Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism

There have already been several comments on this, but I'll add my voice. If you think evolutionary theory is a philosophy and not a theory then you have to make the case for this. And I don't know whether philosophies can be falsified or not, I've never thought about it, but I think you have to make the case for that, too. In other words, all you've got is assertions of your opinion.You go on to argue why evolution isn't falsifiable: The evolutionary ancestry of human beings is an interpretation of fossils and other evidence in an evolutionary context. It is not evolutionary theory.Evolutionary theory holds that species evolve from earlier species, and any fossil evidence that indicated this is not actually the case, such as finding human fossils of established antiquity in ancient layers, would represent a considerable challenge for the theory. In no field of science can one sample overturn established theory built upon mountains of evidence, so naturally such discoveries would have to be reinforced by other equivalent discoveries, but if a pattern emerged of modern fossils turning up in ancient layers then evolutionary theory couldn't help but be falsified. This would be an unexpected development of the first magnitude, because it would contradict all the work of the population geneticists in the first half of the 20th century that created the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory and genetics. If geneticists established that there were solid limits to genomic change, then they couldn't claim there had been insufficient time since that would mean the solid limits weren't really solid. And it would again be a stunning development of the first magnitude falsifying the synthetic theory of evolution. You're misrepresenting the judges ruling. He ruled that ID is not science, and that therefore the claims of ID, both about itself and about evolution, cannot be taught in science class. There is no prohibition against teaching about problems with evolutionary theory.To answer the question posed by the thread's title, yes, the ToE is falsifiable. If it were falsified then it would be a tremendous boon to Biblical creationism because evolution would no longer, one would presume, be taught in public school science classrooms. While Biblical creationism still wouldn't be taught, since it isn't science, evolution wouldn't be taught either, and the Biblical creationists would be very satisfied and we'd hear little from them anymore.From the standpoint of science it wouldn't advance the cause of Biblical creationism at all since none of its views are supported by evidence.--Percy

Since you repeat this misinformation, I'll repeat the correction.The judge in Dover did not rule that teaching the difficulties of evolution was equal to promoting religion. The judge ruled that ID is not science but religion, and that its views on both itself and on evolution were not permitted in public school science classrooms. There is no prohibition against teaching problems with the theory of evolution.You concluded with this: This is an attempt to impress by citing a large number. When it was pointed that millions of doctors believe otherwise, you later replied in contradictory fashion: Is that how you argue, bait and switch? There are legitimate detractors to many scientific theories, rejection of Einstein's theory of relativity being the most common. No scientific theory has unanimity. Theories are accepted through consensus, and ratios like a thousand to one is an overwhelming consensus, so evolution is overwhelmingly accepted within the scientific community. Whether or not the 600 doctors you mention exist and have, just as you say, an honest disagreement with the consensus about evolutionary theory, they are such an extreme minority as to not represent any indication whatsoever of doubt within scientific circles of evolution's basic principles.--Percy

You earlier claimed that evolution was philosophy, not theory. Now you're making a different argument, that the ToE, like all science, is based upon naturalism, and anything based upon naturalism isn't falsifiable.I can't even guess where you got this strange idea, but if you want to stick with it you'll have to support it with argument and evidence. These issues are best addressed in a thread about ID. Modern evolutionary theory is a synthesis of Darwinian evolution and genetic theory. The nested hierarchy is seen by observing life today, by analyzing the fossil record, and by analyzing the genetic code of living creatures. It is one of the ways that evolution could be falsified, by finding creatures (living or fossil, doesn't matter, though with living creatures you can examine both morphology and DNA) that lie outside any possible nested hierarchical classification system. As far as I know, no limits dictated by DNA have ever been identified. Identification of such limits is a potential falsification of evolutionary theory. This is easily explained, but it isn't the topic of this thread. Please propose a new thread if you'd like to discuss how evolution increases information in the genome.--PercyEdited by Percy, : The word "information" was inadvertently omitted in the final sentence.

I'm not sure how one goes about detecting design in any formal scientific manner. If you know of one please describe it for us.What we're actually detecting when we look at a bridge or automobile is that they are objects of human origin. We can also easily identify evidence associated with human occupation, such as footprints or garbage piles. Finding and identifying evidence of human occupation and associated artifacts is what the fields of archeology and anthropology are pretty good at. Finding evidence of design is another matter.--Percy

