The paradigm of evolution can't be fa...

The paradigm of evolution can't be falsified

Posted in the Evolution Debate Forum

First Prev
of 10
Next Last
Freddy Quinn

Germany

#1 Sep 3, 2013
Only certain theories of evolution can be refuted, but not the paradigm itself, just like the paradigm of creationism can't be refuted, only some creationistic theories.

For example, if it would turn out that apes are not descendants of the homo sapiens, that wouldn't even refute the core of the current evolutionistic theory. It would just be another missing link.

If it would turn out that the world is only like 3000 years old, you could develop new evolutionistic theories, that involve unknown chemical or biological mechanics, unknown physical laws that led to a turbo evolution.
Just like a few decades ago the exact mechanics of the modification of DNA were completely in the dark, and in part are even today.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#2 Sep 3, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Only certain theories of evolution can be refuted, but not the paradigm itself, just like the paradigm of creationism can't be refuted, only some creationistic theories.
For example, if it would turn out that apes are not descendants of the homo sapiens, that wouldn't even refute the core of the current evolutionistic theory. It would just be another missing link.
If it would turn out that the world is only like 3000 years old, you could develop new evolutionistic theories, that involve unknown chemical or biological mechanics, unknown physical laws that led to a turbo evolution.
Just like a few decades ago the exact mechanics of the modification of DNA were completely in the dark, and in part are even today.
Wrong, at this point if we are not related to apes there is something seriously wrong with the theory.

You made your false claim because you clearly do not like the theory. The fact is that it gets stronger every day

Now the exact lineage of some animals might be difficult to figure out. And in fact that does apply to humans a bit since there were more than one close relatives of man alive at one point in time. So we are not sure exactly what steps that we took from other apes to man. But there is absolutely no doubt that we are related to other apes.

Do you understand how a developing science can sometimes take a false path and may have to back up a bit? That is the sort of minor error that would not debunk evolution. What you are proposing is not a minor error.

Now there may be on perfectly good reason that you cannot debunk the theory of evolution.

If evolution is right, then no matter how hard you try you will not be able to debunk it.

Guess what no scientist has been able to do for over 150 years?

And you brought up DNA at the end of your post. If we were wrong about evolution DNA could very well have shown it. The evidence from DNA confirms evolution ten times stronger than the fossil evidence does.

Once again, if evolution was wrong DNA would almost definitely would have shown it. It did the exact opposite.
Freddy Quinn

Germany

#3 Sep 3, 2013
"Wrong, at this point if we are not related to apes there is something seriously wrong with the theory."
Not at all. Again, it would just mean that the actual descendants of humanity are unknown, just another missing link. And there are a lot of missing links.
"Once again, if evolution was wrong DNA would almost definitely would have shown it. It did the exact opposite."
It does nothing at all. The claim is, evolution can only be observed in very large time scales, like several thousands of years. So it's impossible to observe meaningful changes of the DNA live. Doesn't matter if you believe in evolution or not.
But that was not even the actual topic. I want to discuss the falsifiability of evolution here, and my examples were just that, examples. Doesn't matter how unlikely they are, my claim is that even if my examples were valid, the general paradigm of evolution could not be falsified because it's impossible to refute.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#4 Sep 3, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
"Wrong, at this point if we are not related to apes there is something seriously wrong with the theory."
Not at all. Again, it would just mean that the actual descendants of humanity are unknown, just another missing link. And there are a lot of missing links.
"Once again, if evolution was wrong DNA would almost definitely would have shown it. It did the exact opposite."
It does nothing at all. The claim is, evolution can only be observed in very large time scales, like several thousands of years. So it's impossible to observe meaningful changes of the DNA live. Doesn't matter if you believe in evolution or not.
But that was not even the actual topic. I want to discuss the falsifiability of evolution here, and my examples were just that, examples. Doesn't matter how unlikely they are, my claim is that even if my examples were valid, the general paradigm of evolution could not be falsified because it's impossible to refute.
No, there are not "a lot of missing links".

Where do you get those foolish ideas from?

You obviously have no idea how DNA confirms evolution. Your arguments are all based upon your ignorance. Not the best way to debate.
Freddy Quinn

Germany

#5 Sep 3, 2013
Yeah, like your post is full of arguments..

