faith:
Exactly. Do you mean that since all the changes that have an effect are just choices among the range of chemical probabilities they aren't really new in that sense? I've been trying to figure this out myself.
Near as I can tell, the engine of evolution is mutation (caused by various things). So how does one get from an ameba to an elephant for example? Lot's new information has to be added in there somehow. How did it get there? Does a mutation have something that isn't observed, some special property that it designs what is needed to survive in the current environment?
Quetzal:
If molecular biology or genetics identified a barrier or mechanism that indicated "thus far and no further", the entire concept of descent with modification - a cornerstone of the theory - would be falsified, and the ToE consigned to the dustbin. Now all "you" (generically) have to do is find it.
Seems to me that this has happened many times. And the cry from believers is that not enough time has been given to the experiment. The fruit fly Drosophila comes to mind. It's been turned colors made different sizes and shapes, and legs coming out various places. Yet, nothing has ever indicated that it's evolving into anything else but another fruit fly Drosophila.
So, in my mind, ToE has been falsified by this. Which is why I don't think it's strictly a scientific theory anymore.
schrafinator:
Do you refer to Methodological Naturalism or Ontological Naturalism?
Mostly Ontological naturalism.
Percy:
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.
My point is that there isn't really a "mountain" of evidence at all. Each and every supposed connection made by paleontologists [of different ancestors] is made in their minds, not in any empirical/testable way, hence it isn't falsifiable at all.
Sure there is not unaminity among scientists on any theory, but there does seem to be quite a lot on this one.
I still would contend that if a pattern developed, we'd hear of some different divergence or a new kind of punctuated evolutionary theory arise to explain it all.
Percy:
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.
If geneticists are reluctant to make such a claim because they believed that evolution has no limits, even though everyone of their attempts to push the envelope failed. Then you begin to see the problems to finding a falsification to evolution. And the pressure that one's world view places on science.
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
In the field of archeology, often times the source of the objects aren't known. However, they are identifiable as "created by an intelligence source..." (Man). This process is also used in forensics. Where one has died, and if this death was an accident or an elaborate scheme designed by an intelligent source (a criminal).
Both cases above are viewed as scientific methodologies for discovering whether intelligence was the source of said artifact or event. Yet, ID is not?
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
My opinion is that evolution as a science has already been falsified, and hasn't ever had enough evidence to support it's conclusions. It now exists as a philosophy, where it's remains untouchable, unless something ground shaking happens.
The net effect on creationism/ID would be validation, I suppose. More people believe God created us now anyway, so I don't see that as being that huge.
The net effect on public education would be a more balanced teaching of science, with an emphasis on empirics, and less on "this is what the scientists say, so you must believe it...".
The net effect on Science itself, would be near chaos, and political war (yes politics, as in who gets what grants to study this or that, or teach etc.).
™ Version 4.2
