Changes

::::::::::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]]

:::::::::::No, I'm not saying it's ''false'', I'm saying it's ''unfalsifiable''.  From a scientific perspective, it could be true and it could be false -- we don't know with ''scientific'' certainty, because we cannot test it.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::No, I'm not saying it's ''false'', I'm saying it's ''unfalsifiable''.  From a scientific perspective, it could be true and it could be false -- we don't know with ''scientific'' certainty, because we cannot test it.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''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?

:::::::''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?

:::::::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.

:::::::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.

::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition.  General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics.  Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism.  Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors.  Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought.  same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity.  We just follow the experimental data."  Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific."  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::"Reducing complexity" is not a fair measure for the "scientificness" of a proposition.  General relativity introduced more complexities than Newtonian physics, which introduced more complexities than Aristotle's Physics.  Quantum physics introduces more complexities than ancient atomism.  Modern biology introduces more complexity than the doctrine of humors.  Science says, "if experimental data indicates that reality is more complicated than we thought, then reality is more complicated than we thought.  same thing if the experimental data indicates simplicity.  We just follow the experimental data."  Just because creationism introduces more complexity to the equation does not make it "unscientific" any more than genetics makes biology "unscientific."  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

:::::::''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."

:::::::''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."

::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable.  Maybe someday it will be falsifiable.  Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction.  But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently.  In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::But the real point is that the point of contention, ''common descent itself'' remains unfalsifiable.  Maybe someday it will be falsifiable.  Then we can either call it science, or call it fiction.  But for the moment, it remains steeped in the interpretation of evidence, which reasonable people can interpret differently.  In my opinion, you may call it "obvious," but you cannot call it "scientific," because you cannot test it.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

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

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

::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry.  They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation.  That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

::::::::I've read them -- but in my opinion, they do not provide experiments to test ''the point of contention'' -- common ancestry.  They provide ''hypothetical findings'' that could ''alter'' evolution, and which are ''consistent'' with creation.  That's not falsificationism in any meaningful sense.  [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 10:05, 26 June 2007 (EDT)

== Evolution Is False ==

== Evolution Is False ==