Just bring up something concrete for a change. Why would it falsify the theory of evolution if apes were not ancestors of humans? Care to explain?

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#6 Sep 3, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Yeah, like your post is full of arguments..
Just bring up something concrete for a change. Why would it falsify the theory of evolution if apes were not ancestors of humans? Care to explain?
So mush has been invested in that concept that if it were shown to be wrong then the whole theory would be wrong.

Remember it is not just fossils that support the claim. You would also be showing that homology was wrong, that DNA was wrong, and even ERV's were wrong.

You are clueless. Get an education and try to ask better questions.

I have not posted any strong arguments since you have only posted nonsense so far.
Freddy Quinn

Germany

#7 Sep 3, 2013
You haven't posted any arguments actually. Only that I am ignorant, have no clue and bla..

I asked you a question:
"Why would it falsify the theory of evolution if apes were not ancestors of humans?"

Give me a concrete answer to that, or stop wasting my time.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#8 Sep 3, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
You haven't posted any arguments actually. Only that I am ignorant, have no clue and bla..
I asked you a question:
"Why would it falsify the theory of evolution if apes were not ancestors of humans?"
Give me a concrete answer to that, or stop wasting my time.
Yes, I have. Don't be an idiot.

That you are ignorant is an obvious fact, well obvious to everyone but you.

I gave you a concrete answer. You did not like it. That does not mean you weren't answered.

There is such a thing as a stupid question. For example someone could ask if a ball of high density material falling up through the air would overturn the theory of gravity. It would, but it is also not going to happen. The same goes to your foolish question about apes. It is not going to happen, if it did it would debunk the theory of evolution.
Freddy Quinn

Germany

#9 Sep 3, 2013
"I gave you a concrete answer. You did not like it. That does not mean you weren't answered."

Oh really? Can you quote your "concrete answer" please? Because somehow, I can't find one anywhere in your posts...

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#10 Sep 3, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
"I gave you a concrete answer. You did not like it. That does not mean you weren't answered."
Oh really? Can you quote your "concrete answer" please? Because somehow, I can't find one anywhere in your posts...
Nope, I am done working with idiots for free tonight.

Maybe tomorrow.
Freddy Quinn

Germany

#11 Sep 3, 2013
You're just lame. If you had any concrete answer, you would quote it. Not much work dude, just copy, paste and exclamation marks around it, done..

As it seems I won't get much out of this forum. Especially if you're the only regular around..

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#12 Sep 3, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
You're just lame. If you had any concrete answer, you would quote it. Not much work dude, just copy, paste and exclamation marks around it, done..
As it seems I won't get much out of this forum. Especially if you're the only regular around..
Idiot, I gave you a "concrete answer". You did not like it.

Go bug someone else for an answer if you don't like mine. Theirs will not be very different from mine.

There are some other regulars, you made bad start with a foolish question. Don't blame me for your stupidity.
Freddy Quinn

Germany

#13 Sep 3, 2013
"Idiot, I gave you a "concrete answer". You did not like it."

Than for god's sake, quote it!

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#14 Sep 3, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
"Idiot, I gave you a "concrete answer". You did not like it."
Than for god's sake, quote it!
I said I was done educating idiots for free today.

What part of that didn't you understand?

Do you have a way of sending me money, right now?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#15 Sep 4, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Only certain theories of evolution can be refuted, but not the paradigm itself, just like the paradigm of creationism can't be refuted, only some creationistic theories.
Pre-Cambrian rabbit? Ten human-specific ERV's in a goldfish? Cat born with the DNA of a cactus? Fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones? Crocoduck? Mermaids? Centaurs? Pegasus? Pigasus?

Sorry Fred, but it appears you have no clue what you're talking about. If you really think that scientists would jump through hoops to absurd levels such as "turbo evolution" in just 3,000 years then I'm afraid you are not in this little place called reality.

Wanna know who really believes in "turbo-evolution"?

Creationists.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#16 Sep 4, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Not at all. Again, it would just mean that the actual descendants of humanity are unknown, just another missing link. And there are a lot of missing links.
And there's lots present. MILLIONS of them. All fit with evolution. In fact Darwin successfully predicted the existence of evolutionary change over time, which we can see with hominid fossils for example:

http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/T9Q...

