How to falsify evolution

[Mocca]

I'm annoyed by the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable. IT IS! Anyone wanna list possible falsification of evolution?

I'll name one: If ERVs were found to be shared between two organisms with distant ancestry, and not found in other descendants of said distant ancestor.

Creationists might find this thread as a useful resource. Hint, hint.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

chimeras, so popular in human literature as sphinx, griffin, satyr. Any kind of "swapped modules" versus a nested hierarchical structure. hopeful monsters where dogs give birth to cats. All of these are examples of things against common descent.

 

[Sarcopt]

A shark tooth in the Burgess Shale. I don't see why we haven't found that yet of there had been a flood. It was a marine environment, after all. Heck, a tuna or salmon skeleton in the Burgess Shale would do the trick.

 

[Sarcopt]

These threads always make one think: There are so many elegant ways to disprove evolution. There is a
world of countless possible very simple observations that could turn evolution on its head. And yet, all we get from creationists is a pile of rationalizations and polemics. Intelligent design, vapor canopies, 'splits', accelerated decay -- nothing but excuses to try to explain away the age of the earth, the evidence for evolution, the works. How about a few solid, well-documented observations that simply run counter to very basic principles of evolution?

 

[ImmortalTechnique]

excellent thread

 

[Mocca]

excellent thread

Why thank you!

Anyone else wanna add potential falsifications?

 

[Silent Bob]

A T-Rex fossil with a hominid skeleton inside or a hominid fossil with a young psittacosaurs inside.

Heck lets make it easy, a hominid fossil dating to the Mesozoic era.

 

[KittyPryde]

The missing link! If humans are supposed to be evolved from monkeys, where is the missing link?

Evolutionists disprove their own evidence all the time.

Evolution doesn't prove nothing.

Spoiler: Proof

Mathmatics or Alcohol content. I know. Just trying out spoilers.

 

[Silent Bob]

The missing link! If humans are supposed to be evolved from monkeys, where is the missing link?

Spoiler: Answer

We ate it. It was tasty, kinda like chicken but with more taboo.

Hehe.

 

[Lord_Marx]

Evolutionists disprove their own evidence all the time.

And how do they disprove their evidence? Could it be by finding new evidence? What does not kill a theory makes it stronger.

 

[fromdownunder]

A non carbon based life form - say, silicon based.

Norm

 

[Micaiah]

I'm annoyed by the claim that evolution is unfalsifiable. IT IS! Anyone wanna list possible falsification of evolution?

I'll name one: If ERVs were found to be shared between two organisms with distant ancestry, and not found in other descendants of said distant ancestor.

Creationists might find this thread as a useful resource. Hint, hint.

Okay. So if we find such an example, how will you explain origins?

 

[BVZ]

Okay. So if we find such an example, how will you explain origins?

If evolution is proved to be false, it will still be used because of it's useful powers of prediction. (Which all good scientific theories have.)

Take Newtons laws, they are proven to be false. They are still extremely useful, and they are used every day. They are FALSE, they are also STILL USED.

Evolution is not supposed to 'explain origins'. Evolution's ONLY goal is to explain evidence found, and make predictions. (These are the goals of all scientific theories.)

Newtons laws of gravity do not explain gravity. It explains evidence found (measurements of falling objects etc.), and makes predictions (if you let this object fall it will take x seconds to hit the ground.)

In short, the only way in wich Evolution will be 'destroyed' is by stopping people from using it as the useful tool it is. The only way to do THAT is by producing ANOTHER theory that makes better predictions.

 

[Micaiah]

If evolution is proved to be false, it will still be used because of it's useful powers of prediction. (Which all good scientific theories have.)

So if it is wrong people will still use it because it is a useful tool.

Patient: So Doc, you think I have a problem with my leg and need to cut it off just above the knee. That seems a bit severe. How do you know that is necessary.

Doctor: We did a test.

Patient: A test! How reliable is this test.

Doctor: Well, we know it is the theory behind it is basically wrong, but we use it anyway because it gives good results.

Patient: Excuse me!? How do you know it gives the right results.

Doctor: My accountant says so!

The hysterical screams of the patient echo in the passage way as he flees the building...

Take Newtons laws, they are proven to be false. They are still extremely useful, and they are used every day. They are FALSE, they are also STILL USED.

I've heard this claim. Can you explain it in more detail?

Evolution is not supposed to 'explain origins'. Evolution's ONLY goal is to explain evidence found, and make predictions. (These are the goals of all scientific theories.)

Okay, I'll agree if you agree that evolution doesn't explain common descent. Most evolutionists I know on this forum think differently

Newtons laws of gravity do not explain gravity. It explains evidence found (measurements of falling objects etc.), and makes predictions (if you let this object fall it will take x seconds to hit the ground.)

You just said the laws were wrong!

In short, the only way in wich Evolution will be 'destroyed' is by stopping people from using it as the useful tool it is. The only way to do THAT is by producing ANOTHER theory that makes better predictions.

The screams of the patient are coming back.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Take Newtons laws, they are proven to be false. They are still extremely useful, and they are used every day. They are FALSE, they are also STILL USED.

this isn't quite right, Newton's laws are shown to be special cases of Einstein's relativity. What was wrong was their universal application. In their own domain they work just fine.

 

[Micaiah]

Take Newtons laws, they are proven to be false. They are still extremely useful, and they are used every day. They are FALSE, they are also STILL USED.

this isn't quite right, Newton's laws are shown to be special cases of Einstein's relativity. What was wrong was their universal application. In their own domain they work just fine.

Explain why Newton's law are not correct in Einstein's domain?

 

[JohnR7]

The only way to do THAT is by producing ANOTHER theory that makes better predictions.

They come up with new theorys all the time, they just keep calling them by the same old names.

 

[Oliver]

Explain why Newton's law are not correct in Einstein's domain?

Newton's law of motion are not correct when objects move at very high speed (close the the speed of light). Newton's law of gravitation are not correct in presence of a very strong gravitational field.

However, they are still a good approximation of what happens at "conventional" speed or away from a strong gravitational field.

Edit: a short link for more details: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/history/einstein.html

 

[Mystman]

A non carbon based life form - say, silicon based.

Norm

Actually, I would say that a simple silicon based self replicator wouldn't falsify evolution.

Finding a higly advanced silicon life form like a silicon-mammal, but not finding any simpler silicon life forms, would count as evidence against evolution, but would not falsify it. After all, it is possible that all simple silicon life forms died out, and left behind no fossils..

..or something like that.

 

[Micaiah]

Newton's law of motion are not correct when objects move at very high speed (close the the speed of light).

Why? The link offers only the statement.