How should we view a falsified hypothesis

[pshun2404]

I understand what falsification means. The point Popper was making is that for any subject or claim to be considered scientific, it must be possibly untrue. Scientific inquiry can only be concerned with something that may be true, or may be false, OR else it is a purely that area of science which is descriptive inquiry describing physical characteristics regarding a topic, substance, structure, and so on (mass, weight, speed, chemical content, and so on). I was playing the’ advocate against’ for the sake of making readers of a thread I was on so I will share here and see what pops (no pun intendend)!

Falsifiability is an important factor in modern science and is essential to substantiating verifiability. Anything not also possibly untrue cannot be the subject of such inquiry and truly be considered scientific.

So now take for example the hypothetical idea that one organism over millions of years becomes other kinds of organisms (say amphibians to land walking reptiles) via the processes of natural selection, mutation, and speciation. Is it falsifiable? Yes! Is it therefore viably subjectable to scientific inquiry? Yes! Has it been? Yes!

So far as I can see, because after many decades or research we actually ONLY have evidence that speciation produces variety of the same organism (E-Coli after 80,000 generations are still E-Coli, Darwin’s finches are still finches, and so on) to me this IS evidence that falsifies the hypothesis. This is also true with mutations. The only evidence we have, shows that with mutation we see no transmutation into other organisms. I believe this IS verifiable evidence that the premise is falsified.

So two out of three of the legs the premise stands on are gone and if we skip the conceptual paradigm and just look at the evidence. What should we conclude?

The premise can be falsified (so it is scientific according to this approach), and it has been falsified (according to the only verifiable evidence we can observe and/or have tested), so do we take the reality and re-shape the hypothesis, or make the reality fit the hypothesis? Which approach is good science?

 

[sfs]

So far as I can see, because after many decades or research we actually ONLY have evidence that speciation produces variety of the same organism

From this we should immediately conclude that you lack any ability to evaluate the evidence for common descent. Biologists say there is overwhelming evidence for common descent. You say there isn't. They're right and you're wrong. It's really that simple.

 

[sfs]

So far as I can see, because after many decades or research we actually ONLY have evidence that speciation produces variety of the same organism[/QUOTE
From this we should immediately conclude that you lack any ability to evaluate the evidence for common descent. Biologists say there is overwhelming evidence for common descent. You say there isn't. They're right and you're wrong. It's really that simple.

 

[pshun2404]

sfs, I will assume this was you because I know I did not write it...

You said "From this we should immediately conclude that you lack any ability to evaluate the evidence for common descent. Biologists say there is overwhelming evidence for common descent. You say there isn't. They're right and you're wrong. It's really that simple."

No! What I said here (and I am glad to accept any challenge to it) is that these two arms of the theory (hypothesis) HAVE BEEN falsified by the actual evidence.

The scientific method therefore REQUIRES a re-evaluation of the hypothesis and that the hypothesis be shaped by the actual data.

Argumentum ad populum is a faulty logic and does not apply to what I wrote. If I am incorrect, do not fault to an appeal to authority, show that I am incorrect by an equal and adequate set of examples.

I did not make up the requirement of or adherence to the principle of falsification, I merely applied it.

 

[Speedwell]

No! What I said here (and I am glad to accept any challenge to it) is that these two arms of the theory (hypothesis) HAVE BEEN falsified by the actual evidence.

It looks to memore like you have tried to falsify it by the absence of evidence, which won't work.

 

[sfs]

No! What I said here (and I am glad to accept any challenge to it) is that these two arms of the theory (hypothesis) HAVE BEEN falsified by the actual evidence.

Yes, I know that's what you're saying. I'm saying that you're wrong. The evidence in favor of the hypothesis is overwhelming. The evidence that you say falsifies the hypothesis is the absence of direct observation of large-scale changes -- changes that shouldn't occur within a human lifespan if evolutionary biology is correct. In fact, the speed of evolution we see in the lab, or in the field with the finches, for example, is orders of magnitude faster than the typical rate seen in the fossil record.

The evidence for the hypothesis, meanwhile, lies in all of the phylogenetic, biogeographic, paleontological and genetic data that you ignore.

(Sorry about the mangled quotation -- I was having trouble interacting with CF. I've fixed it now.)

