The paradigm of evolution can't be fa...
First Prev
of 10
Next Last

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#182 Sep 14, 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.
Falsification of evolution is simple.

All you have to do is find a fossil that predates its possible evolutionary antecedents.

Get digging.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#183 Sep 14, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
You really want to know? Actually, I have stated nowhere in this thread that I'm a creationist. You know that rule, discuss the topic, not the person. But it doesn't matter, most people here made up their mind about it from the start.
So am I really a creationist? Don't know, I'm just a guy who wanted to discuss and learn something new. But this really isn't the best place for that, that's for sure.
Nobody's holding a gun to your head, are they?

Let go back to your first post where you attempted to portray evolution and creationism as equally valid. Follow up by a couple of misplaced "missing link" remarks. You may not be a creationist but you certainly come across as one.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#184 Sep 14, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
Well funny, because bluenose understood me right away. While with you I have to discuss 2 pages, while you're still using your own definition of counciousness, and argue semantics.
try that:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
And if you still don't understand what conciousness is, you're probably a spam-bot, programmed to get on peoples nerves.
I see, so apparently you know, while everything in your link indicates that generally most don't, as it's not a fantastically defined term. But in general most agree that some kind of awareness is involved, which as far as can be scientifically determined, stops at death.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
My point was not that it's not falsifiable. However, there is a huge load space that most likely will never be tested, and for itself, isn't falsifiable. It still remains an assumption.
This isn't meant as a critique(just mention it because you're kind of hyper-sensitive about it) it's just how it is.
And your point was wrong, since it indicated not only could it be potentially falsified, but may already have been.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
???
whatever you say.
Actually it was what you said.(shrug)
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#185 Sep 14, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
You really want to know? Actually, I have stated nowhere in this thread that I'm a creationist. You know that rule, discuss the topic, not the person. But it doesn't matter, most people here made up their mind about it from the start.
So am I really a creationist? Don't know, I'm just a guy who wanted to discuss and learn something new. But this really isn't the best place for that, that's for sure.
Actually you learned that philosophy can't compete with science. So it wasn't a total loss.(shrug)

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#186 Sep 14, 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.
Evolution isn't falsifiable in it's observational aspect, because like gravity it is an observation. It's is falsifiable in it's theoretical aspects, IE: the exact mechanisms of how it occurs
is still under study. Exactly the same way of how gravity works is under investigation. But there can be no refute that there is gravity. Nor can you refute that evolution has occurred.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#187 Sep 14, 2013
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody's holding a gun to your head, are they?
Let go back to your first post where you attempted to portray evolution and creationism as equally valid. Follow up by a couple of misplaced "missing link" remarks. You may not be a creationist but you certainly come across as one.
Evolution has been observed but creationism has never been observed.
In fact creationism has been falsified, it's prediction is species can spring out of nowhere. That they were created in kinds .
This has been proven false by the succession of ancestors evolving over time, demonstrated in the history of rock layers of Earth.

There is no animal that can be shown to have been created with no ancestral lineage spanning back millions of years.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#188 Sep 14, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
How nice. You still answered to my claim that it can't be proven/falsified "perhaps not", which shows me that you've understood what I meant by "conciousness". Just like probably everyone above the age of the age of 12 can.
I almost feel honoured to have been quote mined by a fundy lunatic. Nice try bub, but we've had plenty of experience dealing with idiots that don't understand the concept of context, so you're fooling no one.

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#189 Sep 15, 2013
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
So the earth IS 4.6 billion years old.
Human fossils have been found that are 200,000 years old.
DNA has told us that humanity was NEVER down to either 1 mating couple (Adam and Eve) or 4 mating couples (Noah & family)
Of course valid points, but still it's kind of hard to find real naturalistic "proof" against something when a supernatural being is supposed to be involved.
There are also people who believe that god set the fossils in the earth himself to test our belief. "Proof" them wrong.
MikeF wrote:
<quoted text>
Nobody's holding a gun to your head, are they?
Let go back to your first post where you attempted to portray evolution and creationism as equally valid. Follow up by a couple of misplaced "missing link" remarks. You may not be a creationist but you certainly come across as one.
Well yeah, I also wanted to discuss the differences between Creationism. Admittedly, I could also have titled it "Can the paradigm of evolution be falsified?". But I thought people might be more engaged if I use a clear statement instead. I didn't know that they would be THAT engaged though.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I see, so apparently you know, while everything in your link indicates that generally most don't, as it's not a fantastically defined term.
There mustn't be a clear definition to everything in order to know what is meant. Even things like mathematics have no clear definition on which everyone agrees.
And like I said, it can't be proven/falsified that other humans than yourself have a conciousness
The Dude wrote:
Actually it was what you said.(shrug)
It doesn't matter if an event is hypethetical or not when it is only used to express something, namely, that some scientists are clingy to certain theories. And it wasn't the whole scientific community but just "some" scientiests. And no caricature either. Scientists are just humans. And if some atheistic scientist uses the hypothesis of abiogenesis to strenghten his belief, than it probably wouldn't be the best feeling for him if this hypothesis fails.
Besides, you are certainly not shy to make baseless accusations and "caricatures" out of even whole groups of people, so it's not exactly your place to tell me what is justified and what not on that matter.
The Dude wrote:
Actually you learned that philosophy can't compete with science. So it wasn't a total loss.(shrug)
Philosophy doesn't need to compete with science, as they are two different things with different areas. Think of philosophy as useless for all I care, but criticising philosophy because it doesn't lead to the development of technology like science does is kind of laughable.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution isn't falsifiable in it's observational aspect, because like gravity it is an observation. It's is falsifiable in it's theoretical aspects, IE: the exact mechanisms of how it occurs
is still under study. Exactly the same way of how gravity works is under investigation. But there can be no refute that there is gravity. Nor can you refute that evolution has occurred.
I don't know about any direct obversation of evolution. Mendel's laws can be observed, yes. But evolution?
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
I almost feel honoured to have been quote mined by a fundy lunatic. Nice try bub, but we've had plenty of experience dealing with idiots that don't understand the concept of context, so you're fooling no one.
I fail to see how this has anything to do with context. But whatever.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#190 Sep 15, 2013
Question..

