Jump to content


Photo

How Does One Falsify Vaporware?


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

#21 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 03 February 2009 - 03:40 PM

If this is truly falsifiable how come today's understanding of cell technology isn't phasing committed evolutionists who cling to the concept of a "primitive" organism.

That's a religious belief that totally flies in the face of the data. They hope, they wish, they dream of these primitive life forms when there ain't no such thing.

View Post

It seems entirely reasonable that as advanced cellular machinery evolved, natural selection would allow it to out-compete the very primitive origins of life. Saying "scientist can't find any primitive organisms" doesn't falsify evolution because evolution makes no claims about whether primitive life should exist today. To really disprove this aspect of the theory, you would essentially have to show that no primitive lifeform has ever existed. This is a nigh impossible task, which is why I don't usually list it as a condition for falsifying evolution (it would be one, though).

#22 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2009 - 12:11 AM

We've got no idea of how quantum gravity is supposed to work yet either.  That doesn't mean that it's not a promising area of research though.

View Post

It does to me.

#23 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2009 - 12:43 AM

First off, telling me to "state the theory of evolution" is a bit of a loaded question.

It most certainly is not a loaded question.

Neither is it unreasonable. On the contrary, if you intend to sell a product you need to have an actual product available for sale. And it is certainly reasonable to ask to see the product and inspect it before buying.

Your excuse rings hollow. This is the internet, after all. It isn't difficult to provide links, and doing so is a commonly-accepted means of communicating. There's no requirement to type it all out yourself.

The theory of evolution is a complex one, and I'm neither patient nor qualified enough to explain everything about it in a forum post (least you think I'm dodging the question, I've seen whole books written to explain quantum mechanics, so evolution is hardly unique in this regard). Still, I think I can give a decent outline of what the theory of evolution states:

Thank you, but I have some pretty strong hunches myself about what evolutionists would like a "theory" of evolution to state. I've been studying evolutionology for a few years, and we have quite a few opinions available right here in this forum.

And until we establish that an actual "theory" exists, I think it's premature to assume anyone can make an accurate summary.

Also, please don't respond that item three has not been directly observed.

View Post

No, my objection is slightly different. The "theory" has not been directly observed. Once it is observed, we can discuss experiments that might or might not falsify it.

#24 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 February 2009 - 05:49 AM

It seems entirely reasonable that as advanced cellular machinery evolved, natural selection would allow it to out-compete the very primitive origins of life. Saying "scientist can't find any primitive organisms" doesn't falsify evolution because evolution makes no claims about whether primitive life should exist today.

View Post


Yes, but it's claimed it did once exist? What reveals this? It's assumed, dispensed and believed at a public school near you. I find that repugnant.

#25 jason78

jason78

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,349 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Birmingham, UK

Posted 04 February 2009 - 10:41 AM

It does to me.

View Post


Three out of the four fundamental force carrying bosons transfer energy in packets, or quanta. Why would you think the gravitational force would be any different?

#26 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 04 February 2009 - 10:47 AM

It most certainly is not a loaded question.

I don't know, it really is kind of a loaded question, albeit subtly so. In context, your question implied the following assumption:
"If a theory is a legitimate one, I should be able to find written somewhere a complete description of the theory and all the things it has to say about how the world works."
This is false. For a typical theory (quantum choromodynamics, for instance), the theory itself evolves over multiple papers, and each successive paper recounts the previous papers only briefly, relying on citations to convey the full story. Eventually, the important aspects of the theory are often compiled into books, but this process inevitably comes with some speculation and preferential treatment of certain views on the part of the author; after all, a book that just defines a theory with no analysis wouldn't sell too well. Moreover, if I just point to one document as the definitive definition of a theory, I have to stand by any minor errors or misleading statements in said book, which is hardly fair. In short, no good definition of "theory" will say a theory has to be written down in its entirety.

