Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 49 (9181 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: joebialek123
Post Volume: Total: 918,278 Year: 5,535/9,624 Month: 560/323 Week: 57/143 Day: 19/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Potential falsifications of the theory of evolution
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 968 (4242)
02-12-2002 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
02-12-2002 11:41 AM


quote:
Originally posted by minnemooseus:
This little packet appears all over the place, as the qualities that a valid theory should have.
It should have:
1) testable hypotheses
2) confirming evidence
3) potential falsifications
I would be interested in exploring the potential falsifications part of this trio. Since I can honestly disavow having previously posted same trio, I leave it to one of the others of the evolution side, to supply some potential falsifications.
Moose

Just some examples off the top of my head
3) potential falsifications:
-Fossils found out of sequence;
i.e. fossilized human (or flowering plant) remains found in Precambrian rock layers;
-Demonstrating the age of the Earth is less than 10K years.
-Demonstrating DNA cannot vary or change from generation to generation.
-Demonstrating similar species have less genetic similarity than dis-similar species; i.e. showing Chicken DNA is closer to human DNA than Chimpanzee DNA
-A dog giving birth to a cat =o)
Kind Regards,

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-12-2002 11:41 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 968 (5115)
02-19-2002 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by KingPenguin
02-12-2002 11:24 PM


quote:
Originally posted by KingPenguin:
hehehehe thats funny and your right according to websters dictionary, so congratulations you won.
that sucks for creationists then, they have to prove every single part of it wrong.

Actually, you need only to demonstrate the refutation of a single example of those we provided. ANY one of them would falsify the ToE. You don’t have to ‘prove every single one of them’.
[b] [QUOTE] the theory of evolution is evolving itself, a little weird.
[/b][/QUOTE]
Wouldn’t you be suspicious of a ‘statically unchanging’ theory that didn’t have to address new evidence ?
What explanatory worth would it have ?
Ohh, sorry. Poor choice of questions on my part.
I suppose you aren’t suspicious of Young Earth Creationism. =o)
Therein lies the chief contrast between the ToE and YECism.
- One throws out ( or amends ) the bad hypothesis when contradicting evidence is revealed.
- The other maintains the obsolete hypothesis and throws out the contradicting evidence.
[b] [QUOTE] also one thing that cant disprove the evolution is the bible, its all made on understandings and lessons for lifes. its not a scientific journal that its been claimed many times to be. [/b][/QUOTE]
Bravo ~!
A treatise on ideology, philosophy and morality cannot comment on the physical, natural mechanisms we observe and seek to understand in science.
We should celebrate any common ground between the two camps.
Kind regards,
jeff

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by KingPenguin, posted 02-12-2002 11:24 PM KingPenguin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Minnemooseus, posted 02-19-2002 10:50 PM Jeff has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024