"I don't know about any direct obversation of evolution. Mendel's laws can be observed, yes. But evolution? "

Absolutely, these are but a few and not included is the direct observation in the evolution of bacteria and viruses. In fact Darwin's observation
of evolution was explained by the theory of natural selection. Today it is understood somewhat better at a microscopic level, but the observation was and IS made.

Direct observation

Small-scale evolution can be observed in nature or generated experimentally in the laboratory. The classic story of the peppered moth in Britain during the industrial revolution is one of microevolution. Grant and Grant have recorded evolutionary change in beak shape within and among populations of Darwin's finches, over periods as short as 2 years.

We can also drive genetic change in laboratory populations of Drosophila and other model organisms in the laboratory. By selecting for certain phenotypic traits, we can generate directional change in characteristics such as abdominal bristle number, lifespan, and avoidance to certain chemicals. Artificial selection experiments are also the foundation of agricultural improvement over the past 10,000 years.

http://bioweb.wku.edu/faculty/McElroy/Biol430...

“Darwin was right..of course.”

Level 9

Since: Jun 11

Evolution is true.....

#191 Sep 15, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course valid points, but still it's kind of hard to find real naturalistic "proof" against something when a supernatural being is supposed to be involved.
There are also people who believe that god set the fossils in the earth himself to test our belief. "Proof" them wrong.
<quoted text>
Well, of course if you allow for magik then ALL argument are off.

However if you use natural sciences then much of the Bible can be proven false. Science of course cannot comment on magikal crap.

Do you believe in magik??
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#192 Sep 15, 2013
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Of course valid points, but still it's kind of hard to find real naturalistic "proof" against something when a supernatural being is supposed to be involved.
Bingo. Which is why it's a non-falsifiable non-scientific concept. Therefore it can be ignored.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
There are also people who believe that god set the fossils in the earth himself to test our belief. "Proof" them wrong.
No need. Burden is upon them to come up with a falsifiable concept that makes predictions.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Well yeah, I also wanted to discuss the differences between Creationism. Admittedly, I could also have titled it "Can the paradigm of evolution be falsified?". But I thought people might be more engaged if I use a clear statement instead. I didn't know that they would be THAT engaged though.
There's differences in creationism? Other than the age of the Earth, the differences are negligible. A magic wizard didit. That's it. Doesn't matter which religion it is.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
There mustn't be a clear definition to everything in order to know what is meant. Even things like mathematics have no clear definition on which everyone agrees.
And like I said, it can't be proven/falsified that other humans than yourself have a conciousness
Then it's not defined well. It can be falsified that humans have cognitive ability, it CAN'T be falsified that that ability continues long after death.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
It doesn't matter if an event is hypethetical or not when it is only used to express something, namely, that some scientists are clingy to certain theories. And it wasn't the whole scientific community but just "some" scientiests. And no caricature either. Scientists are just humans.
Your goal was to paint scientists as clinging to theories for philosophical reasons. I point out that they tend to do so for practical reasons.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
And if some atheistic scientist uses the hypothesis of abiogenesis to strenghten his belief, than it probably wouldn't be the best feeling for him if this hypothesis fails.
If it fails then a brand new area of research will be unveiled, which may counterbalance their initial philosophical disappointment. However the point remains that the validity of science is in no way affected by anyone's theological or philosophical opinions.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Besides, you are certainly not shy to make baseless accusations and "caricatures" out of even whole groups of people, so it's not exactly your place to tell me what is justified and what not on that matter.
Projection.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
Philosophy doesn't need to compete with science, as they are two different things with different areas. Think of philosophy as useless for all I care, but criticising philosophy because it doesn't lead to the development of technology like science does is kind of laughable.
This is a science forum, so if philosophy stays out of the way it won't get criticized. Same as creationism won't get criticized if it stays out of the way. Unfortunately these are the only two things which are brought to bear against biology around these parts.
Freddy Quinn wrote:
I don't know about any direct obversation of evolution. Mendel's laws can be observed, yes. But evolution?
Laws are not observed. I cannot observe the law of gravity. I can observe the effects of gravity, which are consistent with laws invented by humans. From these invented concepts we make predictions based on these observations. Successfully. Ergo (the effects of) evolution are observed.

