Evolutionary "theory" isn't falsifiable...

[jasong]

therefore the scientific method can't be used, therefore by scientists own definitions, can't be called a theory.

I know that most scientists believe Evolutionary philosophy to be absolute fact, but if you examine it with a sane mind and compare it's "proofs" to other scientific theories, it just doesn't hold up. For example, many scientific theories come from comparing one set of data to another control set. The problem with that is that the entire planet can be considered as one very large set, there's no sure way to differentiate and claim that this bone belongs to this set and this bone belongs to that set. Additionally, the claim that animals and plants go from one species to another is ludicrous, since there's no across the board definition for species. When scientists find something that contradicts the idea of what a particular species is, they don't say,"Hey, we're wrong, we need to reexamine our theories," they just come up with a new idea and run with it.

They'll just pick up a random bone and say,"Hey, this looks similar to this bone over here, so these two animals must be related." You might claim it's more complicated than that, but that's just hubris. The truth is very simple, people want to believe their intelligence makes them powerful enough to not need a higher power to take care of them. If you believe in a higher power, you are somehow ignorant and backward, and not worthy of hanging with your intellectual betters. So, being related to monkeys is preferred over being created by God, because it puts the higher being status back in the hands of human beings, educated fools with no humility in them. Blind guides in a ditch with shovels, because they believe making the ditch bigger will lead to the truth.

It was predicted 2000 years ago that in the last days knowledge would increase in a major way, but that men would become significantly more foolish despite the extra knowledge. That is precisely what is happening.

You want to know why there aren't more Christian scientists? Try looking in the mirror.

[ewmayer]

Sounds like someone got a load of extra-black bituminous in his stocking this year.

So Jason, done much field research with the kinds of scientists whose methods you claim to understand, then? Once you've demonstrated that you know whereof you speak on matters scientific, it may be worthwhile for someone to actually engage in conversation with you. Until then, thanks for the laughs, my walking naked-ape brother.

[rogue]

You imply that scientists do not believe in god. Do your research: http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioe...nd-Belief.aspx.

Although there are scientists (who study life origins) that believe in creationism, they are extremely uncommon (about
0.15% according to http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA111.html).

You also don't understand that there are many religions where most practitioners believe in evolution, http://www.thedailybanter.com/tdb/20...evolution.html.

Why do you believe in creationism over "alien influence" or evolution?

[retina]

Mathematical "theories" != other type of "theories".

No rational scientist will believe "Evolutionary philosophy" (why the wording change to philosophy?) to be absolute fact. A rational scientist would merely take it as the current best explanation of past changes. If a better explanation comes along then rational scientists will discard evolution and use the new theory in it's place.

Anyhow, no religion, current or past, comes even close to explaining the world we live in better than evolution can. Most religions are all just mumbo-jumbo scare tactics "join us or burn in hell" nonsense. The Christian religion (and most others also BTW) by its own admission actively avoids being falsifiable, that is that little word "faith" in action there.

If you want to attack evolution then attack the facts presented and propose a new theory based upon the evidence. But bringing in unfalsifiable gods, mumbo-jumbo ancient texts as supporting documentation and scare tactics is not working towards finding better explanations.

[Dougal]

So,you're saying that,because we can't prove it,we should believe in something even more unlikely?

I watched a program a couple of weeks ago about a man who wrote a book.It was about how he believed evolution was very unlikely,and because of this,he believed in (something just as unlikely,if not even more-so,) god.

Why can't there be a higher being,and evolution?Could the higher being not have created some tiny organisms,which evolved over time by themselves?

[retina]

Originally Posted by Dougal

Why can't there be a higher being,and evolution?Could the higher being not have created some tiny organisms,which evolved over time by themselves?

There can be both. But it depends upon which religion you choose. That will tell you whether or not you are allowed to believe that. But remember that many religions have the great promise of going to heaven (or whatever equivalent notion) when you die. Evolution can't match that. It is just a shame that the promise is not backed by any evidence. If there was evidence then I would be likely to switch.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by Dougal

So,you're saying that,because we can't prove it,we should believe in something even more unlikely?