That said, I did give you a bare-bones version of the theory of evolution in my previous post. I'm sure it misses a lot of details, but it's at least a starting point, and I think all evolutionists would confidently agree with my three claims. If you want to be really skeptical, you might even start with the assumption that what I just wrote was the entire theory of evolution, and everything else scientists claim about evolution falls under various, less generally accepted "sub-theories" which are constantly competing with each other. It ultimately doesn't matter. I gave you a working, if minimal, theory of evolution. Saying "how can we know if that's a valid summary if we haven't read the whole thing?" is not a valid objection, since as I stated above, the whole theory is spread out over hundreds of papers and heavily diluted with claims that are common to some but not all forms of the theory.

So rather than dispute whether my definition reflects the "real" theory of evolution, apply it to whatever situations prompted the creation of this thread in the first place. Does my definition make all the predictions I say it does? Yes. Does it make any predictions that I haven't listed? Probably - if you name them, I'll either accept them or explain why my definition doesn't make those predictions. Does my definition conflict with any evolutionist's definition of evolution, however broad or specific? It was a quickly written definition, so I'll admit that there may be minor conflicts here or there, but the essence of my definition meshes with any other definition I've ever seen. If you have specific objections to my definition, please raise them. Otherwise, you're rejecting a working definition on the grounds that it might not be the "real" definition, which is a bit silly when your original post was just looking for any definition at all.

Adam: It's assumed a primitive life form once existed because that's a natural consequence of the theory; as I said, you could technically lump it in with the theory's predictions. If all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor, it stands to reason that that ancestor must have been relatively primitive, at least in some senses of the word. Even if you don't buy this, I think I can safely say that the original life form being primitive is something all evolutionists can agree to; life one earth "down-evolving" from some highly advanced being is not evolution in any traditional sense.

#27 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2009 - 06:52 PM

Three out of the four fundamental force carrying bosons transfer energy in packets, or quanta.  Why would you think the gravitational force would be any different?

View Post

I have no interest in discussing quantum philosophy in this thread. From the get-go it's antiscientific to proceed as follows (and I don't make this up, folks):

We predict X
We get Y
But quantum physics is counter-intuitive, so we're right!

If you want to support such bunk, please start a thread.

#28 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2009 - 07:33 PM

I don't know, it really is kind of a loaded question, albeit subtly so. In context, your question implied the following assumption:

"If a theory is a legitimate one, I should be able to find written somewhere a complete description of the theory and all the things it has to say about how the world works."

Not even so. I never said "and all the things it has to say about how the world works" or anything even resembling it.

All I'm asking for here is to see the theory. I even said I intend to work out implications after I saw it. That's not so ambiguous as you'd have people believe, I'll venture.

This is false. For a typical theory (quantum choromodynamics, for instance), the theory itself evolves over multiple papers, and each successive paper recounts the previous papers only briefly, relying on citations to convey the full story. Eventually, the important aspects of the theory are often compiled into books, but this process inevitably comes with some speculation and preferential treatment of certain views on the part of the author; after all, a book that just defines a theory with no analysis wouldn't sell too well. Moreover, if I just point to one document as the definitive definition of a theory, I have to stand by any minor errors or misleading statements in said book, which is hardly fair. In short, no good definition of "theory" will say a theory has to be written down in its entirety.

In short, you have no "theory" to present, and this is your excuse. I don't buy it. Typically in real science, things are stated in the form of hypotheses, and subjected to experimental testing. That you have to drag quantum philosophizing in as a counter-example should tell folks all they need to know.

* Also note that we have 'quantum theory' rather than "the theory of quanta". Just one more example of how the term 'theory' is employed in the English language.

That said, I did give you a bare-bones version of the theory of evolution in my previous post. I'm sure it misses a lot of details, but it's at least a starting point, and I think all evolutionists would confidently agree with my three claims. If you want to be really skeptical, you might even start with the assumption that what I just wrote was the entire theory of evolution, and everything else scientists claim about evolution falls under various, less generally accepted "sub-theories" which are constantly competing with each other. It ultimately doesn't matter. I gave you a working, if minimal, theory of evolution. Saying "how can we know if that's a valid summary if we haven't read the whole thing?" is not a valid objection, since as I stated above, the whole theory is spread out over hundreds of papers and heavily diluted with claims that are common to some but not all forms of the theory.

View Post

No sale. I don't desire to list all the glaring flaws, and I won't. You need to state things in the form of hypotheses which can be tested by experiment, first of all. You have not done so. You also need to include all essential elements of the belief system. You have not done so.

