Evolution is not a scientific theory

[Super Nova]

FD, defintions are important.

Now I refer to this site.

I feel you are in the creationists camp on this and no manner of logic could win the debate with you.

LInk: http://www.conservapedia.com/Falsifiabi ... _evolution Worth a full read. I think this is were you got your unicorn idea, from the creationists.

Evolution and falsifiability

The first step in determining whether or not "evolution" is falsifiable is defining what, exactly, we mean by "evolution."

If "evolution" means the proposition that life changes through generations, and this change is influenced by variation and natural selection, then one could test this proposition by taking a life form, exposing it to the pressures of natural selection, observing the effects over time. Creationists do not dispute the falsifiability, and truth, of this proposition.
However, if "evolution" means the proposition that all life descended from a single, primordial protocell by variation and natural selection alone, or other similar claims then creationists dispute the falsifiability of the proposition, asking, "What test can be conducted to show this did not occur?" The problem is similar to the problem of "I drank three glasses of water six weeks ago." If there are no witnesses, Creationists argue, then there is no way to test the claim and that the assertion is therefore not falsifiable.

Evolutionary biologists counter that while direct observation of past events is currently impossible, the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory.

Proposed Tests and Observations

Several tests have been proposed to test evolution.

In 1949[1], J.B.S. Haldane proposed that evolution could be falsified if "various mechanisms, such as the wheel and magnet, which would be useless till fairly perfect" were found in nature. This is substantially the same as the argument for intelligent design below. Creationists typically attempt to falsify evolution on these grounds by pointing out that wheels and magnets have been found in nature, although none have been found in biological organisms to date without a logically possible path of evolution.

Another proposed test has been dubbed instances of "irreducible complexity." Essentially, since evolution requires a step-wise development in which each variation is advantageous enough to survival to spread throughout the gene pool, then evolution with respect to a particular biological structure could be falsified if the components of that organ were found to be totally useless unless already put together. Creationists and Intelligent Design advocates have proposed a number of such structures, including the eye, the cilia of cells, the enzymes involved in human blood clotting, etc. Proponents of evolution have responded by describing hypothetical paths for the evolution of each disputed structure that account for useful function at each stage of development. While it remains unproven that these paths are the actual method by which these structures evolved, they serve to disprove the proposition that it is logically impossible for them to have evolved.

Another test proposed by Haldane was that the discovery of rabbits in Precambrian strata would disprove evolution.[2]

This could be broadened to discovering anything in the fossil record that was grossly "out of place" and unable to be accounted for by other mechanisms, and indeed others have proposed that finding a human fossil in Jurassic sediments would disprove evolution.

Creationists have claimed that evidence supporting this falsification has been suppressed.

Other proposed falsifications include:[4]

The discovery of a mechanism that would prevent the mutations necessary for evolution from occurring or accumulating.

The discovery of true chimeras, such as griffins, centaurs or mermaids that combine parts of diverse forms of life unable be explained by lateral gene transfer or symbiosis. This is not to be confused with different organisms evolving similar characteristics seperately (a process known as convergent evolution) but instead the transfer of entire structures across lines of phylogeny.

Direct observation of organisms being created. The observation of a new organism being created that did not inherit characteristics from its progenitors would disprove evolution wholesale.

Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.[5] The theory of evolution predicts that closely related forms of life should share more DNA than distantly related forms of life. Thus, if humans and chimpanzees shared less of their genome than humans and mice, evolution would be disproven. Tests show that humans and mice have roughly 60 times more differences in their genome than humans and chimps, with whom humans share nearly 99% of their DNA.[6]

[freediver]

Thanks SN. That is a reasonable summary of the argument. What point were you hoping to make with it? That I must be wrong because you found an allegation that creationists share my view? When IQ attributed my argument to 'creationists' before, he ended up admitting that I was the only one he was referring to.

the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory

You have already brought up the example of the non-existence of magic rabbits. You ignored me the first few times I criticised this argument. Adding magic wheels and magnets to the list doesn't make it more scientific. Perhaps you should respond to my criticism rather than hoping more examples of the same thing will overcome the flaws in your argument.

The rest of it starts to confuse falsifiability with falsification. However this one is interesting:

The discovery of true chimeras

Chimerism is actually quite common in nature. This of course does not falsify the theory. It merely demonstrates it's infinite adaptability.

Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.

Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

[freediver]

Did evolution predict the existence of this dragon, or merely explain it away?

[IQ popping]

Did climate science predict warming or did it get it completely wrong?

Reptile and birds have common DNA. They certainly taste similar

The fact that you bring out winged lizards suggests even more to me that you are a god botherer, hunting around on google to try and find odd articles to support your supposition. It is no wonder that you have drunk the koolaid on climate. You have reached a conclusion and now you are working backwards.

What's it like living in the 17th century?

[mantra]

And Mantra gets everything completely wrong!

GW is scientific: models developed using the theory always come true, in fact the models are conservative in the amount of global warming they predict.

Could you provide some proof Monk that these scientific predictions and models are always proved correct?

Here are some which haven't been.

FIVE years ago, Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery predicted that the nation's dams would never be full again and major Australian cities would need desalination plants to cater for our water needs.

Yesterday, in his latest report, he said "climate change cannot be ruled out" as a factor in recent flooding rains, which led to some of those dams overflowing.

The apparent contradiction accompanies predictions that heatwaves, made worse by concrete, asphalt and buildings, will cause deaths and violence in western Sydney.

And just weeks before the carbon tax is due to come into effect and drive up electricity prices by 10 per cent, Professor Flannery's fellow commissioner Lesley Hughes said elderly people who cannot afford airconditioning were most at risk from the surge in temperatures.

Other claims in the report include that Sydney Airport will be flooded by a 1.1m sea level rise and catastr- ophic bushfires will happen more often.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/s ... 6355256833" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Super Nova]

Thanks SN. That is a reasonable summary of the argument. What point were you hoping to make with it? That I must be wrong because you found an allegation that creationists share my view? When IQ attributed my argument to 'creationists' before, he ended up admitting that I was the only one he was referring to.

Fd, your position has forced me to do some research and even challenge or reafirm my understanding. The deeper thinking at the heart of the issue your raise needed thought. When I found that site I could see the rationale for the argument or position you have taken. I am assuming you are not a creationist however are using similar logic to inspire the debate. Greater minds than mine have pondered this so I want to be considered in my responses.

the theory of common descent could be falsified by tests or observations of the predictions inferred from this theory

You have already brought up the example of the non-existence of magic rabbits. You ignored me the first few times I criticised this argument. Adding magic wheels and magnets to the list doesn't make it more scientific. Perhaps you should respond to my criticism rather than hoping more examples of the same thing will overcome the flaws in your argument.

What I am struggling with is what you consider to be the big flaws in my argument. Your one liners are not arguments and they require interpretation of exactly what your point is. Arguing your unicorn theory to discredit Evolution as a "scientif theory" is no argument.

I have shown it is an accepted "scientific theory". I have provide papers that discuss your views and they only appear to be the creationist view points.

I have shown that while you accept elements of evolution as "scientific" (e.g. natural selection) you discount the total theory due to and argument that it fails the faisability test in that it cannot be falisified. This I have shown is not true. The only argument I can find beyond your one liners is the creationist argument that if evolution created all of life from a single source point like the primordial soup this element cannot be falisified. True but the theory still stands because evolution with all it's elements, mutation and natural selection ...etc can explain this scenario. The fact that all live on this planet consists of DNA, made from RNA ...etc and have common DNA elements is consistent with a single common starting point.

The rest of it starts to confuse falsifiability with falsification. However this one is interesting:

The discovery of true chimeras

Chimerism is actually quite common in nature. This of course does not falsify the theory. It merely demonstrates it's infinite adaptability.

I agree with that. It makes for an interesting organism that is composed of two or more different populations of genetically distinct cells and discussion on how the hell that can happen.

Phylogenetically close organisms that are less genetically similar than they are to phylogenetically distant organisms.

Sounds like circular reasoning to me.

No it's not. This would be a falsability test. It's not circular. If they found exampkles of this then it would disprove evolution. The real problem posed by phylogenetics is that genetic data are only available for living animals and the fossil records contains less data and more-ambiguous morphological characters. A phylogenetic tree represents a hypothesis of the order in which evolutionary events are assumed to have occurred. If things were shown not to follow this then I think evolution would come tumbling down.... it has not so far.... so it stands as a valid scientific theory.