I watched a program a couple of weeks ago about a man who wrote a book.It was about how he believed evolution was very unlikely,and because of this,he believed in (something just as unlikely,if not even more-so,) god.

Why can't there be a higher being,and evolution?Could the higher being not have created some tiny organisms,which evolved over time by themselves?

That's a very good question. I have my own idea as to why people don't believe in intelligent design(obviously, I believe people believe in evolution because they don't want to believe in God), so they also reject intelligent design because they realize subconsciously that it leads to having to recognize that higher power.

I can't help but noticing that nobody has dealt with my falsifiability argument except to say that Christianity isn't falsifiable. Christianity is falsifiable, in the sense it can be tested as a scientific theory, those who want to have an encounter with Jesus WILL, in absolute fact, have an encounter with Jesus. Just because someone doesn't want to have an encounter with Jesus doesn't prove He doesn't exist, just as my wish that Obama wasn't president doesn't put someone else in office.

The question to ask yourself is if evolution is the truth, why is there not even ONE paper discussing how things like DNA came about? Someone point me to a paper talking about all the little effects that led to the DNA we have today and all the interactions with RNA.

Oh, and don't forget to show me how to falsify evolutionary "theory." And don't say come up with a better argument, because Intelligent Design IS that better argument.

[retina]

Originally Posted by jasong

I can't help but noticing that nobody has dealt with my falsifiability argument except to say that Christianity isn't falsifiable. Christianity is falsifiable, in the sense it can be tested as a scientific theory, those who want to have an encounter with Jesus WILL, in absolute fact, have an encounter with Jesus. Just because someone doesn't want to have an encounter with Jesus doesn't prove He doesn't exist, just as my wish that Obama wasn't president doesn't put someone else in office.

That is not falsifiable. Hearsay is not falsifiable. If I say I had an encounter with <anything> how could you prove that wrong? It is not testable.

Originally Posted by jasong

The question to ask yourself is if evolution is the truth, why is there not even ONE paper discussing how things like DNA came about? Someone point me to a paper talking about all the little effects that led to the DNA we have today and all the interactions with RNA.

Have you even read any of Richard Dawkins' books? Anyhow evolution is not about truth, it is about explanation. We search for the best explanation of things.

Originally Posted by jasong

Oh, and don't forget to show me how to falsify evolutionary "theory." And don't say come up with a better argument, because Intelligent Design IS that better argument.

Not sure why you put theory in quotes. Is it a theory, regardless of whether it is right or wrong. And not everyone believes in it anyway. It is not an either-or, god-or-evolution, thing. Some religions allow for both. Having one be "true" does not nullify the other.

The point about falsifiability is this: we construct a test - do the test - see the result. If the result is negative/contradictory we modify the theory to fit the observation. And hopefully the new theory becomes a better explanation. That has been done many many times, but it seems you choose to not look for the many times that evolutionary theory has been changed upon presentation of conflicting data. Evolution theory of today is considerably different from the past, it has been changed and modified, people found errors with various parts, those parts were abandoned or modified to make a new theory. It is not about truth, it is about fitting the observed data.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by jasong

The question to ask yourself is if evolution is the truth, why is there not even ONE paper discussing how things like DNA came about?

You're just showing your ignorance there. Instead of asking "why" something hasn't happened, when you really don't know whether it's happened or not, ask "whether" that something has happened.

You're also showing your laziness: Have you even bothered to Google "origin of DNA", which would lead you (#3 return; #10 for "DNA origin") to a video of Carl Sagan's explanation? (I want an actual answer. This isn't rhetorical.)

Papers about how DNA came about have been published for decades. Go to a local college or university library and look through their science collection. Check the indexes for past issues of the major scientific journals like Nature.

You come across as arrogant, in addition to ignorant, when you make these statements like "Evolutionary "theory" isn't falsifiable..." when it actually is falsifiable or "why is there not even ONE ..." when actually there are many. Next time you want to claim that some scientific something-or-other doesn't exist, TRY finding it first, and describe just what efforts you've made to find it.