What's an essential element? Let me explain. I accept that the statistical frequency of alleles will change any time a creature dies. Yet I am not an evolutionist. I accept that mutations occur. Yet I am not an evolutionist. I accept genetics and biology. Get the picture? Everything one is required to accept to be an evolutionist and be free from harassment in should be included in the "theory".

I suggest you confer with others, or do some research, rather than clutter up this thread with attempts to cobble together something which you think will pass muster with ignorant lurkers. That is not the purpose of this thread.

#29 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2009 - 07:46 PM

And just to remind those who may have short attention spans, I do not dispute the existence of evolution theory. We have ample evidence that people have held such superstitions for thousands of years.

What I'm looking for is a "theory of evolution".

#30 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 04 February 2009 - 08:00 PM

I found this statement in 'Think' magazine, a Christian, Pro YEC magazine.

Evolutionist G. A. Kerkut is quoted to state:

There is a theory which states that many living animals [and also plants-D.S.] can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution."... On the other hand there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution."

-G. A. Kerhut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1965), p. 157

Now what do we do with this exactly? BTW, I would highly recommend that people go to their nearest Christian bookstore and pick up the current issue of 'Think' magazine. It is dedicated to Darwinian Evolution Doctrine and is an excellent magazine. Get a subscription.

http://focuspress.org/about.html

#31 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2009 - 10:11 PM

I found this statement in 'Think' magazine, a Christian, Pro YEC magazine.

Evolutionist G. A. Kerkut is quoted to state:

There is a theory which states that many living animals [and also plants-D.S.] can be observed over the course of time to undergo changes so that new species are formed. This can be called the "Special Theory of Evolution."... On the other hand there is the theory that all living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from inorganic form. This theory can be called the "General Theory of Evolution."

-G. A. Kerhut, Implications of Evolution (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1965), p. 157

Now what do we do with this exactly? BTW, I would highly recommend that people go to their nearest Christian bookstore and pick up the current issue of 'Think' magazine. It is dedicated to Darwinian Evolution Doctrine and is an excellent magazine. Get a subscription.

http://focuspress.org/about.html

View Post

We observe that some folks have trouble assigning the tags 'special' and 'general' properly.

I don't see any way to experimentally test either speculation. They appear to be historical assertions, and would need to be advanced as history and supported by proper methods of investigating history before they could be taken seriously by anyone seeking truth.

As some are aware, I have already started a thread about history.
http://www.evolution...?showtopic=1984

As anyone who earnestly thinks on the matter must conclude, the past is not subject to testing by experiment.

#32 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 04 February 2009 - 11:16 PM

No sale. I don't desire to list all the glaring flaws, and I won't. You need to state things in the form of hypotheses which can be tested by experiment, first of all. You have not done so. You also need to include all essential elements of the belief system. You have not done so.

What's an essential element? Let me explain. I accept that the statistical frequency of alleles will change any time a creature dies. Yet I am not an evolutionist.  I accept that mutations occur. Yet I am not an evolutionist. I accept genetics and biology. Get the picture? Everything one is required to accept to be an evolutionist and be free from harassment in should be included in the "theory".

I suggest you confer with others, or do some research, rather than clutter up this thread with attempts to cobble together something which you think will pass muster with ignorant lurkers. That is not the purpose of this thread.

View Post

I'm at a bit of a loss. You seem to be objecting to my definition on two grounds: because it doesn't state things in the form of testable hypotheses, and because it does not specify all the essential things one must believe to be an evolutionist. I'll explain why it does both these things. First, let me restate my definition for easy reference. The theory of evolution says the following three things:

1. With each new generation of living things, new combinations of genetic information are produced through mutation, S@xual recombination, and sometimes lateral gene transfer in bacteria.

2. If a particular gene helps a creature survive, that gene will spread out and become present in a greater portion of the population by virtue of natural selection. If a gene is adaptively neutral (that is, it doesn't help or hurt the creature), it might become common in a population by virtue of genetic drift.

3. All life as we know it descended from a single, primitive, common ancestor by the above mechanisms. The diversity of useful features we see in living things were produced by natural selection, and non-useful features were produced either by genetic drift or as byproducts of natural selection.

