The Evolution Challenge

[Cabal]

Don't know, was AV being serious? It's always hard to tell with his posts.

I think we tend to get lulz from his serious ones and his lulzy ones get SERIOUS RESPONSES

 

[Tiberius]

AV, if you want to play, I can provide some sources about evolution for you. If I do, will you read them?

 

[Tiberius]

I guess that's a no then.

Surely there must be SOMETHING if the creationists are right? Come on Creationists, where's your falsification of evolution?

 

[Tomk80]

AV, if you want to play, I can provide some sources about evolution for you. If I do, will you read them?

He won't.

 

[Radagast]

Evolution is a scientific theory. That means a few things... it means that it is falsifiable...

"Evolution" is an ambiguous term.

Partly it refers to a biological process which we can observe around us, and analyse mathematically. Bacteria in particular evolve before our very eyes.

However, "evolution" also refers to an inferred history of the biosphere. Like all histories, this can be supported (or contradicted) by evidence, but it's not clear that it's falsifiable in the technical sense, in that experiments can't be constructed to test it (unless we happen to have a time machine).

 

[atomweaver]

"Evolution" is an ambiguous term.

Partly it refers to a biological process which we can observe around us, and analyse mathematically. Bacteria in particular evolve before our very eyes.

However, "evolution" also refers to an inferred history of the biosphere. Like all histories, this can be supported (or contradicted) by evidence, but it's not clear that it's falsifiable in the technical sense, in that experiments can't be constructed to test it (unless we happen to have a time machine).

There are a bunch of criminals in jail who are very pleased by your answer...

 

[Radagast]

nm.

 

[Tomk80]

"Evolution" is an ambiguous term.

Partly it refers to a biological process which we can observe around us, and analyse mathematically. Bacteria in particular evolve before our very eyes.

However, "evolution" also refers to an inferred history of the biosphere. Like all histories, this can be supported (or contradicted) by evidence, but it's not clear that it's falsifiable in the technical sense, in that experiments can't be constructed to test it (unless we happen to have a time machine).

I do often wonder about statements like these. I'm still wondering whether they reflect an overrating of laboratory studies or an underrating of observational evidence. My experience is that experiments are not always able to falsify a specific theory. In the case of the historical course of evolution (the inferred history of the biosphere), parts of this theory can be falsified using evidence that can always be made available, like genetic evidence. Others, like fossil finds, are harder to falsify because there is a certain amount of luck involved (small chances that something fossilizes, combined with small chances that we will find the fossilized remains).

Single laboratory tests are rarely conclusive in any scientific theory. Rather, it is the combined evidence of experimental and observational evidence that decide the validity of a theory.

 

[Radagast]

I do often wonder about statements like these.

Personally, I feel that "evidence" is a more useful concept than Popper's "falsifiability".

True theories are never falsified. You and I might think that the evidence makes them "valid", but that makes us non-Popperian.

 

[Tomk80]

Personally, I feel that "evidence" is a more useful concept than Popper's "falsifiability".

I agree partially. For me, a property of a scientific theory is not so much that it is falsifiable as well that it is "discernable". Meaning that we must be able to distinguish different theories from one another using evidence.

True theories are never falsified.

I'm not sure whether this is true of all observations. I think some observations can be so unlikely if a theory is presumed to be true, that they can truly falsify the theory.

You and I might think that the evidence makes them "valid", but that makes us non-Popperian.

I think of it more as a combination of Popperian thinking and empiricism, not immediately non-Popperian. In the sense that a theory or hypothesis can be falsified, but falsification is not the only criterium. I would strive more for "testability", which is not necessarily the same as "falsifiability".

 

[Radagast]

I agree partially. For me, a property of a scientific theory is not so much that it is falsifiable as well that it is "discernable". Meaning that we must be able to distinguish different theories from one another using evidence.

I can agree with that.

 

[Tiberius]

Given that this thread has not produced a single piece of evidence that actually falsifies evolution, I suspect it means that there isn't anything that shows evolution is wrong unless one uses a flawed model of evolution.

We win.

 

[AV1611VET]

Given that this thread has not produced a single piece of evidence that actually falsifies evolution, I suspect it means that there isn't anything that shows evolution is wrong unless one uses a flawed model of evolution.

We win.

It's funny that this tree that supposedly is branching off into all sorts of apes, chimps, and people, doesn't seem to be growing much.

 

[Norbert L]

Given that this thread has not produced a single piece of evidence that actually falsifies evolution, I suspect it means that there isn't anything that shows evolution is wrong unless one uses a flawed model of evolution.

We win.

Falsification works both ways. Does the fossil record show that one life form evoled into another or does it show that God uniquely created each one of them?

 

[Hespera]

Falsification works both ways. Does the fossil record show that one life form evoled into another or does it show that God uniquely created each one of them?

I dont get what you are saying could you please explain more fully?

How does a fossil clam show that god created it?

 

[Tomk80]

Falsification works both ways. Does the fossil record show that one life form evoled into another or does it show that God uniquely created each one of them?

It shows that one group of species gave rise to different, new groups of species.

 

[Norbert L]

Mankind has not lived long enough to record how the progression of forming a world wide viable ecosystem work from scratch. What we can see, which has produced an overwhelming concern and shock, something that is happenning right in front of us. Species are going extinct, not being produced.

 

[Tomk80]

Mankind has not lived long enough to record how the progression of forming a world wide viable ecosystem work from scratch. What we can see, which has produced an overwhelming concern and shock, something that is happenning right in front of us. Species are going extinct, not being produced.

There is no need for humankind to be around long enough to record forming a world wide, viable ecosystem from scratch. The fossil record gives us information enough to give valid theories on how this has happened.

Besides, we are already in a viable ecosystem, so unless we'd observe it coming into existence from scratch on a different planet, we wouldn't observe it directly anyway.

And yes, we have observed new species coming into existence. Both extinction and speciation (the formation of new species) are happening right in front of us. What concerns many is the unprecedented rate of extinctions caused by humans, not that extinctions happen in itself.

 

[Ectezus]

It's funny that this tree that supposedly is branching off into all sorts of apes, chimps, and people, doesn't seem to be growing much.

AV1611VET, please DO read an article on evolution other than church pamphlets regarding the subject. Objectivity makes you smarter.

I challenge your statement: Where in evolution does it say or predict that the "tree of life" you're referring to has to grow much, fast or anything else for that matter??

And to avoid confusion, please explain your definition of 'growing' in regards to the tree of life.

Are you saying that just because you can't see species change with your own eyes in your short lifetime it means evolution can't happen ever?
Evolution is talking about millions of years. One human generation is nothing compared to that.
This is the reason why we often use fruit flies in experiments. They reproduce amazingly fast and therefore new traits occur at a much faster rate. This happens all the time already.

- Ectezus

 

[AV1611VET]

And yes, we have observed new species coming into existence.

May I have just one example, please?

In 10 words or less --- w/o pictures, graphs, charts, or anything else?

In English?