Did you make even the elementary step of Googling "falsify evolution"? (I want an actual answer. This isn't rhetorical.)

Someone point me to a paper talking about all the little effects that led to the DNA we have today and all the interactions with RNA.

You realize that neither of those has anything to do with evolution, don't you? (I want an actual answer. This isn't rhetorical.)

Or are you one of those people who criticize a "straw-man" version of evolution because they don't really know what evolution is about, and not about -- because all they've read about evolution was written by people who had a vested interest in not portraying evolution accurately?

Which book about evolution, written by an evolutionist, not by a creationist, not by someone with a vested interest in portraying evolution inaccurately, have you ever read? (I want an actual answer. This isn't rhetorical.)

When I wanted to find out what creationism really said, I went to books written by creationists. Can you show us that you've been that honest in seeking the truth about evolution? (I want an actual answer. This isn't rhetorical.)

Oh, and don't forget to show me how to falsify evolutionary "theory."

One famous reply to that request is "A rabbit in the Precambrian". (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precambrian_rabbit)

Mammals are a class of animals, whose emergence in the geologic timescale is dated to much later than any found in Precambrian strata. Geological records indicate that although the first true mammals appeared in the Triassic period, modern mammalian orders appeared in the Palaeocene and Eocene epochs of the Palaeogene period. Many, many millions of years separate this period from the Precambrian.

. . .
Would anachronistic fossils disprove evolution?

Evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins said that the discovery of fossil mammals in Precambrian rocks would "completely blow evolution out of the water." Philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith doubted that a single set of anachronistic fossils, however, even rabbits in the Precambrian, would disprove the theory of evolution outright. The first question raised by the assertion of such a discovery would be whether the alleged "Precambrian rabbits" really were fossilized rabbits. Alternative interpretations might include incorrect identification of the "fossils", incorrect dating of the rocks, and a hoax such as the Piltdown Man was shown to be. Even if the "Precambrian rabbits" turned out to be genuine, they would not instantly refute the theory of evolution, because that theory is a large package of ideas, including: that life on Earth has evolved over billions of years; that this evolution is driven by certain mechanisms; and that these mechanisms have produced a specific "family tree" that defines the relationships among species and the order in which they appeared. Hence, "Precambrian rabbits" would prove that there were one or more serious errors somewhere in this package, and the next task would be to identify the error(s).

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

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.

[only_human]

Another thing about our knowledge about evolution is that it is rich and surprising. Some genes have jumped chromosomes. It looks like our chromosome 2 is a fuse of two chromosomes. Mitochondrial DNA differs from Nuclear DNA. Some sequences in human DNA are have been at some point snipped out and reinserted backwards (unsure of references to this). Our DNA is peppered with DNA "shrapnel" of various viruses.

See evolution doesn't just answer one question; it intrigues with additional questions and answers the further we look. It is not a simple pat answer.

[jasong]

Originally Posted by only_human

Another thing about our knowledge about evolution is that it is rich and surprising. Some genes have jumped chromosomes. It looks like our chromosome 2 is a fuse of two chromosomes. Mitochondrial DNA differs from Nuclear DNA. Some sequences in human DNA are have been at some point snipped out and reinserted backwards (unsure of references to this). Our DNA is peppered with DNA "shrapnel" of various viruses.

See evolution doesn't just answer one question; it intrigues with additional questions and answers the further we look. It is not a simple pat answer.

So I guess it hasn't occurred to you that God might like to use the same stuff over again.

Oh, and to the question of whether or not I've read about the "theory" of evolution. I am subscribed to about 5 different science and technology magazines and read them cover to cover, so I've been very much exposed to scientists ideas of the origin of the universe, and various other things. I simply choose to take away different conclusions from what I read. For example, there was an article I read about how they were trying to make a fruit-picking machine to pick more fruit for a cheaper price, since a lot of it was simply rotting on the plant. This was approximately 1 week after I read an article about how they were trying to keep illegal Mexicans from coming into the country. (can you figure out how I would connect those articles?) So I AM well-read and I DO think hard to come to my conclusions, it's just DIFFERENT conclusions than the ones you may come to.