Ok. All of these are hypotheses, in the sense that each says something definitive about how the world works. The first basically says genes mutate and recombine; this one's pretty trivial to observe in this day and age. The second says natural selection and genetic drift occur to a meaningful extent; dogs, Darwin's finches, guppies, nylon eating bacteria... easily observed as well. The third merely extrapolates the second to a larger scale by stating that natural selection and genetic drift played key roles in producing all current life from a common ancestor so many years ago. This aspect of the theory makes testable predictions as well; check out this thread for two examples. Keep in mind that I don't want to argue about whether these testable predictions have panned out - I'm just saying that they exist.

On your second objection, these three items DO outline the "essential elements of the belief system". You say you believe in genetics, biology, mutations, and frequency shifts of alleles. Great - that's item 1, and a few other things besides. Do you believe that the aforementioned allele shifts will be guided on a large scale by natural selection, preferentially spreading those alleles that are best adapted to the environment? If so, that's item 2. Do you believe that this natural selection played a key role is producing all life as we know it from a single common ancestor? If so, you're an evolutionist. The thing is, I'm not sure if you believe item two, and you definitely don't believe item 3, so you're not an evolutionist.

So, there you have it. You asked for a bare-bones definition of the theory, and I gave one. You asked me to give a definition stated as hypothesis and containing all the essential elements of the belief system, and I just did so. You can state further requirements if you like, but so far I think my definition satisfies your initial request in every way.

As a side note, this quote puzzled me:

And just to remind those who may have short attention spans, I do not dispute the existence of evolution theory. We have ample evidence that people have held such superstitions for thousands of years.

What I'm looking for is a "theory of evolution".

I might seem silly for asking, but what's the difference between the two?

#33 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 04 February 2009 - 11:57 PM

I'm at a bit of a loss. You seem to be objecting to my definition on two grounds: because it doesn't state things in the form of testable hypotheses, and because it does not specify all the essential things one must believe to be an evolutionist. I'll explain why it does both these things. First, let me restate my definition for easy reference. The theory of evolution says the following three things:

1. With each new generation of living things, new combinations of genetic information are produced through mutation, S@xual recombination, and sometimes lateral gene transfer in bacteria.

2. If a particular gene helps a creature survive, that gene will spread out and become present in a greater portion of the population by virtue of natural selection. If a gene is adaptively neutral (that is, it doesn't help or hurt the creature), it might become common in a population by virtue of genetic drift.

3. All life as we know it descended from a single, primitive, common ancestor by the above mechanisms. The diversity of useful features we see in living things were produced by natural selection, and non-useful features were produced either by genetic drift or as byproducts of natural selection.

Ok. All of these are hypotheses, in the sense that each says something definitive about how the world works. The first basically says genes mutate and recombine; this one's pretty trivial to observe in this day and age. The second says natural selection and genetic drift occur to a meaningful extent; dogs, Darwin's finches, guppies, nylon eating bacteria... easily observed as well. The third merely extrapolates the second to a larger scale by stating that natural selection and genetic drift played key roles in producing all current life from a common ancestor so many years ago. This aspect of the theory makes testable predictions as well; check out this thread for two examples. Keep in mind that I don't want to argue about whether these testable predictions have panned out - I'm just saying that they exist.

On your second objection, these three items DO outline the "essential elements of the belief system". You say you believe in genetics, biology, mutations, and frequency shifts of alleles. Great - that's item 1, and a few other things besides. Do you believe that the aforementioned allele shifts will be guided on a large scale by natural selection, preferentially spreading those alleles that are best adapted to the environment? If so, that's item 2. Do you believe that this natural selection played a key role is producing all life as we know it from a single common ancestor? If so, you're an evolutionist. The thing is, I'm not sure if you believe item two, and you definitely don't believe item 3, so you're not an evolutionist.

So, there you have it. You asked for a bare-bones definition of the theory, and I gave one. You asked me to give a definition stated as hypothesis and containing all the essential elements of the belief system, and I just did so. You can state further requirements if you like, but so far I think my definition satisfies your initial request in every way.

