Of course it's falsifiable. All you need do is find JUST ONE violation of nested hierarchies.Unfortunately, the evolutionary fiasco played out like the changing scenes and scenarios that support the overarching TOE is much like any bed time story and cannot be proven to not exist. That is why TOE is virtually unfalsifiable and does not meet the a credible standard of falsifiability.
Find us just one human being with a DNA makeup of a cactus.
Just one pre-Cambrian rabbit.
Just one buffalo with a bunch of ape-specific ERV's in orthologous positions.
Just one fossil with feathers and three middle-ear bones.
Just one Centaur.
Just one dog giving birth to a cat.
Just one example of a fully-formed adult animal brought into being via magical poofing.
Nope. Nothing wrong with DNA having function. In fact it's expected. It's the PATTERN of DNA that's important, not whether or not it has function. Now if the DNA falls outside nested hierarchies THEN evolution is false.Hence, my question in relation to evolutionists predictions around non coding dna. What supports TOE? If in 50 years time it is demonstrated that all of the genome is functional, as creationists predict, what then? Does that mean TOE is flse?
On the other hand birds do not have teeth. Plus all the animals on Noah's Ark were vegies anyway, right? And yet chicken (occasionally) have teeth.
Oh, except for the bit where you invoke Jewmagic to rescue all creationist failures in which case magic is non-predictable, non-verifiable, non-testable and hence non-falsifiable.
And therefore non-scientific.
I see. That's why evolution uses SIFTER which uses evolutionary algorithms to predict protein function with 96% accuracy.Not on Darwins death bed! Hence although TOE can make a few scant predictions, it is virtually unfalsifiable and has little predictability.
So far the creationist version has an accuracy of an amazing...
Probably because they don't have anything close which can compare. Darn.
Ah, sorry, yes. SIFTER really is just magic.(wink wink)All faiths can interpret data to suit themselves and come up with their own algorithmic magic to support themselves.
Isn't it embarrassing when our magic really IS better than your god's?
Of COURSE! That's why they can't get creationism published in scientific journals, that every single field disagrees with it, that there is no "scientific theory" of creationism, the Government supports it, as do all the world's major scientific organizations, AND the courts, since you guys have lost EVERY single court case since 1925.I think to be closed to only one view is problematic.
The thing is it seriously looks like creos are on better tracks than evos.
Sorry, but if misrepresenting non-coding DNA is all you got then no wonder you're not getting anywhere. What's the point of nested hierarchies? None under creationism.General creationist predictions on junk dna and so called vestigal organs are being supported more as time goes on. That appears to be a fact. These are stable predictions.
If proven in time, I suggest evolutionists will have lost a huge support for evolutionary theory, despite any handwaving they come up with to explain it.