Not a single 'bit' has been disproved to date. This theory is in fact a body of facts, no wonder its taught as fact. Not only are we evolved from apes, we are in fact still apes.
Wikipedia:Most ape species are rare or endangered. The chief threat to most of the endangered species is loss of tropical rainforest habitat, though some populations are further imperiled by hunting for bushmeat.
How true, that humans are apes, and in my opinion, the most endangered.
Incorrect. It is precisely because of deductive logic that we get paradigm shifts:
If X is true, then we necessarily see Y. We instead see Z, therefore X cannot be true and must be discarded.
You misunderstand. The example you gave is used as induction through confirmation. If apples are true then we see apples but if we instead see oranges that doesn't mean apple-theory must be discarded. You need to study MORE on specific, and the difference between proof and evidence.
A falsification is not deductive logic, in the sense that a theory can be thought of as wrong and later be re-established as viable. For example if you expect to find transitionals and find not transitionals this is not a 'proof' there are none.
The falsification is only strong because there has to be lots of 'little' confirming evidences in order to imply that theory X is true. A falsification is powerful but the actual theory depends on induction.
In the context of science, how is it not? The Bible is nothing but assertion and what is assertion if not wishful thinking? We don't include the Iliad, the Odyssey, Harry Potter, the Lord of the Rings, the Book of Three, the Koran, the Baghvad Gita, and a host of other books in science.
Why do you wish to invoke special pleading for your favorite book?
Lame informal fallacy. By association they aren't the same and a mere assertion of anecdote doesn't = false. Back to logic school before you go teaching the rest of us!
quote: You misunderstand. The example you gave is used as induction through confirmation. If apples are true then we see apples but if we instead see oranges that doesn't mean apple-theory must be discarded
You're relying on equivocation here, Mike. And that's logically invalid.
If you disagree tell me how you can interpret the statement:
"If the apple theory is true we must necessarily see apples" so that it is true AND so it can also be the case that the apple theory is true, yet we do not see apples. (i.e. you need to show that A=>B, A and ~B can all be simultaneously true. And the truth table for implication shows that that is logically impossible).
After having a little think about this I realized that Rhrain wasn't understanding my point, or perhaps I didn't explain it well enough.
My argument, (IIRC, was a while back,), is that theory is induction-based. I concede that his example of falsification is deductive logic. I only realized later that that is exactly why falsification is so powerful, because confirmation (induction) is so weak!
My main point stands - theories are mainlyinduction-based. I never said that this excludes any deductive logic WITHIN that theory. Afterall, that is why there is a paradigm shift - because induction is weak and deductive proof is strong. I was silly to take the bait.
Apologies if I don't get back to you on this, as I don't count myself as a debater any longer and I only access the internet when I happen to be in the library.