quote:Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution. Therefore, evolution is not falsifiable and is not a proper scientific theory.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 6-7.
Response:
There are many conceivable lines of evidence that could falsify evolution. For example:
a static fossil record;
true chimeras, that is, organisms that combined parts from several different and diverse lineages (such as mermaids and centaurs) and which are not explained by lateral gene transfer, which transfers relatively small amounts of DNA between lineages, or symbiosis, where two whole organisms come together;
a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
observations of organisms being created.
This claim, coming from creationists, is absurd, since almost all creationism is nothing more than (unsubstantiated) claims that evolution has been falsified.
Finding a fossil that is out of place for the spacial/temporal matrix -- ie one that has no nearby parent populations in time and space to evolve from: a rabbit in the cambrian is a common example.
Finding a genetic genome that doesn't fit the nested hierarchies predicted by evolution.
Note that the perception that "Any fact can be fit into the theory of evolution" is due to all the known information/facts currently fitting the theory of evolution -- strong evidence that the theory is either correct or very near to correct. This gives us high confidence in the accuracy of the theory.
Okay, let's simplify things - imagine that I decided to ditch my theory of aliens and like you, accepted Darwinism as the best scientific explanation for the fossil record. Although I accept Darwinism as the best scientific theory, I still wouldn't believe it, because
In science we don't talk about believing theories, we talk about accepting them.
A. Accepting a scientific explanation as the best available at the time is not contingent on believing that explanation is the truth. For staters, I would be aware that the "best scientific explanation" today may not be the "best scientific explanation" tomorrow.
Indeed, and that is why we talk about accepting the theory, tentatively, contingent on
the theory explains all the known evidence
at any time new evidence could be found/discovered that is contrary to the theory (ie tomorrow)
B. I believe that a certain non-scientific explanation for the fossil record is a better explanation than the scientific one C. I believe the non-scientific explanation in B is the truth.
You are free to believe whatever you like, however in science we deal with facts and objective empirical evidence rather than belief. Beliefs have a very poor record of altering or explaining reality, and are highly susceptible to individual bias.
The problem with belief in the scientific world is with the (in)ability to change when evidence shows it is false, and if you don't discard false beliefs, in the face of evidence that it is false, it is known as delusion:
The fewer conflicts between your personal belief system and the objective empirical evidence of reality, the closer the personal belief system (world view) is to reality. This is the only known way to test the validity of beliefs that I am aware of.
And another useful application of evolutionary theory
The "replacement" level birth rate in ...
Why is this a concern? The population in the US has doubled since I was in high school, so obviously there can be a reduction in population and still have a viable population. A larger concern is overpopulation and whether or not we develop a sustainable culture.
In ecology one talks about the carrying capacity of an environment. Studies/observations show that populations over that capacity results in temporary overuse of needed resources, and that results in less resources available for individuals, and this subsequently causes a reduction of population. The result is swings in population sizes (unless species develop (evolve) ability to use alternate resources or they move to new (for them) environments that can support them).
Interesting read on this topic: Hairston, Nelson G., Frederick E. Smith, and Lawrence B. Slobodkin. "Community Structure, Population Control, and Competition." The American Naturalist 94, no. 879 (1960): 421-25. JSTOR: Access Check.
quote:Reporting their results in the March issue of the British Ecological Society’s Journal of Ecology, a team lead by Professor John Terborgh of Duke University says that the role of predators is the key to keeping the world green, because they keep the numbers of plant-eating herbivores under control. Their results support the so-called “green world hypothesis” first proposed in 1960 by Hairston, Smith and Slobodkin and seem to lay to rest the competing theory that plants protect themselves from being eaten through the physical and chemical defences they have developed.
As well as proving that the green world hypothesis is correct, Terborgh’s results have important implications for the debate raging in many countries over reintroduction of top predators such as wolves. “The take-home message is clear: the presence of a viable carnivore guild is fundamental to maintaining biodiversity,” he says.
These implications holds for humans as well.
