Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Falsifiable
07-02-2010, 08:38 PM
Post: #1
Falsifiable
This just came up in my thread on dinosaur DNA, but I want to address it in a new thread so it doesn’t get lost.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable to be legitimate. How is the theory of evolution falsifiable? What would a Darwinist accept as evidence that the theory of evolution is false?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2010, 07:37 AM
Post: #2
RE: Falsifiable
I figured as much. There is nothing that any Darwinist will accept as evidence that the theory of evolution is false. That theory is not falsifiable so it is not a legitimate scientific theory.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2010, 08:25 AM
Post: #3
RE: Falsifiable
(07-02-2010 08:38 PM)jfla Wrote:  This just came up in my thread on dinosaur DNA, but I want to address it in a new thread so it doesn’t get lost.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable to be legitimate. How is the theory of evolution falsifiable? What would a Darwinist accept as evidence that the theory of evolution is false?
There are a few things.

Fossils being the wrong age, such as a 65 million year old rabbit fossil. Or a dinosaur fossil that's only a million years old.

Genetic traits not being passed from parent to offspring, but appearing randomly within a population.

Species sharing no common genetics.

Species appearing spontaneously. Such as a species of large cat suddenly appearing in Australia, without any genetic links to other species.

I'm sure there are others, but that's all I can think of for now.

The greatest strength is in resisting provocation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2010, 08:31 AM
Post: #4
RE: Falsifiable
Now be very careful KC there are numerous accounts of large black, panther like, cats in the Australian bush. Personally I believe they are just the domestic pets of the Yowie (mythical bigfoot type creature). But I don't have a degree in biology, so in all probability I'm wrong Smile

????????????????
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2010, 02:12 PM
Post: #5
RE: Falsifiable
(07-03-2010 08:25 AM)KC Carter Wrote:  
(07-02-2010 08:38 PM)jfla Wrote:  This just came up in my thread on dinosaur DNA, but I want to address it in a new thread so it doesn’t get lost.

A scientific theory must be falsifiable to be legitimate. How is the theory of evolution falsifiable? What would a Darwinist accept as evidence that the theory of evolution is false?
There are a few things.

Fossils being the wrong age, such as a 65 million year old rabbit fossil. Or a dinosaur fossil that's only a million years old.

Genetic traits not being passed from parent to offspring, but appearing randomly within a population.

Species sharing no common genetics.

Species appearing spontaneously. Such as a species of large cat suddenly appearing in Australia, without any genetic links to other species.

I'm sure there are others, but that's all I can think of for now.

There are countless others. Variations in retroviral markers across linked species. Sudden complex variations within a single population. The evolution of a population away from its environment.

But lets look at the important thing here. Lets look at the fact that I answered this point in jfla's other thread, the one on dinosaur bones. I answered it. I was, in fact, rather eloquent on this regard.

So why has he posted it here? Why has he posted it in a new thread, away from my comments where I talk about why evolution is falsifiable and creationism is not, and why that is vital to a scientific theory?

It's almost as if he's wanting to trick people into believing a lie.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2010, 06:00 PM (This post was last modified: 07-03-2010 06:06 PM by jfla.)
Post: #6
RE: Falsifiable
(07-03-2010 08:25 AM)KC Carter Wrote:  Fossils being the wrong age, such as a 65 million year old rabbit fossil. Or a dinosaur fossil that's only a million years old.

I know that you are assuming that you have your dates right, but how about a dinosaur fossil that is only 20,000 years old? Soft tissue cannot be preserved for more than 10-20,000, so any dinosaur fossil that has soft tissue cannot be 65 million years old.

Quote:Genetic traits not being passed from parent to offspring, but appearing randomly within a population.

Such as cancer that is due to genetic mutations that result from radiation exposure as an adult?

Quote:Species sharing no common genetics.

You mean any fossil for which we have no soft tissue since you cannot verify the genes of any fossil without having soft tissue that just might have DNA?

Quote:Species appearing spontaneously. Such as a species of large cat suddenly appearing in Australia, without any genetic links to other species.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7F9UlGY...22&f=false

“Most species appear suddenly in a particular stratum, persist for some time with little change, and then disappear from the fossil record. Then another species with different traits suddenly appears in the next higher stratum.”
(07-03-2010 02:12 PM)GTseng3 Wrote:  Sudden complex variations within a single population.

Define “complex variations”. I’m sure that any complex variation that is suggested will not be “complex” enough to suit you.

Quote:The evolution of a population away from its environment.

Explain.

Quote:But lets look at the important thing here. Lets look at the fact that I answered this point in jfla's other thread, the one on dinosaur bones. I answered it. I was, in fact, rather eloquent on this regard.

Your arrogance is stupefying. I’ve seen your writing; it’s not what it is cracked up to be.

Quote:So why has he posted it here? Why has he posted it in a new thread, away from my comments where I talk about why evolution is falsifiable and creationism is not, and why that is vital to a scientific theory?

For the exact reasons I gave in my first post in this thread.

Quote:It's almost as if he's wanting to trick people into believing a lie.

Go to Hell.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-03-2010, 08:53 PM
Post: #7
RE: Falsifiable
(07-03-2010 06:00 PM)jfla Wrote:  I know that you are assuming that you have your dates right, but how about a dinosaur fossil that is only 20,000 years old? Soft tissue cannot be preserved for more than 10-20,000, so any dinosaur fossil that has soft tissue cannot be 65 million years old.

This would have rocked the scientific community had it been true. I haven't seen the article yet, since you never posted the link as I asked, but... I'm betting it's not true.

Quote:Such as cancer that is due to genetic mutations that result from radiation exposure as an adult?