 

[pshun2404]

It looks to memore like you have tried to falsify it by the absence of evidence, which won't work.

And how is that Speedwell...repeatedly scientists have shown that speciation produces variety and nothing more (in nature and in the laboratory)...this IS direct evidence that counteracts the hypothesis is it not? Absence of evidence has nothing to do with it.

 

[pshun2404]

Yes, I know that's what you're saying. I'm saying that you're wrong. The evidence in favor of the hypothesis is overwhelming. The evidence that you say falsifies the hypothesis is the absence of direct observation of large-scale changes -- changes that shouldn't occur within a human lifespan if evolutionary biology is correct. In fact, the speed of evolution we see in the lab, or in the field with the finches, for example, is orders of magnitude faster than the typical rate seen in the fossil record.

The evidence for the hypothesis, meanwhile, lies in all of the phylogenetic, biogeographic, paleontological and genetic data that you ignore.

(Sorry about the mangled quotation -- I was having trouble interacting with CF. I've fixed it now.)

"I know that's what you're saying. I'm saying that you're wrong."

So okay let's say we go with that. Then you do agree that speciation does not support the hypothesis and we must rely on "phylogenetic, biogeographic, paleontological and genetic data" to arrive at the correct conclusion. Right? So aside from genetic data (which we exhausted on another thread that we could discuss again later) what does or how does biogeographic data confirm the hypothesis that speciation causes or leads to this transmutation? You may be correct but how do you think it supports the hypothesis I think it falsifies it even further.

So you start. What about biogeography as support for the idea of one organism becoming totally different kinds of organisms over time?

 

[Speedwell]

And how is that Speedwell...repeatedly scientists have shown that speciation produces variety and nothing more (in nature and in the laboratory)...this IS direct evidence that counteracts the hypothesis is it not? Absence of evidence has nothing to do with it.

If you agree to speciation, then it's over. The higher taxa are just groupings of multiple speciation events.

And in any case, I don't understand how speciation is evidence for creatures popping into existence without ancestors.

But I'm not sure if I have a dog in this fight. I see universal common ancestry as a reasonable inference from the branching nature of evolutionary and can see no reason, neither scientific nor theological, not to accept it on that basis.

 

[Speedwell]

So you start. What about biogeography as support for the idea of one organism becoming totally different kinds of organisms over time?

You're going to have to expand on that "totally different kinds." From where I sit they all look like organisms to me, with more similarities in their physiology than differences.

 

[sfs]

Then you do agree that speciation does not support the hypothesis and we must rely on "phylogenetic, biogeographic, paleontological and genetic data" to arrive at the correct conclusion. Right?

No, I didn't agree to that. The fact that we can observe one species in the process of splitting into two is one piece of evidence that supports the hypothesis that all life shares a small number of common ancestors. It's not adequate by itself, though, no.

So aside from genetic data (which we exhausted on another thread that we could discuss again later)

No thread on this forum has even touched on most genetic data relevant to common descent, much less exhausted it.

So you start. What about biogeography as support for the idea of one organism becoming totally different kinds of organisms over time?

Nothing, because there are no totally different kinds of organisms. All known organisms are one kind: they share a core set of features, including genetic material and replication, transcription, translation and metabolic processes.

What biogeography does provide evidence for is that organisms that look very different share a common ancestor. The evidence lies in the fact that organisms tend to be more similar to organisms that live near them; animals on islands, for example, tend to look like animals on the nearby mainland rather than like animals in distant parts of the world. This can be seen on a range of scales, from very small differences (Galapagos finches), to larger differences (Hawaiian honeycreepers), to really dramatic differences that exceed anything anyone would include within a single kind (Australian marsupials).

 

[pshun2404]

You're going to have to expand on that "totally different kinds." From where I sit they all look like organisms to me, with more similarities in their physiology than differences.

As the premise defined this referred to the concept of say fish becoming changed over time into amphibians or amphibians into reptiles...etc.

 

[Speedwell]

As the premise defined this referred to the concept of say fish becoming changed over time into amphibians or amphibians into reptiles...etc.

So not "totally different kinds" then. In fact, little or no qualitative differences at all.

