614
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 32:
Line 32: + Line 38:
Line 39: + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 01:25, June 27, 2007
, 01:25, June 27, 2007no edit summary
:::::::::::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)
::::::::::::Actually we can create a falsification test for it. Disprove Hubbles Law, the doppler effect or the speed of light and my statement ''The light was emitted 12 billion years ago'' will be false. Falsification can be established by refuting principals used interpret the evidence. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::::Actually we can create a falsification test for it. Disprove Hubbles Law, the doppler effect or the speed of light and my statement ''The light was emitted 12 billion years ago'' will be false. Falsification can be established by refuting principals used interpret the evidence. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::::::Not necessarily. The Doppler effect (and by this I mean specifically the proposition that light emitted from receding objects is red-shifted) could be wrong and the light still 12 billion years old. The stars might still be 12 billion light-years away, even if they are not receding. Same with the speed of light. The speed of light might be twice what we think it is -- and the stars could still be 12 billion light years away (although that would be twice as many AUs). Just because the assumptions underlying a proposition are proven false does ''not'' necessarily disprove the proposition itself. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 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?
::::::::"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)
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::I do not claim science "reduces complexity". I claim science reduces the margins of error. General relativity reduced the error bars provided by Newtonian physics. Creationism, by comparison, increases the Error Bars, (to infinity), by introducing new unknowable complexity, (creators). Creationism provides no new knowledge to science. Hence, creationism can make no new predictions about science. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's important to note that I put evolutionism and creationism in the same category -- hypotheses that are not yet falsifiable. So I agree with you that creationism can make no falsifiable predictions, while applying the same conclusion to evolution. At the same time, I think both hypotheses are worthy of investigation, because they may somebody yield falsifiable results. Creationism ''may indeed'' add new knowledge to science, ''if we were created''. Because then, ''common ancestry would be false''. Were we created? I think so, but neither of us can prove it or disprove it with science. Yet. Hopefully someday science will get there. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 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)
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::One falsification test for common descent: find an example of an organism that fails to conform to the unified genetic code by using some method, other than DNA, to store genetic information. Common descent can be falsified by disproving its predictions. So far, every new species tested verifies a unified genetic code. This testing supports common descent because it continually reinforces the prediction of common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::That wouldn't falsify common descent. As I said above, it would only modify it to either "one form of genetic material evolved to the other," "both evolved separately," or "both diverged." Common descent might still be true. Only "All genetic information is contained in nucleic acid" would have been falsified. I can make the same sort of pseudo-falsification with creationism. "Finding the missing link between land mammals and whales will falsify the proposition that they were created separate." You find a fossil with characteristics of both and I say either "They're not related" or "Those two are related, but they're not related to insects." You haven't falsified creationism -- you've just modified it.
:::::::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)
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
:::::::::To give but one falsification test for common descent, show that a single-celled organism can not evolve into multi-cellular form. Common descent requires this to be true for evolution to occur. Proving it would refute common descent. [[User:PerpetualAngst|PerpetualAngst]]
::::::::::It's virtually impossible to prove something impossible -- one can only point to the absence of evidence that it ''did'' happen, and the myriad difficulties it would have to overcome. (e.g. prove it's impossible to fly at the speed of light -- it might be impossible now, but that might only be because ''we don't know how''). A better example, I think, would be the evolution of sexual reproduction. Which came first, the male or the female? The egg or the sperm? One without the other is useless. Both had to appear at the same time. And both are enormously complex, even in their simplest forms. Nobody's provided any plausible explanation as to how it happened. All the efforts to provide such an explanation strike me as absurd. Does that mean it's ''impossible?'' Naw. It might have happened -- we just might not know how. But please don't call it scientific, because it's not. It's bald speculation, devoid of experimental or observational support. [[User:Ungtss|Ungtss]] 21:25, 26 June 2007 (EDT)
== Evolution Is False ==
== Evolution Is False ==