nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 213:
Line 213: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 03:33, June 6, 2008
, 03:33, June 6, 2008→Edit summary: Falsifiability examples
: Also, you "counter" the quote from Whitten with a later quote, but the later quote really ''confirms'' the earlier quote, that no experiment can challenge the theory of evolution, i.e., it's not testable.
: Also, you "counter" the quote from Whitten with a later quote, but the later quote really ''confirms'' the earlier quote, that no experiment can challenge the theory of evolution, i.e., it's not testable.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:10, 5 June 2008 (EDT)
: I have serious problems with the added possible falsifications of evolution, as follows:
:* Just because someone proposes some possible falsification doesn't mean that it really ''would'' falsify it. The article already has examples of proposed falsifications which were found (such as magnets and wheels), but the hypothesis survived anyway: that is, evolutionists did ''not'' consider it falsified by the supposed falsifications! So would these fare any better? See my last paragraph, below.
:* Earlier in the article it says that "A scientific theory seeks to explain a process and thereby make predictions. The falsifiability of a theory is established if it is possible to test these predictions." But do these proposed falsifications really propose ''testable'' predictions"? They seem to be more in the category of "if we happen to find" rather than real testable predictions. Also, testable predictions need to distinguish between the hypothesis and competing ideas. Creationism accepts that mutations accumulate, we already know that they accumulate, so proposing that the discovery that they ''can't'' accumulate as a testable prediction of evolution is nothing but hand-waving.
:* How would direct observation of the creation of life falsify evolution? That some being is found to be capable of creating life doesn't mean that evolution can't (also) occur.
:* The one about chimeras seems very contrived. What is a platypus, for example, if not a chimera? Okay, it's perhaps not a "true" chimera, but that's the ''contrived'' part. The point really is that creatures from different lines that have similar features are actually quite common, but are "explained" as "convergent evolution". But again, this has failed to falsify evolution (because it truly is not falsifiable).
:* The last one, about dissimilar DNA, is too vague. How dissimilar is dissimilar? Human and ape DNA ''is'' dissimilar, and too dissimilar to be explained by evolution. But again, this has failed to falsify it.
: I've heard various proposals on how evolution could be falsified, but none so far seem convincing to me. I therefore think that the only proposed falsifications that should be included in the article are those made by professional or widely-accepted evolutionists. The first three are from TalkOrigins, so they can stand (pointing out their flaws), but the fourth, unsourced, I will remove.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:33, 5 June 2008 (EDT)