 

[pshun2404]

No, I didn't agree to that. The fact that we can observe one species in the process of splitting into two is one piece of evidence that supports the hypothesis that all life shares a small number of common ancestors. It's not adequate by itself, though, no.

No thread on this forum has even touched on most genetic data relevant to common descent, much less exhausted it.

Nothing, because there are no totally different kinds of organisms. All known organisms are one kind: they share a core set of features, including genetic material and replication, transcription, translation and metabolic processes.

What biogeography does provide evidence for is that organisms that look very different share a common ancestor. The evidence lies in the fact that organisms tend to be more similar to organisms that live near them; animals on islands, for example, tend to look like animals on the nearby mainland rather than like animals in distant parts of the world. This can be seen on a range of scales, from very small differences (Galapagos finches), to larger differences (Hawaiian honeycreepers), to really dramatic differences that exceed anything anyone would include within a single kind (Australian marsupials).

What do YOU mean by splitting into two? I am talking about fish transmuting over time into amphibians pr amphibians transmuting over time into reptiles.

"No thread on this forum has even touched on most genetic data relevant to common descent, much less exhausted it."

Yes there is. See the thread on ERVs (I think it is titled "Viruses that confirm Common Descent")

Yes all organisms share commonalities (that does not necessitate lineage)...all mammals have hair, lungs, mammary glands, faces...so what....you know that is not what the hypothesis states.

"What biogeography does provide evidence for is that organisms that look very different share a common ancestor."

No it does not....and all the examples you provided are still the same animals they ever were.

 

[pshun2404]

If you agree to speciation, then it's over. The higher taxa are just groupings of multiple speciation events.

And in any case, I don't understand how speciation is evidence for creatures popping into existence without ancestors.

But I'm not sure if I have a dog in this fight. I see universal common ancestry as a reasonable inference from the branching nature of evolutionary and can see no reason, neither scientific nor theological, not to accept it on that basis.

I'm not sure what you are saying? Of course animals have ancestors. Dogs have dog ancestors, and humans have human ancestors, and birds have bird ancestors, and so on. Can you show anything different? I would be willing to look. Seriously...

Multiple speciation events produce multiple sub-species (variations on the theme). As Darwin said “"I look at the term species as one arbitrarily given for the sake of convenience to a set of individuals closely resembling each other...it does not essentially differ from the term variety which is given to less distinct and more fluctuating forms."

But I do give credence to the more modern definition used by Mayr and Templeton which adds that can socio-sexually interact (but not always will). Mayr says "Species are groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations, which are reproductively isolated from other such groups." And Templeton describes them as "…the most inclusive group of organisms having the potential for genetic and/or demographic exchangeability.” In other words, should they meet and mate their offspring would be fertile.

Though both these men MAY HAVE believed the lower taxa become the higher taxa there is no scientific evidence that shows that that actually happens. Darwin however gave theorists a lot of wiggle room in associating homological groupings (characteristic resemblance) with relationship which is not really demonstrated (in a lineal sense).

 

[pshun2404]

So not "totally different kinds" then. In fact, little or no qualitative differences at all.

So you see "no qualitative differences at all" between these creatures? Really? Wow! Now I am surprised...

 

[Speedwell]

So you see "no qualitative differences at all" between these creatures? Really? Wow! Now I am surprised...

Perhaps you can point some of them out to me. I see a series of tetrapodal oviparous vertebrates of generally similar physiology. Tell me what makes them "totally different."

 

[sfs]

What do YOU mean by splitting into two? I am talking about fish transmuting over time into amphibians pr amphibians transmuting over time into reptiles.

I mean what I said: one species splitting into two, which we can observe in process, is one piece of evidence to show that major transformations can occur by evolution. It shows that one species can start two independent evolutionary trajectories. It is also not sufficient to show that major transformations are possible. Which part of that statement do you not understand?

"No thread on this forum has even touched on most genetic data relevant to common descent, much less exhausted it."

Yes there is. See the thread on ERVs (I think it is titled "Viruses that confirm Common Descent")

No thread on this forum could possibly have touched on most genetic data. Did the thread on ERVs describe each of the hundreds of thousands of ERVs present in humans? Did it do the same for mice? Did it look at the hundreds of other species that have been sequenced? Did it look at the millions of indels shared between any two species? There's a lot of genetic data out there -- not that I've ever seen you actually address any of it.