As a side note, this quote puzzled me:

I might seem silly for asking, but what's the difference between the two?

View Post

How about listing some experiments we can perform, if you think I am mistaken? I maintain you cannot, as I mentioned before.

Or better still, don't clutter up the thread. I'm not going to play with your toy(s) and try to construct a "theory" for you from scraps.

And if you return to my 3rd and 4th posts in this thread, and take the time to read them, maybe you'll understand how the term 'theory' is properly used in the English language.

I also note that one can accept all of the above, and not be accepted as an evolutionist.

#34 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 05 February 2009 - 12:49 PM

How about listing some experiments we can perform, if you think I am mistaken? I maintain you cannot, as I mentioned before.

K. Here are a few, organized by which item they're meant to support:
1. Grab some DNA from a population of wild rabbits. Next generation, do it again. Rinse and repeat a few times, then compare your results and see if the genes changed between generations.
2. Toss a fast-reproducing animal (guppies are my standard example, I know this has been done with guppies) into a moderately different environment from the one it came from. Leave for a few generations, then come back and see if the population as a whole has shifted to become better-adapted to its new environment.
3. Using fossils, genetic markers, and whatever means are available, statistically reconstruct a bunch of different trees describing the paths of descent by which modern life might have come into being. See if these trees match fairly well, or at least if they indicate a coherent, central pattern that may be blurred by other factors.
I say this a lot, but it bears repeating: please don't respond that experiment 3 has been performed and has failed to pan out. I disagree, and that's an issue for another thread. The point here is simply that there exists an experiment which can be performed. That's all you asked for, and it's all that can be reasonably expected of a bare-bones definition of a theory.

Or better still, don't clutter up the thread. I'm not going to play with your toy(s) and try to construct a "theory" for you from scraps.

I find it odd that you ask for a theory, scoff at evolutionists for being unable to produce one, and then when I actually give you a theory, you say I'm "cluttering up the thread." I'm not asking you to construct a theory from my scraps; I gave you a complete and working, if minimal, theory in response to your request.

And if you return to my 3rd and 4th posts in this thread, and take the time to read them, maybe you'll understand how the term 'theory' is properly used in the English language.

Thanks. I forgot about that bit somehow - those posts really clear up my side question.

I also note that one can accept all of the above, and not be accepted as an evolutionist.

I find this claim puzzling. Could you describe for me a system of beliefs which incorporates all of the above and still does not count as evolutionist? Denying abiogenesis would not work, since abiogenesis deals with the origin as opposed to the development of life; there are evolutionists who believe that "God made the first life form and all life evolved from that common ancestor," even if that's not the majority view.

In summary, I've given you an experiment which could be applied to each of my three items, and despite your assertion to the contrary, I maintain that anyone who believes all three items is an evolutionist (it shouldn't be hard to provide me at least one counter-example if this is not true). Do I need to do anything else to prove that my theory is indeed a working one?

#35 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 February 2009 - 12:58 PM

please don't respond that experiment 3 has been performed and has failed to pan out. I disagree...

View Post

Are you allergic to the truth or something?

#36 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 05 February 2009 - 01:13 PM

Are you allergic to the truth or something?

View Post

No, I just think you're wrong, and if pressed I could come up with sources to support my position. The problem is that it's all too easy in these debates to get sidetracked into debating whether a particular prediction has panned out. That's a valuable debate, to be sure, but it belongs in another thread. This thread is about showing that the TOE exists, which requires merely that a prediction has been made.

#37 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 February 2009 - 01:22 PM

No, I just think you're wrong, and if pressed I could come up with sources to support my position.

View Post


I've discovered that every truth seems to have some scholar out there trying to affirm it's opposite. The question isn't about whether you can find arguments to support your position. Anyone can do that. The question is this; is the argument sound? Does it withstand scrutiny or must it be sheltered from investigation?

#38 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 05 February 2009 - 04:40 PM

I've discovered that every truth seems to have some scholar out there trying to affirm it's opposite. The question isn't about whether you can find arguments to support your position. Anyone can do that. The question is this; is the argument sound? Does it withstand scrutiny or must it be sheltered from investigation?

