Falsifiability

[USincognito]

as evolution.

An assertion that can only be made from rank ignorance. Lists of potential falsifications have been posted here numerous times over the year.

Here's post with a list of potential falsifications from last November.
Tiktaalik vs. Bacterial Flagellum

Actually it's quite easy. Here's just a few potential falsifications off the top of my head.
- Discovering a bird with wings and arms
- Lobsters with vertebral column
- A Triassic horse
- A Permian T-Rex
- A Silurian amphibian
- A Cambrian apple tree
- Roses with melanocytes
- Primates being more close genetically to Xenarthrans (anteaters, sloths, etc.) than to rodents and rabbits
- Frogs with fur
etc. etc.

Any one of those things alone would be enough to falsify evolution.​

 

[Speedwell]

I understand what you're saying. We're not writing a thesis so I'm okay with using "proof" in a colloquial sense (I have a few research degrees under my belt, so I've had that part of the argument handed to me numerous times via a few seasoned scientists)

There is a lot of sensitivity around here on this point. Creationists have for years cynically used the equivocation in sophistical arguments, demanding "proof" as if they meant "confirming evidence" and then rejecting confirming evidence because it is not "proof" as in math or logic..

 

[TBDude65]

There is a lot of sensitivity around here on this point. Creationists have for years cynically used the equivocation in sophistical arguments, demanding "proof" as if they meant "confirming evidence" and then rejecting confirming evidence because it is not "proof" as in math or logic..

Again, I've dealt with my fair share of creationists using this misconstrued way too. Part of what I think is necessary in a conversation is to get a creationist to commit to a definition on this point. An issue they are typically hard-pressed to do as it may mean defining "proof" in such a way that their god is incapable of being proven and therefore known, or they will concede to the definition that "proven true" is an acceptable way of saying that something has been sufficiently shown to be fact (whether it is via science, logic, math, or another internally and logical system of deducing facts)

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're using proof in a colloquial sense. Go ahead and read that link I provided. Proof is only found in math and logic (and liquor). Because all scientific propositions must potentially be falsifiable with new data none of them, from hypotheses to theories, are ever considered proven.

Or to a legal standard. People seem to forget that the standard in a criminal trial is "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt". By that standard the theory of evolution has been "proven" more thoroughly than any criminal trial in the history of the U.S..

 

[AV1611VET]

Or to a legal standard. People seem to forget that the standard in a criminal trial is "Proof beyond a reasonable doubt". By that standard the theory of evolution has been "proven" more thoroughly than any criminal trial in the history of the U.S..

Except in 1925.

 

[Speedwell]

Except in 1925.

That trial wasn't about whether the theory of evolution was true, but about whether John Scopes had been teaching it.

 

[AV1611VET]

That trial wasn't about whether the theory of evolution was true, but about whether John Scopes had been teaching it.

Why? did he deny it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Except in 1925.

Sorry, you fail again. Evolution was not on trial, whether a teacher taught it illegally was the case. As a result an obviously biased judge thought that he could keep evidence for evolution out of the trial. Scopes would have won on appeal.. But since the fine was a mere pittance he decided not to appeal the case.

 

[AV1611VET]

Sorry, you fail again. Evolution was not on trial, whether a teacher taught it illegally was the case. As a result an obviously biased judge thought that he could keep evidence for evolution out of the trial. Scopes would have won on appeal.. But since the fine was a mere pittance he decided not to appeal the case.

We're talking about the Scopes Monkey Trial, right?

 

[Speedwell]

We're talking about the Scopes Monkey Trial, right?

Right. Scopes wasn't actually a biology teacher. He regularly taught math, physics and chemistry and was only subbing in the biology class. But the ACLU wanted a test case and he volunteered for it, admitting that he used a textbook which taught evolution, though it's not entirely clear that he ever actually taught evolution to the class. He was found guilty and fined a nominal sum.

 

[Subduction Zone]

We're talking about the Scopes Monkey Trial, right?

Of course.

 

[Speedwell]

The conviction was overturned on appeal, Scopes left teaching and went to graduate school to become an oil geologist, a career he pursued for the rest of his life.

 

[USincognito]

Why are you guys even dignifying this nonsense? Just ignore it.

 

[Speedwell]

Why are you guys even dignifying this nonsense? Just ignore it.

You have to put the information out there--AV may not have known any more about the Scopes trial than his handlers told him.

 

[USincognito]

You have to put the information out there--AV may not have known any more about the Scopes trial than his handlers told him.

This is from 2007.
Proof that Creationist belive in Evolution.

He relies on people like you who haven't been her for the duration to not know his long history of nonsense. He's had the Scopes trial explained to him ad nauseum.

 

[xianghua]

How would a "cat evolving wings" falsify creationism? What is predicted (through creationism) that would predict anything related to a cat evolving wings?

since according to creationism a cat cant evolve wings.

 

[xianghua]

An assertion that can only be made from rank ignorance. Lists of potential falsifications have been posted here numerous times over the year.

Here's post with a list of potential falsifications from last November.
Tiktaalik vs. Bacterial Flagellum

Actually it's quite easy. Here's just a few potential falsifications off the top of my head.
- Discovering a bird with wings and arms
- Lobsters with vertebral column
- A Triassic horse
- A Permian T-Rex
- A Silurian amphibian
- A Cambrian apple tree
- Roses with melanocytes
- Primates being more close genetically to Xenarthrans (anteaters, sloths, etc.) than to rodents and rabbits
- Frogs with fur
etc. etc.

Any one of those things alone would be enough to falsify evolution.​

actually non of these instances will falsify evolution. if we will find a human with a T-rex for instance evolutionists will just push back human origin or will claim for convergent evolution (human like creature evolved twice). so no- evolution will not be refuted.

 

[Subduction Zone]

since according to creationism a cat cant evolve wings.

Where does creationism claim this? From what I have seen creationists avoid testable claims. It is true that this is an extreme case that is almost certainly not testable, but it is the sort of ignorant claim that creationists make.

 

[Subduction Zone]

actually non of these instances will falsify evolution. if we will find a human with a T-rex for instance evolutionists will just push back human origin or will claim for convergent evolution (human like creature evolved twice). so no- evolution will not be refuted.

That is not the case. That human would be clearly before his predecessors. That would refute the theory. That is why creationists fall for such hoaxes as the Ika Stones and misinterpret dinosaur footprints.

 

[xianghua]

That is not the case. That human would be clearly before his predecessors. That would refute the theory.

no. we can push back the predecessors too. scientists do it all the time.