No it does not....and all the examples you provided are still the same animals they ever were.

Thank you for demonstrating your technique for dealing with scientific evidence for evolution: you ignore it. Why are all major mammals in Australia marsupials? You have no idea. Why are Hawaiian honeycreepers all closely related genetically, even though they look very different from one another? You have no idea.

 

[pshun2404]

Perhaps you can point some of them out to me. I see a series of tetrapodal oviparous vertebrates of generally similar physiology. Tell me what makes them "totally different."

Okay! The totally different is the long term effect IF it were true...so here are some qualitative differences...I said fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles...so now fish are not tetrapods, and can only live in water, breathe though gills, have fins, and a particular type scale...reptiles are tetrapods, live on land (99%), breathe with lungs, have no fins and possess an entirely different type of dry scaley skin..or sometimes an almost boney armor...Amphibians can live in either environment have a slightly slimey glandular skin and no scales at all and their eggs are noticeably different.

Now in each case there are also some similarities...

As for a series of tetrapodal oviparous vertebrates I see them also but do not see reason to assume lineage. I do not believe reptiles BECAME either avians OR mammals. Yes we all share anatomical and even genetic similarities but that does not necessitate lineage (just what works).

 

[pshun2404]

I mean what I said: one species splitting into two, which we can observe in process, is one piece of evidence to show that major transformations can occur by evolution. It shows that one species can start two independent evolutionary trajectories. It is also not sufficient to show that major transformations are possible. Which part of that statement do you not understand?

No thread on this forum could possibly have touched on most genetic data. Did the thread on ERVs describe each of the hundreds of thousands of ERVs present in humans? Did it do the same for mice? Did it look at the hundreds of other species that have been sequenced? Did it look at the millions of indels shared between any two species? There's a lot of genetic data out there -- not that I've ever seen you actually address any of it.

Thank you for demonstrating your technique for dealing with scientific evidence for evolution: you ignore it. Why are all major mammals in Australia marsupials? You have no idea. Why are Hawaiian honeycreepers all closely related genetically, even though they look very different from one another? You have no idea.

"It shows that one species can start two independent evolutionary trajectories. It is also not sufficient to show that major transformations are possible. Which part of that statement do you not understand?"

Now I understand what you meant by splitting in two...fine so evolutionists cannot show me an actual example where one creature has become another different creature...I gave you some examples (real ones) like E-Coli (intentionally mutated and yet still E-Coli) and Darwin's finches (a lot of speciation and still finches) where speciation produces variety...asked you give me examples...all the ones you gave so far only confirm exactly what I said (even the honeycreepers)...and I heard you confirm that "It is also not sufficient to show that major transformations are possible."

As for "No thread on this forum could possibly have touched on most genetic data." Of course not, and I did not say it did, I said we discussed it (if I used the word exhaustively I was not meant to be literal but that we went on and on and discussed many things...and because of your post I can see you did not read it and that is fine because I asked we do that last if at all)

 

[Speedwell]

Okay! The totally different is the long term effect IF it were true...so here are some qualitative differences...I said fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles...so now fish are not tetrapods,

There were, and are tetrapod fish

and can only live in water, breathe though gills,

such as the lungfish, which breathes both air and water,and whose gills have become vestigial

have fins,

Have appendages capable of being quantitatively modified by evolution into limbs

and a particular type scale...reptiles are tetrapods, live on land (99%), breathe with lungs, have no fins and possess an entirely different type of dry scaley skin..or sometimes an almost boney armor...Amphibians can live in either environment have a slightly slimey glandular skin and no scales at all

Differences in skin? That's not much for "totally different." A bit superficial, don't you think?

and their eggs are noticeably different.

They don't contain a zygote?

Now in each case there are also some similarities...

As for a series of tetrapodal oviparous vertebrates I see them also but do not see reason to assume lineage. I do not believe reptiles BECAME either avians OR mammals. Yes we all share anatomical and even genetic similarities but that does not necessitate lineage (just what works).

Still, it's a reasonable inference, unless one had some reason to prefer the idea of progressive special creation.