View Post

Wiser words have seldom been spoken.

#39 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 February 2009 - 05:09 PM

K. Here are a few, organized by which item they're meant to support:
1. Grab some DNA from a population of wild rabbits. Next generation, do it again. Rinse and repeat a few times, then compare your results and see if the genes changed between generations.

View Post

How does this have the potential to falsify anything? If the don't change, so what? You can still claim sometimes they change, or they used to change, or imagine they might change by whatever means you choose to dream up. If anyone doubts this is the case, just look at the morphological change issues.

2. Toss a fast-reproducing animal (guppies are my standard example, I know this has been done with guppies) into a moderately different environment from the one it came from. Leave for a few generations, then come back and see if the population as a whole has shifted to become better-adapted to its new environment.

Again, where is the potential to falsify? If they don't change, you'll just say "oh well, we need different conditions".

If you truly believed the potential to falsify your premise existed, I'd suggest you consider the tumbleweed a.k.a. russian thistle. But we both know better.

3. Using fossils, genetic markers, and whatever means are available, statistically reconstruct a bunch of different trees describing the paths of descent by which modern life might have come into being. See if these trees match fairly well, or at least if they indicate a coherent, central pattern that may be blurred by other factors.
I say this a lot, but it bears repeating: please don't respond that experiment 3 has been performed and has failed to pan out. I disagree, and that's an issue for another thread. The point here is simply that there exists an experiment which can be performed. That's all you asked for, and it's all that can be reasonably expected of a bare-bones definition of a theory.

That's not even an experiment! Well, not a scientific one. Drawing "trees" is a subjective art. Anyone can do it. And the actual implication is that the "trees" should match perfectly, so again (especially since the artists have been trained to draw the same "tree"), we see that there is no potential whatsoever to falsify. If you believed it were there, you wouldn't even bring it up.

No "trees" have ever matched. Even the ape-to-human myth can't be sorted out into even close to a consensus "tree", and that's a tiny, tiny fraction of the picture. For those who see this as a falsification issue, the verdict is in. Clearly evolutionists do not see it as one. If they did, they wouldn't be evolutionists.

Scientific tests need to be fairly cut & dried. This is subjective on the drawing side, and subjective again on the part of those viewing the drawings.

I find it odd that you ask for a theory, scoff at evolutionists for being unable to produce one, and then when I actually give you a theory, you say I'm "cluttering up the thread." I'm not asking you to construct a theory from my scraps; I gave you a complete and working, if minimal, theory in response to your request.

What you've presented doesn't even come close, and everyone knows it. You knew it coming in, that's why you prefaced it with so many excuses. You haven't seen a "theory" of evolution, so you decided to cobble together something you thought might boost the morale of your pals or fool an exceedingly ignorant lurker.

Even now, none of your "tests" have the potential to falsify in the opinion of every evolutionist who's ever considered them. Not one. Since none of your hypotheses can be tested by experiment, what are they? I assume you're intelligent enough that you already knew.

I find this claim puzzling. Could you describe for me a system of beliefs which incorporates all of the above and still does not count as evolutionist? Denying abiogenesis would not work, since abiogenesis deals with the origin as opposed to the development of life; there are evolutionists who believe that "God made the first life form and all life evolved from that common ancestor," even if that's not the majority view.

View Post

You're mistaken. I suggest you look into some of the scientists who've been persecuted, and what brought it on. The information isn't hard to find, and I don't intend to discuss such matters of common knowledge in this thread, and facilitate derailment.

#40 Master Buffalax

Master Buffalax

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 57 posts
  • Age: 21
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Albuquerque, New Mexico

Posted 05 February 2009 - 07:55 PM

How does this have the potential to falsify anything? If the don't change, so what? You can still claim sometimes they change, or they used to change, or imagine they might change by whatever means you choose to dream up. If anyone doubts this is the case, just look at the morphological change issues.

Gah! The theory of evolution predicts some method of genetic change and recombination. If such a mechanism was not apparent, the TOE would have died with the advent of modern genetics. But there ARE mutations and there IS S@xual recombination. This particular point is so glaringly obvious that I can't believe you're even arguing it.

