Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism

I'm having trouble understanding how falsifying the semi-conservative model of DNA replication could possibly falsify ToE. I'm also having trouble understanding what the same model has to do with the statement "That is, in sexually reproducing organisms, half come from one and half from the other." to do. Care to elaborate?

The ToE doesn't say anything about wether or not dinosuars and humans coexisted, that's a dating/geology issue not a biological one. Its not a side tangent to the ToE, its a different subject altogether.Edited by DrJones*, : added the last sentance

---

Just a monkey in a long line of kings.
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist!
*not an actual doctor

ToE is a theory adhering to scientific philosophy. As such, it is falsifiable. Instead of making claims such as this, why don't you try to adress the examples that have already been given in this thread that would falsify ToE (including the way it is possible to reject ToE by supplying a new scientific theory that better explains the diversity of life we have today).

evidence for this? its not remotely a philosophy in the sense you are using it, we use philosophy to frame science, but ToE is a theory not a philosophy, i'm not sure do you know what philosophies are? go read a few books on ToE, the theory can't do what you are claiming, if we are descended from an ape-like creature going down to the first mammals as the thoery saidwe are, there is no way the thoery can adjust to the fossil of a man being in strata before the many anscesters existed.
ok as an example if we found fossils of humans in strata with ONLY spineless animals and nothing higher the theory would be false since it says we wouldn't find an animal with a spine before spines deveopled guess what? thats not how it works, we find maybe the tail-end of speciation and can re-classify it, but we will never see natural speciation in real-time, speciation can be seen in labs but that is not natural speciation - this has no limits, what could the limit be?if there was it would falsify the theory evidence of this? you have no basis for this claim, the court ruled that ID was not science and should not be taught in schools. it will never be illegal to bring up problems you have with ToE, but don't expect people to play nice if your problems with it are not problems or are strawman of the theory, since this is your misunderstanding the theory and not the theory itself - Your "fact" is just wrongby the way ID is a philosophy since you can't ever falsify it, being that the basis comes down to GOD and god can do anything, how do you falsify that?

Unfortunately, the judge decided that teaching the difficulties of evolution was equal to promoting a religion. So, even your "many more things to learn..." wouldn't be allowed.And yeah, and since there's over 600 qualified doctors who don't believe in evolutionary theory. Yeah, it's better than the mind numbing indoctrination that's currently happening.

My accusation that ToE isn't science but philosophy, is based in the fact that it's directly tied to the philosophy of naturalism.
For example. ToE doesn't explain the diversity of life at all. It simply waves one's hand and states that all are descended from a common ancestor. It in no way explains how or why such diversity exists. Why information exists on DNA? In fact, there's far more that's not explained by ToE than is supposedly explained.

Yeah, and I remember when Punctuated Equilibrium was developed. Evolutionist will rationalize an answer, despite the evidence. Making it a philosophy, not a theory. Bingo! You just stated what I've been saying. "This has no limits..." That is not theory, but faith, or belief or philosophy.
Fact is that when species are pushed far enough, they die. There are limits to speciation, and that can be observed in the lab. Since ID wasn't being taught in Dover, the court was ruling that simply teaching the difficulties of ToE was promoting religion.
The book, "Icons of Evolution" doesn't talk about ID, but about evolutionists.Since, ID doesn't reference *who* only that design can be detected, your accusation is false. Unless you wish to say that detecting design always means detecting a God?

Well, then explain to me why it is considered to be a criterion for falsifying the ToE as others have argued here, including jar. My argument has been that it wouldn't make any difference to the ToE. His is that it would.

The only thing mind-numbing is the numbers game. Want to have a stab at how many doctors ARE believers in evolution? Two million? Ten million? More?

quote:

---

My accusation that ToE isn't science but philosophy, is based in the fact that it's directly tied to the philosophy of naturalism.

---

All science is. Astronomy can't directly prove that angels DON'T guide the planets in their orbits. Nevertheless materialistic theories that explain those orbits are accepted, and no scientist goes looking for supernatural alternatives. It is the same in EVERY field of science. All the major theories are materialistic and no supernaturalistic alternative is considered.

quote:

---

For example. ToE doesn't explain the diversity of life at all. It simply waves one's hand and states that all are descended from a common ancestor. It in no way explains how or why such diversity exists.

