Evolution: Looking for falsification?

good brother · #1 30th July 2012, 12:58 PM

I have heard many evolutionists state that the ToE is TRYING to be falsified by the scientists who study it. These people claim that their mission in life is to try to discredit the theory. It is just that all the tests they run reverify and revalidate what they already assume.

Why is it then, that no evolutionist wants to take a hard and serious look to other theories of how life arose here on planet Earth? It seems as though that if you were really trying to falsify a claim or prediction made by evolution, one wold see what the other side is saying against ToE. Perhaps all their tests that they are running cannot falsify that which it confirms because the test is made to validate it and not falsify it.

Why do so many evolutionists simply dismiss Creationism and other presuppositions about the origin of life and all that is if they truly are scientific and wish to attempt to falsify their theory? It seems to me that they do not wish to examine any other claim that might lead to them disbelieving ToE as they do not want to thoroughly discuss the theory of Creationism and it's impact on world views.

In Christ, GB

Loudmouth · #2 30th July 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by good brother

I have heard many evolutionists state that the ToE is TRYING to be falsified by the scientists who study it.

Every time geologists search Cambrian strata for fossils they risk finding rabbit fossils. Finding such fossils would falsify evolution.

Every hypothesis based on the theory of evolution has a null hypothesis attached to it. The null hypothesis are the experimental results that would falsify the hypothesis.

Why is it then, that no evolutionist wants to take a hard and serious look to other theories of how life arose here on planet Earth?

We have looked at them. They are either untestable, or where they are testable they are falsified by the evidence. For example, we can test the idea that life was created in a 6 day stretch a few thousand years ago by dating the rocks where fossils are found. We find that this idea is falsified by the evidence.

Why do so many evolutionists simply dismiss Creationism and other presuppositions about the origin of life and all that is if they truly are scientific and wish to attempt to falsify their theory?

Begging the question, I see. We reject YEC because the evidence falsifies it. We accept the theory of evolution because the evidence supports it. It really is that simple.

It seems to me that they do not wish to examine any other claim that might lead to them disbelieving ToE as they do not want to thoroughly discuss the theory of Creationism and it's impact on world views.

In Christ, GB

We have examined it. That's the whole point.

sfs · #3 30th July 2012, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by good brother

I have heard many evolutionists state that the ToE is TRYING to be falsified by the scientists who study it. These people claim that their mission in life is to try to discredit the theory. It is just that all the tests they run reverify and revalidate what they already assume.

We're not actively trying to falsify evolution any more, since it's so well supported at this point that we'd be wasting our time. Nevertheless, as Loudmouth points out, we're constantly implicitly testing various aspects of it. And it's certainly true that finding a serious problem with the prevailing theory is a great way to make a name for yourself as a scientist.

Why is it then, that no evolutionist wants to take a hard and serious look to other theories of how life arose here on planet Earth? It seems as though that if you were really trying to falsify a claim or prediction made by evolution, one wold see what the other side is saying against ToE. Perhaps all their tests that they are running cannot falsify that which it confirms because the test is made to validate it and not falsify it.

Because there are no other real theories out there. There's young-earth creationism and a global flood, of course, but that's falsified in so many and such trivial ways that there's nothing to think about. What else should we be looking at? That is, what other models are there that are specific enough to be testable? Some years ago I wrote to several creationist organizations, asking for their explanation for some fairly basic human genetic data. One wrote back and said that someone would be in touch, and I never heard from them again. I got a reply from Hugh Ross's organization, suggesting that Ross would like my feedback on the new model they were working on, and then I never heard from them again either. So what is there to look at?

good brother · #4 30th July 2012, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by Loudmouth

Every time geologists search Cambrian strata for fossils they risk finding rabbit fossils. Finding such fossils would falsify evolution.

I could go looking for rabbits in the ocean to disprove the theory that rabbits are land based creatures, doesn't mean I'll ever find them. I could look for rabbits in the sky, but unless someone has a bunny cannon, I won't ever find them there either. Just because you say geologists go looking for a Cambrian bunny, it doesn't mean they will ever find one. Why? Because the Cambrian life was a marine life. Not a "HOO-RAH!" marine kind of life, but a "Just keep swimming" kind of marine life. Why would anyone ever expect to find a bunny there?

I am no professional scientist but I have an idea, What if, just what if, one went looking for rabbits where one would expect to find rabbits? Whoa. What a concept.