[Super Nova]

Did evolution predict the existence of this dragon, or merely explain it away?

This look like a lizard with a large stretch of skin for controlling it's temperature.

The answer is not one the the choices you provided.

It's existence confirms evolution as it's line can be traced back through the tree of life. It's just another lizard after all.

It's adaptions can be explained.

[Super Nova]

And Mantra gets everything completely wrong!

GW is scientific: models developed using the theory always come true, in fact the models are conservative in the amount of global warming they predict.

Could you provide some proof Monk that these scientific predictions and models are always proved correct?

Mantra.

It's hardly worth a response. Global Warming models "Always come true" is the most unscientific statement in this whole threat.

Just remember this next time he has a go at you.

[freediver]

What I am struggling with is what you consider to be the big flaws in my argument.

I am not sure what your argument is. It seems to be a lot of little points and I am addressing them one at a time.

I have shown it is an accepted "scientific theory".

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Also, many of those claims do not distinguish evolution and natural selection. Many are reactionary to the current culture war in the US and would not be made if the only issue was what science really is.

I have provide papers that discuss your views and they only appear to be the creationist view points.

I think my views have a lot in common with Popper. Was he a creationist? Would it matter if he was?

I have shown that while you accept elements of evolution as "scientific" (e.g. natural selection) you discount the total theory due to and argument that it fails the faisability test in that it cannot be falisified. This I have shown is not true.

Falsifiability from a scientific perspective requires the ability to do repeated experiments. Digging a hole to see what you find is not an experiment.

The only argument I can find beyond your one liners is the creationist argument that if evolution created all of life from a single source point like the primordial soup this element cannot be falisified.

Abiogenesis is one of the many unfalsifiable aspects of evolution. However, you are confusing falsifiability in the scientific context with the broader ability to gather evidence, for example using the methods of historians. Falsifiability has a specific meaning in the context of the modern scientific method.

True but the theory still stands because evolution with all it's elements, mutation and natural selection ...etc can explain this scenario.

This is about whether it is scientific, not whether it 'stands'.

No it's not. This would be a falsability test. It's not circular. If they found exampkles of this then it would disprove evolution.

No it wouldn't. They have found plenty of examples. They just adjusted the evolutionary tree to reflect the DNA evidence on the grounds that the DNA evidence was more reliable than previous methods. So now the genetically similar organisms are also similar from an evolutionary perspective.

The answer is not one the the choices you provided.

What was the question, and what choices did I provide?

[Super Nova]

What I am struggling with is what you consider to be the big flaws in my argument.

I am not sure what your argument is. It seems to be a lot of little points and I am addressing them one at a time.

My argument is, Evolution is falsifiable. Is a scientific theory.

Do you agree with the following defintions:

Naïve falsificationism is an unsuccessful attempt to prescribe a rationally unavoidable method for science. Sophisticated methodological falsification, on the other hand, is a prescription of a way in which scientists ought to behave as a matter of choice. The object of this is to arrive at an evolutionary process whereby theories become less bad.

Naïve falsification considers scientific statements individually. Scientific theories are formed from groups of these sorts of statements, and it is these groups that must be accepted or rejected by scientists. Scientific theories can always be defended by the addition of ad hoc hypotheses. As Popper put it, a decision is required on the part of the scientist to accept or reject the statements that go to make up a theory or that might falsify it. At some point, the weight of the ad hoc hypotheses and disregarded falsifying observations will become so great that it becomes unreasonable to support the base theory any longer, and a decision will be made to reject it.

In place of naïve falsification, Popper envisioned science as evolving by the successive rejection of falsified theories, rather than falsified statements. Falsified theories are to be replaced by theories that can account for the phenomena that falsified the prior theory, that is, with greater explanatory power. For example, Aristotelian mechanics explained observations of everyday situations, but were falsified by Galileo's experiments, and were replaced by Newtonian mechanics, which accounted for the phenomena noted by Galileo (and others). Newtonian mechanics' reach included the observed motion of the planets and the mechanics of gases. The Youngian wave theory of light (i.e., waves carried by the luminiferous aether) replaced Newton's (and many of the Classical Greeks') particles of light but in turn was falsified by the Michelson-Morley experiment and was superseded by Maxwell's electrodynamics and Einstein's special relativity, which did account for the newly observed phenomena. Furthermore, Newtonian mechanics applied to the atomic scale was replaced with quantum mechanics, when the old theory could not provide an answer to the ultraviolet catastrophe, the Gibbs paradox, or how electron orbits could exist without the particles radiating away their energy and spiraling towards the centre. Thus the new theory had to posit the existence of unintuitive concepts such as energy levels, quanta and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