Again, where is the potential to falsify? If they don't change, you'll just say "oh well, we need different conditions".

If you truly believed the potential to falsify your premise existed, I'd suggest you consider the tumbleweed a.k.a. russian thistle. But we both know better.

At this point, you're really just begging the question with your responses. I list a prediction, you say "That doesn't work - if the prediction doesn't pan out, scientists can just ignore the bad results and assume the conditions weren't right." By this logic, I can prove that no scientific theory exists. Nothing is a prediction if "the theorists might ignore it if it turns out to be wrong" is a valid criticism.

Also, I'm considering the Russian thistle. It isn't especially enlightening, since you've provided no further direction as to what about it I'm supposed to consider. While I'm working on that, you can consider the fact that, despite your bizarre assertions to the contrary, natural selection has been observed and documented beyond any reasonable doubt, and even most creationist theories take limited natural selection (i.e. microevolution) into account. Last time I brought in three sources to back up this claim, I don't think I got a response from you, but here's my favorite for the sake of the readers:
A Paper Citing 993 Instances of Documented Natural Selection
Again, this item is not under serious dispute from either side of the debate. I just include it because it's a crucial principle for the theory of evolution.

That's not even an experiment! Well, not a scientific one. Drawing "trees" is a subjective art. Anyone can do it. And the actual implication is that the "trees" should match perfectly, so again (especially since the artists have been trained to draw the same "tree"), we see that there is no potential whatsoever to falsify. If you believed it were there, you wouldn't even bring it up.

No "trees" have ever matched. Even the ape-to-human myth can't be sorted out into even close to a consensus "tree", and that's a tiny, tiny fraction of the picture. For those who see this as a falsification issue, the verdict is in. Clearly evolutionists do not see it as one. If they did, they wouldn't be evolutionists.

Scientific tests need to be fairly cut & dried. This is subjective on the drawing side, and subjective again on the part of those viewing the drawings.

We've been over this before, but the trees are not subjective, and the artists have not been "trained." The trees are generated using statistical methods of comparing similarities. These methods have their roots in mathematics and were created without a thought toward proving or disproving evolution. By implying otherwise, you do a discredit to the scientists running these experiments and show your own misunderstanding of the issues at hand.

As for your claim that the trees haven't matched, I disagree. This is exactly why I tried to emphasize that "these predictions haven't panned out" isn't a legitimate response. You can argue against the matching of the trees, and I can argue for them. That's another debate for another thread. It doesn't matter here, though, because a theory just requires a prediction, and no one can deny that "the trees should look similar" IS a prediction, whether or not it's a correct one.

Even now, none of your "tests" have the potential to falsify in the opinion of every evolutionist who's ever considered them. Not one. Since none of your hypotheses can be tested by experiment, what are they? I assume you're intelligent enough that you already knew.

I'm amazed that you presume to know what evolutionists would and would not accept as evidence. I'm giving you testable predictions, and your response has been, again and again, the unfounded assertion that evolutionists would ignore these predictions. At best, that's begging the question by assuming evolution to be unscientific from the start. If you can find me quotes from actual evolutionists implying that my predictions are not necessary aspects of the TOE, then by all means present them. The problem is, you CAN'T find such quotes, because the predictions I offered ARE essential to the TOE, and your only arguments to the contrary have been warrantless denials, misinterpretations of experimental procedures, and cryptic references to tumbleweeds.

You're mistaken. I suggest you look into some of the scientists who've been persecuted, and what brought it on. The information isn't hard to find, and I don't intend to discuss such matters of common knowledge in this thread, and facilitate derailment.

In almost every thread I've debated you in, you've at one point or another defaulted to saying "why you're wrong is common knowledge, so I won't bother explaining it." Why I'm wrong is not common knowledge, and saying "look into persecuted scientists" doesn't even begin to tell me why you're making this claim. I hereby assert that you are wrong, and I'm backed up by the thousands of scientists who believe in the TOE. If you're right, you should be able to provide me at least some shred of evidence (or even a counter-example!) demonstrating why.

Again, if you can win this debate just by asserting that my theory isn't sufficient, there is literally no way I can win. That doesn't make you look good, it just makes you look defensive.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Yahoo (1)