For those wondering what "macroevolution" actually is...

[Buzzard3]

Anyone disproving ToE would be a towering figure in the
history if science

How would you define the theory of evolution?

 

[Shemjaza]

How would you define the theory of evolution?

The Theory of Evolution is an explanation for the observed long term changes in life.

It is the change in the frequency of heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations as an explanation for the diversity of life.

With mutation as a source of biological variation and natural selection as a driver for change in frequency of variation in a population.


Why are you pretending not to know what it means?

 

[Job 33:6]

Actually I asked what you think of Discovery Institute.
Is your answer that they cannot be trusted?

Yes

 

[Buzzard3]

Anyone disproving ToE would be a towering figure in the
history if science

Depends what you mean by ToE. If you simply mean the theory that says the history of life on earth is due to a process of contiguous biological change, that theory will never be disproven, since it's the one and only plausible scientific explanation. And it's safe to say a rabbit fossil will never be found in the Cambrian. There will never arise another scientific theory to rival evolution, so it will forever remain, simply by default.

But if you include in "ToE" the part that says that process of biological change is due to mutations and natural selection, well I think that part might be unscientific, because I can't see how that claim can be falsified.

 

[Astrid]

How would you define the theory of evolution?

Kind of off topic response but,
I'd use any or all of the standard
definitions depending on how much
detail seems called for.
Why?

 

[Astrid]

Depends what you mean by ToE. If you simply mean the theory that says the history of life on earth is due to a process of contiguous biological change, that theory will never be disproven, since it's the one and only plausible scientific explanation. And it's safe to say a rabbit fossil will never be found in the Cambrian. There will never arise another scientific theory to rival evolution, so it will forever remain, simply by default.

But if you include in "ToE" the part that says that process of biological change is due to mutations and natural selection, well I think that part might be unscientific, because I can't see how that claim can be falsified.

ToE is not at all likely to be disproved, though not because
its the only theory that fits the facts.

Theories are disproved if they dont fit the facts.
No contrary facts have emerged, to date.

A "theory" that is unfalsifiable is junk.

Im curious what your objection to ToE is.

As for mutation and selection-
There may well be other factors in the development of life.
Uncovering them will certainly not falsify anything since no
claim of exclusivity is made.

There is nothing unscientific about that.

 

[Job 33:6]

But if you include in "ToE" the part that says that process of biological change is due to mutations and natural selection, well I think that part might be unscientific, because I can't see how that claim can be falsified.

Isn't it funny how things that are demonstrably true cannot be falsified?

One way to disprove that mutations result in things like speciation, would be to demonstrate that morphological traits are not a product of DNA and mutations that effect DNA. Thus disproving that mutations are the cause of change in morphology and thus are not the cause of evolution. That would be one way to falsify mutations by natural selection as an explanation for evolution.

 

[Astrid]

Yes

Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography | National Center for Science Education

 

[Job 33:6]

Analysis of the Discovery Institute's Bibliography | National Center for Science Education

Oh I know all too well.

I have an example before that I'll share here of the dishonesty of the DI.

See link here: Evolution, one more argument against

They don't actually have their own research in favor of their position. Rather they take research from others, add in intellectual gymnastics to twist the conclusions of the research, and focus on the most deep and obscure topics in an effort to undermine the theory. For example, to undermine the fossil succession, rather than looking at 600 million years of macro post-cambrian, well preserved fossils, they focus on precambrian soft bodied, lesser preserved fossils and microscopic fossils of extensively deep time.

It's just a big dishonest approach to the entire topic. Where rather than looking at 99% of the fossil succession, they'd rather put overwhelming attention on the 1% of super ancient poorly preserved fossils, in an effort to undermine the theory.

 

[Astrid]

Oh I know all too well.

I have an example before that I'll share here of the dishonesty of the DI.

Go ahead

 

[Buzzard3]

A "theory" that is unfalsifiable is junk ...

How do you falsify the theory that the history of life on earth is due to a process of natural selection acting on mutations?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Depends what you mean by ToE. If you simply mean the theory that says the history of life on earth is due to a process of contiguous biological change, that theory will never be disproven, since it's the one and only plausible scientific explanation. And it's safe to say a rabbit fossil will never be found in the Cambrian. There will never arise another scientific theory to rival evolution, so it will forever remain, simply by default.

But if you include in "ToE" the part that says that process of biological change is due to mutations and natural selection, well I think that part might be unscientific, because I can't see how that claim can be falsified.

Question for you: if life did not evolve through mutations and natural selection, what is the alternative?

 

[ottawak]

How do you falsify the theory that the history of life on earth is due to a process of natural selection acting on mutations?

By finding a creature, or the fossilized remains of one, whose morphology cannot be explained by the theory. The classic conversational example is finding a fossilized rabbit amongst the other fossilized creatures of the Cambrian.

 

[AV1611VET]

Question for you: if life did not evolve through mutations and natural selection, what is the alternative?

That life did not evolve.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That life did not evolve.

I did not ask you.

 

[AV1611VET]

By finding a creature, or the fossilized remains of one, whose morphology cannot be explained by the theory. The classic conversational example is finding a fossilized rabbit amongst the other fossilized creatures of the Cambrian.

Interesting.

Rabbits are mammals. From the perspective of the philosophy of science, it is doubtful whether the genuine discovery of mammalian fossils in Precambrian rocks would overthrow the theory of evolution instantly, though if authentic, such a discovery would indicate serious errors in modern understanding about the evolutionary process.

SOURCE

Yet that would falsify it for you?

 

[AV1611VET]

I did not ask you.

Whew!

I thought there for a minute you were calling me a buzzard!

 

[ottawak]

Interesting.


SOURCE

Yet that would falsify it for you?

It might. Your Wikipedia article explains it adequately.

 

[AV1611VET]

It might.

I highly doubt it.

 

[ottawak]

I highly doubt it.

Why not? Theories have been falsified before, and all that means is that scientists have to get back to work a little harder. It certainly wouldn't effect my personal life that much.