|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 13/65 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
This little packet appears all over the place, as the qualities that a valid theory should have.
It should have:1) testable hypotheses 2) confirming evidence 3) potential falsifications I would be interested in exploring the potential falsifications part of this trio. Since I can honestly disavow having previously posted same trio, I leave it to one of the others of the evolution side, to supply some potential falsifications. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: Just some examples off the top of my head 3) potential falsifications:-Fossils found out of sequence; i.e. fossilized human (or flowering plant) remains found in Precambrian rock layers; -Demonstrating the age of the Earth is less than 10K years. -Demonstrating DNA cannot vary or change from generation to generation. -Demonstrating similar species have less genetic similarity than dis-similar species; i.e. showing Chicken DNA is closer to human DNA than Chimpanzee DNA -A dog giving birth to a cat =o) Kind Regards,
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: Being unable to derive any phylogenies from genetic data, that don't, by & large, fit the anatomy/morphological phylogenies that pre-existed genetic analysis. Mark ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
Finding completely separate building blocks to different forms of life. Some sort of common descent might still be possible, but certainly the current theory would be falsified.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7912 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
so your theory has the magical ability to change with the wind?
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mark24 Member (Idle past 5224 days) Posts: 3857 From: UK Joined: |
quote: What? ------------------Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
gene90 Member (Idle past 3852 days) Posts: 1610 Joined: |
I agree. What?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
No and is there a reason this is not a non sequitur?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7912 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined:
|
its not the same theory if you keep changing it whenever its proven wrong just so its right. thats such a cop out. if your wrong admit it, dont just change things and explain it away.
------------------"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: See, that's the way science works! If the evidence contradicts your theory, you must determine why. Either the evidence is bad, or part or all of the theory is bad. If part or all of the theory is bad, then it must be modified or discarded. In a scientific theory, there's always room for improvement! Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lbhandli Inactive Member |
quote: Either start responding with some substance or go play somewhere else. The essential characteristics of evolution have been in place since the Modern Synthesis was formulated. The relative importance of mechanisms is still debated, but the theory has not changed in any drastic manner. Your message has no substance because it is not specific. What are you complaining about? Give me details, specific citations to the literature and how this fits your claim. As I look at several threads here, you have posted non-substantive replies with little to no content. Knock it off. Post substantively or not at all. Cute one-liners are fine if you are going to actually address substance as well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KingPenguin Member (Idle past 7912 days) Posts: 286 From: Freeland, Mi USA Joined: |
hehehehe thats funny and your right according to websters dictionary, so congratulations you won.
------------------ "Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi [This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-12-2002] [This message has been edited by KingPenguin, 02-12-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Jeff Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, you need only to demonstrate the refutation of a single example of those we provided. ANY one of them would falsify the ToE. You don’t have to ‘prove every single one of them’.
[b] [QUOTE]
the theory of evolution is evolving itself, a little weird.[/b][/QUOTE] Wouldn’t you be suspicious of a ‘statically unchanging’ theory that didn’t have to address new evidence ?What explanatory worth would it have ? Ohh, sorry. Poor choice of questions on my part.I suppose you aren’t suspicious of Young Earth Creationism. =o) Therein lies the chief contrast between the ToE and YECism.- One throws out ( or amends ) the bad hypothesis when contradicting evidence is revealed. - The other maintains the obsolete hypothesis and throws out the contradicting evidence. [b] [QUOTE]
also one thing that cant disprove the evolution is the bible, its all made on understandings and lessons for lifes. its not a scientific journal that its been claimed many times to be. [/b][/QUOTE] Bravo ~!A treatise on ideology, philosophy and morality cannot comment on the physical, natural mechanisms we observe and seek to understand in science. We should celebrate any common ground between the two camps. Kind regards, jeff
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
quote: Coluld there not be the result of a partial falsification? I've been thinking about the human fossil in the preCambrian senario. If such a thing were found, would it falsify the TOE in it's entirety? Or would it stand to the side as an unexplained annomaly? Would it mearly put a really big dent in the TOE? After all, there still would be a massive amount of valid scientific support for the TOE. Moose ------------------BS degree, geology, '83 Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Old Earth evolution - Yes Godly creation - Maybe
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1508 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
quote: Unless a valid explanation could be found for the presence ofthe remains in a stratum in which it should NOT exist, it would disprove evolution. Finding remains TOO RECENTLY says nothing about evolution, onlyabout supposed extinction dates. Finding remains TOO EARLY says that the whole evolutionary treeis wrong.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024