At each stage, experimental observation made a theory untenable (i.e., falsified it) and a new theory was found that had greater explanatory power (i.e., could account for the previously unexplained phenomena), and as a result, provided greater opportunity for its own falsification.

Evolution as a theory has stood the test of time.

I see the argument that because evolution is a theory that plays out over a long timeframe observations unlike just testing in physics are difficult. Microevolutiion has been used to verify elements of the theory's predictions. Evidence from the past supports the theory.

No observation todate, past or ongoing have made the theory untenable (ie: falisify it).

I can be falsified, it has not been todate.

It is falsifiable by the discovery of something that is against the theory. The argument that because we cannot understand everything in the past, do not have the detailed data for something does not mean it is "just explained away". A proposition consistent with the prevailing theory is used to attempt to explain it. Nothing has come up that blows the theory away.

I have shown it is an accepted "scientific theory".

Argumentum ad populum is a logical fallacy. Also, many of those claims do not distinguish evolution and natural selection. Many are reactionary to the current culture war in the US and would not be made if the only issue was what science really is.

Natural Selection is a key part fo Evolution... why do you keep separating the two?

I have provide papers that discuss your views and they only appear to be the creationist view points.

I think my views have a lot in common with Popper. Was he a creationist? Would it matter if he was?

I see that. No, Popper was not a creatonist and it would not matter.

Creationist has used a statement he made and that he refined later when he realised they were using his argument against Evolution in the US.

I have shown that while you accept elements of evolution as "scientific" (e.g. natural selection) you discount the total theory due to and argument that it fails the faisability test in that it cannot be falisified. This I have shown is not true.

Falsifiability from a scientific perspective requires the ability to do repeated experiments. Digging a hole to see what you find is not an experiment.

That's not entirely true. Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific.

Popper uses falsification as a criterion of demarcation to draw a sharp line between those theories that are scientific and those that are unscientific. It is useful to know if a statement or theory is falsifiable, if for no other reason than that it provides us with an understanding of the ways in which one might assess the theory. One might at the least be saved from attempting to falsify a non-falsifiable theory, or come to see an unfalsifiable theory as unsupportable.

The Popperian criterion excludes from the domain of science not unfalsifiable statements but only whole theories that contain no falsifiable statements.

Evolution has many aspects that are falsifiable.

The only argument I can find beyond your one liners is the creationist argument that if evolution created all of life from a single source point like the primordial soup this element cannot be falisified.

Abiogenesis is one of the many unfalsifiable aspects of evolution. However, you are confusing falsifiability in the scientific context with the broader ability to gather evidence, for example using the methods of historians. Falsifiability has a specific meaning in the context of the modern scientific method.

True. I meant the first form of life once it was created. To be more specific. after the soup created the first life.... all life evolved from that.

True but the theory still stands because evolution with all it's elements, mutation and natural selection ...etc can explain this scenario.

This is about whether it is scientific, not whether it 'stands'.

Popper claimed that, if a theory is falsifiable, then it is scientific. Many elements of evolutuion are falsifiable, more than just natural selection.

No it's not. This would be a falsability test. It's not circular. If they found exampkles of this then it would disprove evolution.

No it wouldn't. They have found plenty of examples. They just adjusted the evolutionary tree to reflect the DNA evidence on the grounds that the DNA evidence was more reliable than previous methods. So now the genetically similar organisms are also similar from an evolutionary perspective.

So you agree the theory stands just that they had to adjust the details of the tree of life that had built when more detail come to light. These ajustment don't disprove the theory, just the details of the what happened here on earth.

Just becasue they thought by looking at bones the tree looked like this and then DNA showed it looked a little different does not disprove the theory. It disproves the assumptions they made in piecing together the tree.