01 Apr 05
Originally posted by WulebgrFalsifiability.
Surely you mean Creationism.
If it is not a typo, please explain one tenet of science that evolutionary theory violates. This thread is as good as any other (after all, Chucky's name graces the title).
There must be some criteria which you can say would disprove the theory. If X is true, then theory Y is false.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiEvolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, because it has survived repeated tests. You have managed to define evolution's strength, not its weakness.
Falsifiability.
There must be some criteria which you can say would disprove the theory. If X is true, then theory Y is false.
However, Creationism as a general theory fails on this very criterion of falsifiability. In defense of their general theory, Creationists do put forth propositions that can be tested from time to time, and their work demonstrates a long string of failures.
Consider as one of hundreds upon hundreds of examples:
"The reptile-bird intermediates mentioned above date from the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous (about 150 million years ago), whereas pelycosauria and therapsida (reptile-mammal intermediates) are older and date from the Carboniferous and the Permian (about 250 to 350 million years ago, see the Geological Time Scale). This is precisely what should be observed if the fossil record matches the standard phylogenetic tree.
The most scientifically rigorous method of confirming this prediction is to demonstrate a positive corellation between phylogeny and stratigraphy, i.e. a positive corellation between the order of taxa in a phylogenetic tree and the geological order in which those taxa first appear and last appear (whether for living or extinct intermediates). For instance, within the error inherent in the fossil record, prokaryotes should appear first, followed by simple multicellular animals like sponges and starfish, then lampreys, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, etc., as shown in Figure 1. Contrary to the erroneous (and unreferenced) opinions of some anti-evolutionists (e.g. Wise 1994, p. 225-226), studies from the past ten years addressing this very issue have confirmed that there is indeed a positive corellation between phylogeny and stratigraphy, with statistical significance (Benton 1998; Benton and Hitchin 1996; Benton and Hitchin 1997; Benton et al. 1999; Benton et al. 2000; Benton and Storrs 1994; Clyde and Fisher 1997; Hitchin and Benton 1997; Huelsenbeck 1994; Norell and Novacek 1992a; Norell and Novacek 1992b; Wills 1999). Using three different measures of phylogeny-stratigraphy correlation [the RCI, GER, and SCI (Ghosts 2.4 software, Wills 1999)], a high positive correlation was found between the standard phylogenetic tree portrayed in Figure 1 and the stratigraphic range of the same taxa, with very high statistical significance (P < 0.0001) (this work, Ghosts input file available upon request)."
Theobald, Douglas L. "29+ Evidences Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." The Talk.Origins Archive. Vers. 2.83. 2004. 12 Jan, 2004 <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/>
01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrOf course, that is a strength of any good pseudoscience. The Theory of Evolution (TOE), it impossible to disprove. It has no falsifiability. Its no use in saying all the data supports it, TOE so broad as almost anything could be said to support it. That is why its poor science. Dig up a rock and voilà, evidence for TOE.
Evolution is a theory, not a hypothesis, because it has survived repeated tests. You have managed to define evolution's strength, not its weakness....
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by Coletti"The reptile-bird intermediates mentioned above date from the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous (about 150 million years ago), whereas pelycosauria and therapsida (reptile-mammal intermediates) are older and date from the Carboniferous and the Permian (about 250 to 350 million years ago, see the Geological Time Scale). This is precisely what should be observed if the fossil record matches the standard phylogenetic tree. [snip]"
It has no falsifiability.
Please read before reciting your mantra.
01 Apr 05
1 edit
Originally posted by WulebgrYou do not understand the concept of falsifiability. If they had not found that fossil when an where it was found, that would not falsify TOE.
"The reptile-bird intermediates mentioned above date from the Upper Jurassic and Lower Cretaceous ...This is precisely what should be observed if the fossil record matches the standard phylogenetic tree. [snip]"
Please read before reciting your mantra.
Neither the lack or abundance of evidence is the issue of falsifiability.
Falsifiability is having specific criteria the would prove the theory false. That is a fundamental tenant of science, a theory that can not be proven false due to it's mutability is scientifically useless.
The phylogenetic tree is broad and flexible. It has been redrawn so many times it could be used for an animated cartoon. And like a cartoon it defies the laws of nature, it's branches do not need to be connected, and you can rearrange them at will. Look! It's waving at you! 🙂
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiRead Karl Popper; then we can discuss this.
You do not understand the concept of falsifiability. If they had not found that fossil when an where it was found, that would not falsify TOE.
Neither the lack or abundance of evidence is the issue of falsifiability.
Falsifiability is having specific criteria the would prove the theory false. That is a fundamental tenant of science, a theory that ...[text shortened]... o not need to be connected, and you can rearrange them at will. Look! It's waving at you! 🙂
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by ColettiAnd how do they date the fossil? They may make use the goelogic column. And where do the dates for the different strata from the geologic column come from? Oh the strata in the geologic column gets its date from the the age of the fossils that is found in that specific strata in the geologic column. So the fossils are dated by the age of the strata of the geologic column in which it is found, and the age of the stata of the geologic column is given by the age of the fossil. And if you find a fosilised hat in a layer of strata that is dated 15 billion years old then the hat must be 15 billion years old. There is no falsifiability.
Of course, that is a strength of any good pseudoscience. The Theory of Evolution (TOE), it impossible to disprove. It has no falsifiability. Its no use in saying all the data supports it, TOE so broad as almost anything could be said to support it. That is why its poor science. Dig up a rock and voilà, evidence for TOE.
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by Coletti"Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools."
Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
That should help.
from your reference; thanks for the acknowledgement that you've been wrong all along
01 Apr 05
Originally posted by WulebgrSure 🙂
"Falsifiability was one of the criteria used by Judge William Overton to determine that 'creation science' was not scientific and should not be taught in Arkansas public schools."
from your reference; thanks for the acknowledgement that you've been wrong all along
if you agree the TOE is as scientific as my big toe. Short of biting it off, I don't think you can falsify my toe. 😉