotent being to a theory in any field, the result of ANY test or measurement becomes inconclusive because said being could manipulate the results in ways that were impossible to detect. For that matter, why are you bothering to argue that creationism is falsifiable if you think falsifiability is illusory?
''"Creationism does predict (correctly!) that we exist, but presupposes the existence 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?''
No. The presuppositions in a theory are part of the theory itself. If I formulate the theory that "The sky is blue because God decreed it so," does going outside and observing a blue sky prove the existence of God? The theory hinges on the existence of God, so it could be rewritten as "God exists, and decreed the sky to be blue." This theory makes the prediction that the sky is blue, which is correct, but its still not falsifiable because no possible observation exists that could disprove the existence of a God who does not wish to be found. I think you can see pretty clearly how this analog maps to creationism, or any other theory involving God.
''"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, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".''
I suppose the correct wording here is "to a degree sufficient to falsify the current theory."
''"...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.''
Species of spiders, snakes and shellfish all have developed
poison to defend themselves from predators and assist them in hunting prey, but all of them have developed this ability independently of each other.
''"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, synthesizing a new theory of evolution".
Sorry, this one actually was incorrect; I brought up the blondes and brown haired child by accident, having confused it with blue and brown eyes, a classic example taught in genetics classes. Essentially, eye colour is regulated by not one, but two alleles on the locus. To have blue eyes, both must be the allele for blue eyes; if one or the other is not, a different eye colour is produced. We each carry one of these genes from each of our parents.
If both of your parents were blue eyed, then all four alleles in the pool of possible alleles to pass down to you specify blue eyes. Logically then, you must also have blue eyes, because there's no combination of alleles that could be passed to you without causing blue eyes. If you were born with brown eyes, one of three things must have happened. Either some sort of mutation must have happened to alter your genotype during or after the combination of those genes, you must have received genetic information from a source other than your parents such as lateral gene transfer or your eye colour must not be a hereditary characteristic. If the latter is the case, evolution would be falsified.
Numerous tests exist to detect mutation, and lateral gene transfer is also testable, so it's possible to test which of these causes is responsable.
''"While rearrangements have occurred, 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".''
The rearrangements in the phylogenetic tree I'm talking about are rearrangements among close cousins, not massive changes like saying birds are descended from apes. If we found genetic evidence of this, evolution would be falsified.
''"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?''
You've misunderstood the consequences of falsification in science. The basic concept of evolution would only be discarded if the process of formulation/falsification/adjustment/reformu
lation reached a dead end in which no possible adjustment of the theory could account for the observations we've made, or a competing theory was developed that better explained those observations. However, the theory could still be falsifiable at every step along the way; indeed it must be for the cycle to continue. This is true for ALL science, not just evolution.
''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.",''
Can you find a source for this quote other than a creationist website? Do you know of anywhere it's possible to aquire the edition of the Origin of the Species he supposedly stated it in? The guys at talk.origins tried and failed: [ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/part1-4.html#quote81]
''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"''
An exhaustively researched explanation of this quote is available at [http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie031.html]. Taken in the proper context, Watson does not state that the evidence isn't there to support evolution, he simply states that the only competing theories are evolution and creation, and that zoologists thus support evolution by the process of elimination, due to the numerous problems with creationism as a scientific paradigm.
I would argue instead that it's you who is arguing on ideological grounds. You've tried to argue simultaneously that evolution is unfalsifiable and falsified. You vigorously defend the falsifiability of creationism while claiming that falsifiability is an illusion. Finally, you've cherry picked quotes and statistics out of context to support your argument. Are you so philosophically attached to creationism that you're willing to contradict yourself, or are your arguments are founded on a misunderstanding of the philosophy of science? Please don't take this as an insult; for the most part you've made intelligent, logically consistent arguments and presented them with the grace befitting a gentleman, but you seem content to fiddle with the definition of science to fit creationism under its umbrella. I bear no grudge against those who honestly believe in young earth creationism, but it's a religious belief, not a scientific one. That doesn't discount the possibility that its true, but to attempt to define it as science makes a mockery of the scientific method. [[User:Xyrophile|Xyrophile]] 10:48, 12 June 2008 (EDT)