Every hypothesis based on the theory of evolution has a null hypothesis attached to it. The null hypothesis are the experimental results that would falsify the hypothesis.

Except when those tests are made to not falsify the theory. Example: We have never found a rabbit in Cambrian rock layer, therefore our theory is true. (Of course, no one would ever find a bunny in a marine rock layer because bunnies live on land, but shhhhhh, we won't tell anyone that)

We have looked at them. They are either untestable, or where they are testable they are falsified by the evidence.

Like you tested where the "One Common Ancestor" came from? Oh wait, that's not evolutionist's problem. That's for some other folks....

For example, we can test the idea that life was created in a 6 day stretch a few thousand years ago by dating the rocks where fossils are found. We find that this idea is falsified by the evidence.

Truthified Evolutionist Term, "We "know" this rock to be "X"years old because there is an organism in it that we "know" to be "X" years old. What we need to do is make a test that shows that rock to be that old. (Don't tell me that isn't true either because evolutionists have all sorts of tests to give them all sorts of any kind of number they are looking for.) Otherwise, a true scientist would test every single rock that came across their lab counter with the same method of dating to see what the evidence would say, but that isn't the case. Certain dating methods are pushed aside based upon the presupposition of the age of the rock.

Begging the question, I see. We reject YEC because the evidence falsifies it. We accept the theory of evolution because the evidence supports it. It really is that simple.

See the above statements.

We have examined it. That's the whole point.

Perhaps with blindfolds on,hands tied behind the back, noses plugged, mouths taped shut, and all the evidence in a different room.

In Christ, GB

CaliforniaSun · #5 30th July 2012, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by good brother

I have heard many evolutionists state that the ToE is TRYING to be falsified by the scientists who study it. These people claim that their mission in life is to try to discredit the theory. It is just that all the tests they run reverify and revalidate what they already assume.

Why is it then, that no evolutionist wants to take a hard and serious look to other theories of how life arose here on planet Earth? It seems as though that if you were really trying to falsify a claim or prediction made by evolution, one wold see what the other side is saying against ToE. Perhaps all their tests that they are running cannot falsify that which it confirms because the test is made to validate it and not falsify it.

Why do so many evolutionists simply dismiss Creationism and other presuppositions about the origin of life and all that is if they truly are scientific and wish to attempt to falsify their theory? It seems to me that they do not wish to examine any other claim that might lead to them disbelieving ToE as they do not want to thoroughly discuss the theory of Creationism and it's impact on world views.

In Christ, GB

I was not aware this was happening.

sfs · #6 30th July 2012, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by good brother

I could go looking for rabbits in the ocean to disprove the theory that rabbits are land based creatures, doesn't mean I'll ever find them. I could look for rabbits in the sky, but unless someone has a bunny cannon, I won't ever find them there either. Just because you say geologists go looking for a Cambrian bunny, it doesn't mean they will ever find one. Why? Because the Cambrian life was a marine life. Not a "HOO-RAH!" marine kind of life, but a "Just keep swimming" kind of marine life. Why would anyone ever expect to find a bunny there?

I am no professional scientist but I have an idea, What if, just what if, one went looking for rabbits where one would expect to find rabbits? Whoa. What a concept.

Huh? You were just complaining that we were looking where we expected to find things. Now you're complaining because we're also looking where we don't expect to find things? Yeah, we think that the only life around during the Cambrian was in the sea, but that's because we, the narrow-minded evolutionists, have reconstructed the history of life. You're telling us that our reconstruction is wrong -- so should we be looking for rabbits in the Cambrian or not? What does creationism think happened, and when did it happen?

Like you tested where the "One Common Ancestor" came from? Oh wait, that's not evolutionist's problem. That's for some other folks....

It's not my problem, but it's certainly a scientific problem, which is being worked on diligently by scientists. Again, what exactly are we supposed to be doing? How does one go about scientifically testing the hypothesis, "Somewhere, sometime, something miraculous happened."?

Truthified Evolutionist Term, "We "know" this rock to be "X"years old because there is an organism in it that we "know" to be "X" years old. What we need to do is make a test that shows that rock to be that old.

Now you're going of into random rant mode. Dating rocks is a different branch of science, and yes, they have very elaborate methods for showing how old rocks are. Why do you keep complaining about what scientists are doing, when you don't have any idea what it is that they're doing?

