Close. I'm saying the three major predictions of Classical Darwinism have been falsified by the fossil record. There are many lines of evidence pointing to that conclusion. One of them is the fall of Darwinian Systematics (replaced by the rise of cladistics). Another is the rise of punctuated equilibrium theory to replace Classical Darwinism. These were attempts to save evolutionary theory from falsification, by making modern evolutionary theory unfalsifiable.
My understanding of cladistics and punctuated equilibrium is quite limited...actually I hadn't even heard of cladistics before
You're obviously dealing with a rookie here, so type slowly. (That'll make a difference right?
Cladistics: is a form of biological systematics which classifies living organisms on the basis of shared ancestry.
By the sounds of it cladistics tries to classify ancestral history based on genetics, correct? I would have thought this would be easy to falsify. For example if the evidence pointed to hippos being the ancestors of frogs it's a pretty safe bet the method is a tad off. Also comparing the genetic evidence to the fossil record should yield results.
Punctuated Equilibrium: is the idea that animals will often endure a time of status (little evolution) only to step into overdrive when their environment changes. In a nutshell, is this correct?
Again, it seems this could be tested by comparing the geological record to sudden explosions in animal populations. Well, their fossils anyway
I didn't say "a changing theory is a bad thing". Please be careful. I said an untestable theory is not scientific, by the same criteria evolutionists used in all their court cases. Modern evolutionary theory adapts to data like fog adapts to landscape -- it no longer has structure; it no longer makes predictions; it is no longer testable.
I guess anything I write here is dependent on your answers to my above questions. I'd only add that evolution does make predictions. Someone made a huge post a while back explaining all the things evolution predicts. Naturally I can't find it again
. If anyone could throw a link in it'd be much appreciated.
Astrology can adapt to "fit the data." You wouldn't call that scientific would you?
I really think this is a poor example. Astrology is no longer considered science because it failed its scientific testings. You see, it couldn't shift to fit the data. Astrologist made predictions and they didn't turn out right. Not that hard to disprove really.
False theories are no longer scientific. They are false. Duh. Scientific theories are neither false nor unfalsifiable.
The point is at some stage they were. Or more to the point, the methods to test them were.
Astrology was a theory. It was proven false not because it was deemed untestable, but because it failed the tests. The theory is not science, but the methods to test it were.
Same deal with evolution. It's a theory. By the reading I've done it can definitely be proven false. It's not untestable. Which makes it a valid theory until such time as someone proves it wrong.
So, is there any reason we have to think evolution is wrong?