“Seventh son”

Level 8

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#193 Sep 15, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Bingo. Which is why it's a non-falsifiable non-scientific concept. Therefore it can be ignored.
<quoted text>
No need. Burden is upon them to come up with a falsifiable concept that makes predictions.
<quoted text>
There's differences in creationism? Other than the age of the Earth, the differences are negligible. A magic wizard didit. That's it. Doesn't matter which religion it is.
<quoted text>
Then it's not defined well. It can be falsified that humans have cognitive ability, it CAN'T be falsified that that ability continues long after death.
<quoted text>
Your goal was to paint scientists as clinging to theories for philosophical reasons. I point out that they tend to do so for practical reasons.
<quoted text>
If it fails then a brand new area of research will be unveiled, which may counterbalance their initial philosophical disappointment. However the point remains that the validity of science is in no way affected by anyone's theological or philosophical opinions.
<quoted text>
Projection.
<quoted text>
This is a science forum, so if philosophy stays out of the way it won't get criticized. Same as creationism won't get criticized if it stays out of the way. Unfortunately these are the only two things which are brought to bear against biology around these parts.
<quoted text>
Laws are not observed. I cannot observe the law of gravity. I can observe the effects of gravity, which are consistent with laws invented by humans. From these invented concepts we make predictions based on these observations. Successfully. Ergo (the effects of) evolution are observed.

A scientific law describes an observed phenomenon.
We just quit calling them laws.
Such as gravity, who Newton pronounced the law of universal of gravitation. But no one cites this law in modern times, but we do say gravity is a fact.
Evolution is much the same as the universal law of gravity, as both are the description of an observed phenomenon.
We suffice to say evolution is a fact.
Evolution is like a law though, as it is an observed phenomenon.

Level 4

Since: Sep 13

Location hidden

#194 Sep 16, 2013
Cats stay up late :)

Level 2

Since: Sep 13

Germany

#195 Sep 16, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
Question..
"I don't know about any direct obversation of evolution. Mendel's laws can be observed, yes. But evolution? "
Absolutely, these are but a few and not included is the direct observation in the evolution of bacteria and viruses. In fact Darwin's observation
of evolution was explained by the theory of natural selection. Today it is understood somewhat better at a microscopic level, but the observation was and IS made.
Direct observation
Small-scale evolution can be observed in nature or generated experimentally in the laboratory. The classic story of the peppered moth in Britain during the industrial revolution is one of microevolution. Grant and Grant have recorded evolutionary change in beak shape within and among populations of Darwin's finches, over periods as short as 2 years.
We can also drive genetic change in laboratory populations of Drosophila and other model organisms in the laboratory. By selecting for certain phenotypic traits, we can generate directional change in characteristics such as abdominal bristle number, lifespan, and avoidance to certain chemicals. Artificial selection experiments are also the foundation of agricultural improvement over the past 10,000 years.
http://bioweb.wku.edu/faculty/McElroy/Biol430...
I see, I forgot about that. There is also that macro/micro evolution thing or so was it called once.
Admittedly, such evolutive changes are observable, but I remember the scaleability thing to be still controversial, namely that micro and macro evolution rely on the same processes, and it's really just a matter of time.
But I figure that this is enough to say evolution is observable, and I'm not so into the matter to argue with you about that.
So anyway, thanks for elaborating on that.
The Dude wrote:
If it fails then a brand new area of research will be unveiled, which may counterbalance their initial philosophical disappointment.
If not for "philosophical" reasons, they'd probably commit suicide because they wasted their career on a wrong theory.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Laws are not observed. I cannot observe the law of gravity. I can observe the effects of gravity, which are consistent with laws invented by humans.
slip of the pen, is all.
Of course the law of gravitation is just an idealized mathematical model to describe a physical phenomenon

(Partly) agree on the cognitive ability part, however when it comes to conciousness, something inherently subjective doesn't become falsifiable in others just because you define it better. However, I have no desire to discuss this here further, at best via PM (why don't you have an account anyway?)
thewordofme wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, of course if you allow for magik then ALL argument are off.
However if you use natural sciences then much of the Bible can be proven false. Science of course cannot comment on magikal crap.
Do you believe in magik??
I don't know. But of course if you wanted to examine a certain form of Creationism at all, I guess you'd have to assume that at some point the natural laws aren't arbitrary. But I'm not so into biblical creationism anyway, and the few sources I know on that matter aren't in english (mostly from a guy named Siegfried Scherer).

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 min Richard 29,601
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 17 min jollyroger 195,698
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 min Richard 11,802
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 24 min ChristineM 14,571
New fossils documenting primate evolution 3 hr MIDutch 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 hr MIDutch 150,659
Christianity and why its wrong + evolution debates 14 hr scientia potentia... 2
More from around the web