Hi Faith,Responding generally, to me it looks like you're arguing that evolution not only *can* be falsified, but that there are a couple of promising candidates that might provide this falsification, such as speciation through loss of variability, and such as the genes for body plans. Do I have this right? I'm just trying to figure out whether we've reached a consensus about whether the ToE is falsifiable. You seem to think it is, while Hughes seems to think it isn't, but you seem to agree with much that Hughes is saying, so I'm not sure where you're coming down regarding falsifiability. This is untrue and is just a repetition of the same misunderstanding you were making over at the Is there really such a thing as a beneficial mutation? thread. New alleles do not eliminate existing alleles. It is certainly possible for alleles in a population to be eliminated over time if individuals possessing them compete very poorly with the rest of the population, but this takes some number of generations.Since this seems to be a persistent misunderstanding, let me explain it at greater length. Let's consider a population and its gene for eye color. This particular population has two eye color alleles, call them blue and brown. We'll ignore the details of dominant/recessive and sexual reproduction for simplicity.Let's say half the population has brown eyes and half blue. Now an individual is born with a mutation that produces yellow eyes. While this individual no longer has an allele for brown or blue eyes, his allele for yellow eyes has no impact on the alleles in the rest of the population. It couldn't possibly have any impact on creatures that have already been conceived, which is the time when their genome is defined. If the individual's older brother had the allele for blue eyes, then after this individual is born his older brother will still have the allele for blue eyes.It is only when this individual reproduces that this new allele for yellow eyes can have an impact. The offspring of this individual will be a mixture of his genes and his mate's genes, so some of the offspring will, by chance, receive his eye color allele and have yellow eyes, while others, also by chance, will receive the eye color allele from his mate and will have brown or blue eyes. If yellow eyes confer some advantage then they will spread through the population. If yellow eyes confer a disadvantage then the individual might not even survive to mate, in which case the new allele goes extinct.If you don't understand this then please ask questions, or at least don't repeat this misunderstanding again. You should either accept or rebut the explanation, not ignore it.--Percy

I'm not going to get into dating in any detail with you in this thread, it's off topic, except to note that everytime you've been asked to substantiate your assertions regarding dating you beg off. Until you actually successfully defend your position on dating at least once, it seems presumptious to offer it in defense of your other opinions. I can see now that you're saying something different than I thought.So it sounds like you believe evolution is falsifiable, and I suppose Hughes will chime in at some point, but perhaps we can move on to the second part of the question. What would be the effect of the falsification of evolution upon creationism/ID? I think there should be two answers, one regarding public education, the other regarding science itself.--Percy

Uh, no.People who have one sickle cell allele and one normal allele are provided resistance to malaria and are otherwise healthy. They are known as carriers, since they can pass the sickle cell allele on to their children but do not experience the disease themselves. For this case it is incorrect to say that "sickle cell kills people slowly in the process of saving them from a more rapid death by malaria." They are not affected by the disease, but they are at much reduced risk from malaria.When both parents are carriers the potential exists for their children to receive two copies of the sickle cell allele with a 1-in-4 chance. People with two copies of the sickle cell allele develop the illness known as sickle cell anemia, and they are also resistant to malaria. For this case, too, it is incorrect to say that "sickle cell kills people slowly in the process of saving them from a more rapid death by malaria," because the disease is so severe that the malarial benefit plays a minimal role in determining an affected person's lifespan. Without sophisticated medical care an early death is assured.The reason the sickle cell allele persists in malarial regions is because it provides an advantage to half the offspring of carrier parents without otherwise affecting health.--Percy

Since we're assuming evolution has been falsified, it is no longer accepted science and cannot be taught in science class.But whatever replaces evolution must have scientific evidence supporting it, and it must not already be falsified by existing evidence. It doesn't matter that evolution is out of the picture - Biblical creationism has no supporting evidence and is already falsified many different ways, so it can't replace evolution in schools. But this shouldn't matter to Biblical literalists, who only want to remove evolution from educational curicula.You are correct about the process of science continuing on unchanged, since the process is independent of the theories built from it.--Percy

Oh, okay, but the answer remains the same. The falsification of evolution would cause scientists to seek alternatives that have supporting scientific evidence. YECism and IDism, lacking as they do any supporting scientific evidence, would not be alternatives they would consider.--Percy

As I said earlier, if you'd like to discuss how information is added to the gene pool of a population, please propose a new thread. Okay, so in your view evolution has already been falsified, so you agree that evolution is falsifiable. That scientists don't share your views on this is different matter having nothing to do with falsifiability or the topic of this thread. But what you're referring to isn't evidence. The places where paleontologists put the pieces of the puzzle, indeed the very shape of the puzzle itself, is just an interpretation of the evidence made within an evolutionary framework. Interpretations are not evidence.There are, of course, many mountains of evidence for evolution. The fossil evidence alone if actually placed in a pile would probably create a literal mountain by itself. I think what you mean to say is that you disagree with the interpretations of the evidence. The problem for you is that geneticists have discovered no such limits, but bringing the discussion back to the topic, your point was that discovering such a limit would falsify evolution, so once again you take the position that evolution is falsifiable. True, you and scientists disagree about whether falsification has already occurred, but that's not the topic of this thread. I'll leave the semantic games to you. Needless to say, archeology and forensics seek signs of human presence and activity, not of intelligence. I suppose one could even argue that when forensics dusts for fingerprints they're actually seeking signs of human stupidity. There, you've said it yet again. Clearly you believe evolution is falsifiable, and I think everyone else here agrees. If you'd like to discuss whether this falsification has actually already taken place then I suggest you propose a new thread.Since everyone in the thread agrees that evolution is falsifiable, we can now move on to consider the hypothetical question of what would be the effect on Biblical creationism if evolution were one day falsified.--Percy

Repeating what I said at the end of my previous message...Since everyone in the thread agrees that evolution is falsifiable, we can now move on to consider the hypothetical question of what would be the effect on Biblical creationism if evolution were one day falsified.--Percy