Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 80 (8898 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-25-2019 1:42 PM
28 online now:
Diomedes, Dr Adequate, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Tangle, vimesey (7 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,640 Year: 3,677/19,786 Month: 672/1,087 Week: 41/221 Day: 12/29 Hour: 1/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
1
23456
...
65NextFF
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3708
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 1 of 968 (4239)
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


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


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by Jeff, posted 02-12-2002 1:02 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 3 by mark24, posted 02-12-2002 2:25 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 4 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:45 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 04-11-2002 1:30 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 33 by BobAliceEve, posted 05-18-2006 6:08 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 37 by EZscience, posted 05-19-2006 4:58 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 428 by shadow71, posted 01-13-2011 4:08 PM Minnemooseus has acknowledged this reply

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 968 (4242)
02-12-2002 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
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


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,


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 3 of 968 (4255)
02-12-2002 2:25 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
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


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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 968 (4263)
02-12-2002 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:05 PM lbhandli has responded

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 5 of 968 (4288)
02-12-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 2:45 PM


so your theory has the magical ability to change with the wind?

------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 2:45 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 02-12-2002 6:07 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded
 Message 8 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 8:02 PM KingPenguin has responded
 Message 54 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-21-2006 11:26 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
mark24
Member (Idle past 3275 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 6 of 968 (4289)
02-12-2002 6:07 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 6:05 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
so your theory has the magical ability to change with the wind?


What?

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:05 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by gene90, posted 02-12-2002 7:54 PM mark24 has not yet responded

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 1902 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 7 of 968 (4299)
02-12-2002 7:54 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mark24
02-12-2002 6:07 PM


I agree. What?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mark24, posted 02-12-2002 6:07 PM mark24 has not yet responded

lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 968 (4302)
02-12-2002 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 6:05 PM


No and is there a reason this is not a non sequitur?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 6:05 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:13 PM lbhandli has responded

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


(1)
Message 9 of 968 (4313)
02-12-2002 10:13 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by lbhandli
02-12-2002 8:02 PM


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 8:02 PM lbhandli has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:19 PM KingPenguin has responded
 Message 11 by lbhandli, posted 02-12-2002 11:20 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3708
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 10 of 968 (4330)
02-12-2002 11:19 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 10:13 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
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.


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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:13 PM KingPenguin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:24 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
lbhandli
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 968 (4332)
02-12-2002 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 10:13 PM


quote:

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.

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.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 10:13 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

KingPenguin
Member (Idle past 5963 days)
Posts: 286
From: Freeland, Mi USA
Joined: 02-04-2002


Message 12 of 968 (4335)
02-12-2002 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:19 PM


hehehehe thats funny and your right according to websters dictionary, so congratulations you won. that sucks for creationists then, they have to prove every single part of it wrong. the theory of evolution is evolving itself, a little weird. 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.
------------------
"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]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:19 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Jeff, posted 02-19-2002 8:50 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

  
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 968 (5115)
02-19-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
hehehehe thats funny and your right according to websters dictionary, so congratulations you won. that sucks for creationists then, they have to prove every single part of it wrong.

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 dont have to prove every single one of them.

[b] [QUOTE]
the theory of evolution is evolving itself, a little weird.
[/b][/QUOTE]

Wouldnt you be suspicious of a statically unchanging theory that didnt have to address new evidence ?
What explanatory worth would it have ?

Ohh, sorry. Poor choice of questions on my part.
I suppose you arent 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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:24 PM KingPenguin has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2002 10:50 PM Jeff has not yet responded

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3708
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 4.3


Message 14 of 968 (5117)
02-19-2002 10:50 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by Jeff
02-19-2002 8:50 PM


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 dont have to prove every single one of them.

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by Jeff, posted 02-19-2002 8:50 PM Jeff has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 02-20-2002 7:58 AM Minnemooseus has not yet responded
 Message 16 by mark24, posted 02-20-2002 12:54 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2003 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 968 (5146)
02-20-2002 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Minnemooseus
02-19-2002 10:50 PM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
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


Unless a valid explanation could be found for the presence of
the remains in a stratum in which it should NOT exist, it would
disprove evolution.

Finding remains TOO RECENTLY says nothing about evolution, only
about supposed extinction dates.

Finding remains TOO EARLY says that the whole evolutionary tree
is wrong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2002 10:50 PM Minnemooseus has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by RAZD, posted 03-22-2006 9:55 PM Peter has not yet responded

  
1
23456
...
65NextFF
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019