Automoderated users, edit
156
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 374:
Line 374: + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Falsifiability of evolution (view source)
Revision as of 03:22, June 3, 2010
, 03:22, June 3, 2010→This sentence seems off: new section
::I have just seen this discussion and read it with a great deal of interest... is it possible for Philip Rayment to respond to Xyrophile? Both participants have demonstrated themselves to be respectful and coherent debaters and I think it's important that the discussion continue, since this matter is so important. [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 09:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
::I have just seen this discussion and read it with a great deal of interest... is it possible for Philip Rayment to respond to Xyrophile? Both participants have demonstrated themselves to be respectful and coherent debaters and I think it's important that the discussion continue, since this matter is so important. [[User:Sam99foster|Sam99foster]] 09:53, 14 September 2008 (EDT)
== This sentence seems off ==
I don't think the sentence is necessarily wrong, but it seems to have some sort of a issue, like a word or two isn't quite right. I'm looking at the bold sentence.
<small>In 1949[1], J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. '''Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.'''</small>
It seems to say something along the lines of "Creationists attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets found in organisms could have evolved." I think the sentence is supposed to say that Haldane's test is invalid because we have found animals with complicated mechanisms, but evolution accounts for them, meaning Haldane's test didn't falsify evolution.
I'm a bit confused. If I knew how to fix the sentence I would change it myself, but I want more opinions on this. Maybe it's fine as it is, and I'm misunderstanding it. (In that case maybe there should be a rewrite for clarity's sake.) [[User:ChrisGT90|ChrisGT90]] 23:22, 2 June 2010 (EDT)