(Don't tell me that isn't true either because evolutionists have all sorts of tests to give them all sorts of any kind of number they are looking for.)

Okay, so now we're all lying frauds. Did you make up this slander yourself, or did you get it from somewhere else?

Otherwise, a true scientist would test every single rock that came across their lab counter with the same method of dating to see what the evidence would say, but that isn't the case. Certain dating methods are pushed aside based upon the presupposition of the age of the rock.

And based on a long history of testing rocks and seeing that the presuppositions are in fact well-supported by the evidence.

jinx25 · #7 30th July 2012, 02:39 PM

The beauty of Origin of species is that Darwins language is so vague and so opinionated that it means nothing and everything at the same time, ie. "I predict tomorrow it will rain, but then again it may not". Scientific terms have sharp definitions which lends them the ability to be falsified. NDM (neodarwinian MYTH) has no such distinction and has allowed it to reach god like status and enjoy great malleability to the extent that what may appear to be a falsifying observation made against it on first glances can actual be used as evidence for it. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

Loudmouth · #8 30th July 2012, 03:05 PM

Originally Posted by good brother

I could go looking for rabbits in the ocean to disprove the theory that rabbits are land based creatures, doesn't mean I'll ever find them.

That has nothing to do with what I wrote. Consistently finding rabbits in sediments dating to the Cambrian would falsify evolution.

I could look for rabbits in the sky, but unless someone has a bunny cannon, I won't ever find them there either. Just because you say geologists go looking for a Cambrian bunny, it doesn't mean they will ever find one. Why? Because the Cambrian life was a marine life. Not a "HOO-RAH!" marine kind of life, but a "Just keep swimming" kind of marine life. Why would anyone ever expect to find a bunny there?

There is terrestrial strata that dates to the Cambrian as well. Why don't we find any modern animals in this strata? Why can't we find a single aquatic reptile in the Cambrian?

If you would like, we could change it to finding a whale fossil in cambrian strata. Would that make you happy?

I am no professional scientist but I have an idea, What if, just what if, one went looking for rabbits where one would expect to find rabbits? Whoa. What a concept.

According to YEC, why wouldn't we expect to find rabbits in terrestrial strata dating to the Cambrian?

We have never found a rabbit in Cambrian rock layer, therefore our theory is true. (Of course, no one would ever find a bunny in a marine rock layer because bunnies live on land, but shhhhhh, we won't tell anyone that)

Cambrian does not equal marine. Cambrian equals a range of years which applies to subaerial, terrestrial strata as well. Why don't we find any modern species in this terrestrial strata?

Like you tested where the "One Common Ancestor" came from? Oh wait, that's not evolutionist's problem. That's for some other folks....

I thought we were trying to falsify Evolution? Finding that life came from multiple ancestors would not falsify evolution anyway since the theory never required a single origin of life.

Truthified Evolutionist Term, "We "know" this rock to be "X"years old because there is an organism in it that we "know" to be "X" years old.

False. We know a sediment is x years old because of the ratio of isotopes in the igneous rocks above and below the sediments.

(Don't tell me that isn't true either because evolutionists have all sorts of tests to give them all sorts of any kind of number they are looking for.)

If you are going to accuse the scientific community of fraud you should at least bring the evidence to support such a claim. Otherwise, it makes you look like you are trying to run away from the evidence.

Certain dating methods are pushed aside based upon the presupposition of the age of the rock

.

Accusations like this deserve evidence. Where is it?

Perhaps with blindfolds on,hands tied behind the back, noses plugged, mouths taped shut, and all the evidence in a different room.

So says the creationist who rejects 200 years of geologic data.

CabVet · #9 30th July 2012, 03:09 PM

People try to falsify evolution all the time. Just to give you a quick example, when we look at phylogenetic relationships between species we expect the trees to look one way if evolution happened and another if it did not. Invariably those trees support evolution.

There are at least seven scientific theories to explain how life arose in this planet, and if you look closely the Theory of Evolution is not one of them since evolution does not explain the origin of life, rather only how it evolves. The first six below are variation of abiogenesis, the 7th is not:

1) Electric Spark: Electric sparks can generate amino acids and sugars from an atmosphere loaded with water, methane, ammonia and hydrogen, as was shown in the famous Miller-Urey experiment reported in 1953, suggesting that lightning might have helped create the key building blocks of life on Earth in its early days. Over millions of years, larger and more complex molecules could form. Although research since then has revealed the early atmosphere of Earth was actually hydrogen-poor, scientists have suggested that volcanic clouds in the early atmosphere might have held methane, ammonia and hydrogen and been filled with lightning as well.