Now, throw a hominid fossil with the backside of a lion on there and we got serious problems. But other than that we can observe the specifically evolutionary trend of more upright posture and increased cranium cavity size over the past few million years.

Since evolution PREDICTED this sort of thing BEFORE we had those fossils it's a pretty good indicator that it works. Then DNA was discovered 60 years ago and cemented evolution into the textbooks.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
It does nothing at all. The claim is, evolution can only be observed in very large time scales, like several thousands of years. So it's impossible to observe meaningful changes of the DNA live. Doesn't matter if you believe in evolution or not.
Ah, but you don't understand - BEFORE we discovered DNA we thought chimps were our closest relatives, based on comparative anatomy AND the fossil record. AFTER we discovered DNA we found that chimps had the closest DNA match. That's because DNA is a measure of how closely related organisms are. If evolution was incorrect there is no reason for chimps to have the closest match. Or even everything on Earth could be born with a completely random DNA configuration each time, no matter what form of life it is. But we don't see that. We see organisms born with DNA profiles which are consistent with genetic drift.

The reason?

Evolution is probably correct.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
But that was not even the actual topic. I want to discuss the falsifiability of evolution here, and my examples were just that, examples. Doesn't matter how unlikely they are, my claim is that even if my examples were valid, the general paradigm of evolution could not be falsified because it's impossible to refute.
It's only impossible to refute because you have no evidence against it, not that it's not falsifiable. You've just been given plenty of examples of how evolution could be falsified.

Just because you don't like evolution and nobody's falsified it yet doesn't mean it's not scientific. It IS scientific because it IS falsifiable.

Don't complain just because you never learned anything about science.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#17 Sep 4, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Yeah, like your post is full of arguments..
Just bring up something concrete for a change. Why would it falsify the theory of evolution if apes were not ancestors of humans? Care to explain?
Because it would violate nested hierarchies.

Of course you know a lot about science so you do understand this, don't you?

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#18 Sep 4, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
You're just lame. If you had any concrete answer, you would quote it. Not much work dude, just copy, paste and exclamation marks around it, done..
As it seems I won't get much out of this forum. Especially if you're the only regular around..
He's not.

Let's look at a few things you've posted...
Freddy Quinn wrote:
For example, if it would turn out that apes are not descendants of the homo sapiens, that wouldn't even refute the core of the current evolutionistic theory. It would just be another missing link.
Did you really mean to say "apes are not descendants of the homo sapiens"? Because that not what the theory says. It says modern apes and humans (homo sapiens) are descendants of a common ancestor. Not that apes are descendants of humans.

Then there's this one:
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Not at all. Again, it would just mean that the actual descendants of humanity are unknown, just another missing link. And there are a lot of missing links.
First off, "missing link" is a silly term. There aren't lots of them. There aren't any. In other words, it's meaningless.

Secondly, the "descendants of humanity" would have to occur in the future - not the past. You seem a bit confused about this.

Finally...
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Just bring up something concrete for a change. Why would it falsify the theory of evolution if apes were not ancestors of humans? Care to explain?
If you really can't follow this, then perhaps you need to study the subject a little closed. Maybe using actual scientific references.

All of the available evidence - the fossil record, DNA, ERVs - point to a ape-like common ancestor. If that were shown to be wrong, the theory would collapse. So far, nada.

Try asking sensible questions and you might get reasonable answers.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Seffner, FL

#19 Sep 4, 2013
OOPS! closed = closer
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#20 Sep 4, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
He's not.
Let's look at a few things you've posted...
<quoted text>
Did you really mean to say "apes are not descendants of the homo sapiens"? Because that not what the theory says. It says modern apes and humans (homo sapiens) are descendants of a common ancestor. Not that apes are descendants of humans.
Of course they are! Humans are apes.

:-)

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 23 min lightbeamrider 4,980
What's your religion? 3 hr was auch immer 106
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr ChristineM 165,438
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 hr lightbeamrider 85,623
Humans evolved from Canadians 21 hr Mystic science 1
Evolution of the Tennessean species 21 hr Mystic science 1
Experiment In Evolution, Genetic Algorithms and... 23 hr was auch immer 10
More from around the web