No. Not at all. Completely different type of mutation there.

Quote:You mean any fossil for which we have no soft tissue since you cannot verify the genes of any fossil without having soft tissue that just might have DNA?

First we can get small DNA samples from fossils. Not enough to re-create Jurassic Park, but enough to have some to study. Second, we have every living animal to test for genetics. And evolution makes firm predictions about what we will find. And that is exactly what we do find.

Quote:http://books.google.com/books?id=7F9UlGY...22&f=false

“Most species appear suddenly in a particular stratum, persist for some time with little change, and then disappear from the fossil record. Then another species with different traits suddenly appears in the next higher stratum.”

Yeah... no. That's not what he's talking about. And, in fact, countless transitional fossils are cataloged, with new ones showing up every year. This quote is especially ironic since what you quoted then goes on, on the same page, to explain exactly why that does not disprove evolution.

Did you just not read the context of your minuscule quote, or are you deliberately lying to people?

Quote:Define “complex variations”. I’m sure that any complex variation that is suggested will not be “complex” enough to suit you.

Quite simply. Every transitional mutation to a system must be either beneficial or neutral. If the mutation is detrimental, then it is impossible for it to have survived through natural selection. Therefore when we look at something like the eye, which is very complex in a human, that organism must have evolved naturally, with each transitional form of the eye being beneficial in its own right, and no mutation causing a loss in functionality. If the eye were to have appeared overnight it would be unexplainable due to evolution. As it is, however, scientists have a very good picture of how the eye evolved, and in fact it did go through a vast series of beneficial transitional phases, each one beneficial when compared to the previous.

Quote:Explain.

This is the fundamental truth of natural selection. Nature selects surviving organisms based on their compatibility with their environment. This is actually why evolution works. Random mutations, but selection is always in the same direction: towards adaptation to the environment. Thus, if species existed in, say, a tropic jungle, but their evolution made them less adaptable for the jungle and more adaptable to the tundra, this would be unexplainable within evolution. Evolution always adapts toward its environment.

Quote:Your arrogance is stupefying. I’ve seen your writing; it’s not what it is cracked up to be.

Doesn't change the fact that I answered you succinctly and eloquently.

Quote:Go to Hell.

It would have to exist first.

I'm back baby! Thanks for everyone who sent me PMs asking what had happened to me.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-04-2010, 02:36 PM
Post: #8
RE: Falsifiable
I know GTSeng has already answered these, so I'll try not to repeat what he's already said, but I still wanna give my opinion.

(07-03-2010 06:00 PM)jfla Wrote:  I know that you are assuming that you have your dates right, but how about a dinosaur fossil that is only 20,000 years old? Soft tissue cannot be preserved for more than 10-20,000, so any dinosaur fossil that has soft tissue cannot be 65 million years old.
A 20,000 year old dinosaur fossil may disprove evolution yes, or it may mean some dinosaurs (other than birds) survived the KT extinction. But since a 20,000 year old dinosaur bone hasn't been found yet, it's not a problem.

Also, we've gone over this a few times now. You seem to be clinging to a comment about 10-20,000 year preservation for soft tissue, which is wrong anyway as I believe collagen can survive up to about 400,000 years, but still it's beside the point as if they have discovered fossilised soft tissue in a dinosaur bone, then it's 65 million year old fossilised soft tissue, not 20,000.

Here's an article on it GT;
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...issue.html

(07-03-2010 06:00 PM)jfla Wrote:  Such as cancer that is due to genetic mutations that result from radiation exposure as an adult?
No. Such as blue eyes, or AB blood type.

(07-03-2010 06:00 PM)jfla Wrote:  You mean any fossil for which we have no soft tissue since you cannot verify the genes of any fossil without having soft tissue that just might have DNA?
No, I mean if species such as dogs, cats, parrots and monkfish all had unique genetic codes. The fact is they don't, they share a lot of them, and the more similar the animal, such as dogs and cats both being mammals, the more they have in common.

(07-03-2010 06:00 PM)jfla Wrote:  http://books.google.com/books?id=7F9UlGY...22&f=false

“Most species appear suddenly in a particular stratum, persist for some time with little change, and then disappear from the fossil record. Then another species with different traits suddenly appears in the next higher stratum.”
You have said yourself that fossilisation is rare, it should be obvious that every individual in a lineage will not be fossilised. But like GT says, the "transitional" fossils are abundant enough to chart the process of evolution within a family line.

The greatest strength is in resisting provocation.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-23-2010, 02:57 PM (This post was last modified: 07-23-2010 02:59 PM by Raphael.)
Post: #9
RE: Falsifiable
I thought dinosaur bones were put here to test my faith?

how about 10,000 BC?
what symbol can be traced to the era of the wholly mammoth?
what symbol can be traced to BLACK WHITE and RED building blocks used exclusively in the mythical Atlantis?
what symbol can be reflected and both symbols can be used to represent matter and anti-matter asymmetry
what symbol is being connected in many ways in the modern world to vortex and torsion physics?
what symbol represents a repeating pattern called the greek fret that we can trace back to 10,000 BC?
what symbol represents the angular spiral that we trace back to 10,000 BC?
what symbol is a symbol for nature par excellence?
what symbol is associated with our asymmetrical swirly spiral galaxy?

THE SWASTIKA

NATURE cannot be HIDDEN only VEILeD with NARRATIVES that defy NATURE

CodeX4 and the Reconciliation of Science and Religion
http://kachina2012.wordpress.com/about/
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
07-28-2010, 10:17 PM
Post: #10
RE: Falsifiable
Evolution is just a theory. Just like Gravity.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)