History also shows that human cultures have consistently grown until the population is so large it overused resources and that resulted in loss of sustainable culture and subsequent collapse. Cultures rose, prospered and then collapsed.
quote:A storyteller with a penchant for history, MacLeish weaves a spellbinding tale about human life and environmental change in North America north of Mexico after about 15,000 B.C. Drawing on the work of archaeologists, paleobiologists, and the comments of Native Americans, he synthesizes what is known about the first Americans and their cultural evolution. In this personal odyssey, MacLeish addresses questions of human ecology, population growth, climate change, warfare, cultural morality, domestication origins, and a host of other issues of contemporary social and public policy. This unique and engaging essay will be of interest to the general reader.
It's about native cultures before America was "discovered" and named by Columbus et al, their history from first post ice age explorers to the large cultures that covered these lands before the Europeans arrived.
... I can't find any "feminist" countries ...
We are not immune to the needs of sustainable culture and ecological awareness instead of blind population growth. Forcing women to have more children will not solve that problem. Blaming any group of (biased) choice for general problems they have not caused is counterproductive and doesn't solve the problem. Blaming 'others' (scapegoating) for problems you (your culture) have caused doesn't solve them.
Understanding the problem is the first step in solving it. In ecological/evolutionary terms this means developing a sustainable culture rather than one that grows blindly with inevitable consequences.
Whatever that means and which has nothing to do with a practical use in applied science for the Darwinian explanation of the history of life on earth.
Applied science (engineering essentially) is making use of knowledge to make practical things, like bridges and roads, but also medicines and foods. You've been told this already.
Knowing who we are means not wasting a lot of time and bandwidth on fantasies but spending that time on actual works of value. It also means doing those things instead of waiting for magic fantasies to fix it.
Be specific - give me a specific example of how the neo-Darwinian explanation for the history of life on earth has provided a practical use in applied science.
It tells us who we are ...
... What does that tell us about "who we are"?
See if you can figure that out here ... you have the relevant information. Call it an exercise in education.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Uh huh, well that was the original statement of the conclusion. Later of course they managed to invent some other stuff based on a lot of mere verbiage, no actual evidence.
The "original statement" was hired liar Barr's lying smoke screen statement about what was in the Mueller report. The original Mueller report listed several cases of probable obstruction of justice and said that they could not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, and that they could not prosecute a sitting president and that it was up to the congress to pursue.
Of course you could read the Mueller report if you wanted the truth. You don't.
You can't handle the truth.
We have now seen several more cases of obstruction of justice by proven liar Trump.
Re: Another useful application of evolutionary theory
Anyway, if synapsids DID evolve from amniotes it would have to be by microevolution which is not evolution but means they are really the same species. ...
That's you all tied up by your denial.
Microevolution IS evolution
All evolution occurs within a living breeding population, within a species. What happens later ("Macroevolution") is just the observation that species continue to change (by "Microevolution") generation after generation, where the only limitations are survival and reproduction of the individuals living at that time, and of the population as a whole as it adapts to their changing environment/s.
... but means they are really the same species. ...
At any one time the breeding species would - by definition - be all one species. The question here is whether or not they are the same as an ancestral species or have they changed to the point where it is useful to label them a new species. Unless we can clone ancestral species or find some isolate that has not changed significantly from the ancestral species it is rather difficult to determine inter breeding ability.
Names are useful. For instance we can say that all chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and gibbons are apes (hominoids). But is it useful to talk about hominoids being democrat or republican, or is it more useful to use a name that is more restrictive in meaning so that we don't confuse the issue with whether or not chimp hominoids are politically inclined?
And it is useful to identify groups of individuals by their common ancestry in the natural geological history to talk about their development within the geological/temporal matrix -- whether we use "species" or genus or family.
This is a practical use of common ancestry.
... but means they are really the same species. ...
By this mega-macro-lumping viewpoint all life is ultimately the same species ... because you can follow the historical lineage back, via fossils and DNA, to the first living species ... for every living thing on earth today. Plants and trees and algae and bacteria included.
... But it's evolution that is claimed, and that's nonsense. I looked up some images but my eyes don't work well enough to identify the relationship between the two creatures.
Says the person who classifies all trilobites as one species, while at the same time saying that humans and chimps are not related by a common ancestor.
In other words inconsistent irrational claims based solely on opinion/belief and ones inconsistent with the evidence.
Your view is irrelevant because of the inconsistencies in your arguments.
™ Version 4.2