---

You are wrong. Firstly evolution explains the nature of that diversity very well - the nested hierarchy is a natural outcome of evolution. Secondly evolution leads us to expect diversification. Splitting of species is required by evolution - and if species split then we would expect them to follow different trajectories of evolution.

Darwins thoughs where lead by the very question of diversity , the classic evo quote "if god made all creatures he love bettles best "
ToE clearly tries to show mechanisums for one line to diverge leading on to multiple lines ....remember it is a TheoryToE came before DNA discovery , DNA compliments the ToE by providing a method of inheritence . . . and difference with in a population of traits .
ToE does not try to explain DNA ..that is science call genetics , and genetics is making large steps in explaining the infomation carried by the DNA of a organisum ...
ToE makes use of the knowlegde from genetics to look at the detail evolution .One of the difficulties of fully understanding ToE is it is a multi disipline theory , it draws on genetics , biochemisty , ecology , geogolgy , nuclear physics , archology , cellular biology , planetolgy , and a host of other , you need to be able to read each of these areas to get the coherent picture .Most people are simple not that widly educated or have time/ interest to look so wide . Personally , with a BSc in biochemistry , i find there are many areas i need to stop and find a few books to understand a asspect of it .Also the ToE operates over vast distances , of time , who can visualize 1,000 years ... a blink in the ToE , tey 5,000 , 10,000 , 100,000 .lastly ToE suffers from being popular , i do not mean in the CvE debate i mean in the media , and so we are all given very dumb down versions of it OR equal bad portions of it out of context . e.g.
Dinosaurs are TV stars , yet every prog lump the curent Favs together reguardless of evidence .

What you are in fact saying is, then, that there is no such thing as science. ALL science is based on naturalism, don't you know! This is irrelevant, of course. Since ToE can be shown to be wrong, it is falsifiable. While stamements like these are disturbing, they also amuse me. They are also off topic. Gosh, barring the "supposedly", I can actually agree with this. There is still a lot to be explained. But that's why we do science, isn't it?

hughes says: What is this 'philosophy of naturalism'? It explains volumes about it, actually--in a way that makes the theory of evolution an excellent predictor of discoveries. That's one hallmark of a good theory.You are the one, I'm afraid, who is waving your hand in blanket dismissal. Right now this is more true of your posts than the ToE. But you can fix that.Please explain what you mean by this 'philosophy of naturalism.'Edited by Archer Opterix, : Fixed typo.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Faith: A lot would depend on the stratum. Miocene? You likely win the bet. It wouldn't make a lot of difference. Scientists would just conclude that at least one strand of non-avian dinosaur survived the K-T extinction as a 'living fossil.' Jurassic? More of a toss-up. Our understanding of mammal evolution would have to be completely overhauled to account for this and it would raise questions in other areas. Still, the ancestors of mammals were around long before this (Permian, Triassic) so the first thing people would go to work on is finding primate ancestors in those strata. Pre-Cambrian? jar likely wins the bet. But other factors still play a role.A great deal would also depend on whether a credible alternative theory exists. If one does not, then of course scientists will revise the one they have until a better theory comes along.A great deal would also depend on how many specimens you're talking about over how wide a geographical area. Does the established chronology of natural history remain an excellent predictor of fossil strata around the world, except for this one startling specimen? If so, the specimen still raises plenty of questions. But it doesn't upset the apple cart the same way that finding human bones and dinosaur bones in an undifferentiated jumble in various locations on four continents would. That would go along way toward invalidating the entire chronological model.Those are my thoughts. But there's only one sure way to settle this dispute. Produce a fossil Brachiosaur with the bones of Fred Flintstone between its toes, and see what happens.Place your bets.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Hughes: If what quantities of qualified scientists have to say on the subject really matters to you, you will be an evolutionist.Project Steve:
http://www.ncseweb.org/...s/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.aspEdited by Archer Opterix, : Fixed HTML code.Edited by Archer Opterix, : REALLY fixed it.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.