2) Community Clay: The first molecules of life might have met on clay, according to an idea elaborated by organic chemist Alexander Graham Cairns-Smith at the University of Glasgow in Scotland. These surfaces might not only have concentrated these organic compounds together, but also helped organize them into patterns much like our genes do now. The main role of DNA is to store information on how other molecules should be arranged. Genetic sequences in DNA are essentially instructions on how amino acids should be arranged in proteins. Cairns-Smith suggests that mineral crystals in clay could have arranged organic molecules into organized patterns. After a while, organic molecules took over this job and organized themselves.

3) Hydrothermal Vents: The deep-sea vent theory suggests that life may have begun at submarine hydrothermal vents, spewing key hydrogen-rich molecules. Their rocky nooks could then have concentrated these molecules together and provided mineral catalysts for critical reactions. Even now, these vents, rich in chemical and thermal energy, sustain vibrant ecosystems.

4) Chilly Start: Ice might have covered the oceans 3 billion years ago, as the sun was about a third less luminous than it is now. This layer of ice, possibly hundreds of feet thick, might have protected fragile organic compounds in the water below from ultraviolet light and destruction from cosmic impacts. The cold might have also helped these molecules to survive longer, allowing key reactions to happen.

5) RNA World: Nowadays DNA needs proteins in order to form, and proteins require DNA to form, so how could these have formed without each other? The answer may be RNA, which can store information like DNA, serve as an enzyme like proteins, and help create both DNA and proteins. Later DNA and proteins succeeded this "RNA world," because they are more efficient. RNA still exists and performs several functions in organisms, including acting as an on-off switch for some genes. The question still remains how RNA got here in the first place. And while some scientists think the molecule could have spontaneously arisen on Earth, others say that was very unlikely to have happened. Other nucleic acids other than RNA have been suggested as well, such as the more esoteric PNA or TNA.

6) Simple Beginnings: Instead of developing from complex molecules such as RNA, life might have begun with smaller molecules interacting with each other in cycles of reactions. These might have been contained in simple capsules akin to cell membranes, and over time more complex molecules that performed these reactions better than the smaller ones could have evolved, scenarios dubbed "metabolism-first" models, as opposed to the "gene-first" model of the "RNA world" hypothesis.

7) Panspermia: Perhaps life did not begin on Earth at all, but was brought here from elsewhere in space, a notion known as panspermia. For instance, rocks regularly get blasted off Mars by cosmic impacts, and a number of Martian meteorites have been found on Earth that some researchers have controversially suggested brought microbes over here, potentially making us all Martians originally. Other scientists have even suggested that life might have hitchhiked on comets from other star systems. However, even if this concept were true, the question of how life began on Earth would then only change to how life began elsewhere in space.

Freodin · #10 30th July 2012, 03:19 PM

Originally Posted by good brother

I have heard many evolutionists state that the ToE is TRYING to be falsified by the scientists who study it. These people claim that their mission in life is to try to discredit the theory. It is just that all the tests they run reverify and revalidate what they already assume.

Why is it then, that no evolutionist wants to take a hard and serious look to other theories of how life arose here on planet Earth? It seems as though that if you were really trying to falsify a claim or prediction made by evolution, one wold see what the other side is saying against ToE. Perhaps all their tests that they are running cannot falsify that which it confirms because the test is made to validate it and not falsify it.

Why do so many evolutionists simply dismiss Creationism and other presuppositions about the origin of life and all that is if they truly are scientific and wish to attempt to falsify their theory? It seems to me that they do not wish to examine any other claim that might lead to them disbelieving ToE as they do not want to thoroughly discuss the theory of Creationism and it's impact on world views.

In Christ, GB

There is a little problem with your proposal: there is no competing theory. Creationism is not a scientific theory. There isn't anything about creationism that lend itself to scientific scrunity. No data. No testable hypotesises. No experiments. No research. No detail. Creationism isn't anything but "God did it"... and it doesn't even specify just what God did.

So what do you want scientists to do?