The Falsifiability Criterion

[Hvizsgyak]

Why is that important to you? Are you trying to encourage Christians who accept evolution to reject it?

No, I'm trying to show people who question the theory of evolution that there are scientists who also question it. If you want to believe in evolution as fact go right ahead.

 

[BCP1928]

No, I'm trying to show people who question the theory of evolution that there are scientists who also question it. If you want to believe in evolution as fact go right ahead.

Well, I don't believe that the theory of evolution is a fact. so no problem.

 

[public hermit]

At the same time, any suggestion that some quantity or quality of newly discovered evidence will function to falsify the Theory of Evolution should be carefully examined and considered. However, anyone defending the Theory of Evolution must be mindful to identify and expose where intellectual dishonesty exists in the objections they encounter. In all previous circumstances where such invalid objections have been made by duplicitous individuals, the proposed disconfirming evidence turned-out to be either manipulated or misrepresented.

I agree with all you're saying. What kind of evidence could falsify evolution? I did a quick search and got:

Fossil Evidence​

• Anomalous Fossils: Discovery of a vertebrate fossil, such as a rabbit, in Precambrian rocks would contradict the established timeline of evolution.
• Incorrect Fossil Order: If fossils were found in a sequence that contradicts the expected evolutionary lineage, it would challenge the theory.

Genetic Evidence​

• Lack of Genetic Variation: If most species showed no genetic variation, it would undermine the basis for evolution, which relies on variation for natural selection.
• Adaptations Benefiting Other Species: Finding adaptations in one species that only benefit another species, without any advantage to the first, would contradict evolutionary principles.

Observational Evidence​

• Absence of Evolutionary Change: If populations of organisms remained unchanged over extensive periods, despite environmental pressures, it would challenge the concept of evolution.
• Adaptations That Cannot Evolve Gradually: Evidence showing that certain complex traits could not have evolved through small, incremental changes would question the validity of natural selection.

Do these look like possible falsifiers? Some of these seem highly unlikely given the evidence we have. For instance, it seems unlikely there would ever be a large number of species with no genetic variation, right? Why would that be a live possibility? I don't know so I'm open to suggestions.

 

[AV1611VET]

Meanwhile, the falsifiable Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection continues to survive all tests designed to try and disprove it.

That's because scientists can simply change the criteria as necessary.

Be it moving the decimal point to accommodate deep time, to gerrymandering the geologic column to erase evidence against it.

Case in point: rabbits in the Precambrian.

According to Wikipedia:

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

Simply move the dates of the Precambrian up or down to include them and voila, problem solved.

Deep time is another good example.

Simply move the decimal place to the right as needed to make things look older and older.

From AI Overview:

The concept of deep time provided the necessary timescale for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, allowing for the gradual accumulation of evolutionary changes over millions of years.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's because scientists can simply change the criteria as necessary.

Be it moving the decimal point to accommodate deep time, to gerrymandering the geologic column to erase evidence against it.

Case in point: rabbits in the Precambrian.

According to Wikipedia:

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

Simply move the dates of the Precambrian up or down to include them and voila, problem solved.

Deep time is another good example.

Simply move the decimal place to the right as needed to make things look older and older.

From AI Overview:

The concept of deep time provided the necessary timescale for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, allowing for the gradual accumulation of evolutionary changes over millions of years.

But is distinctly untrue, though not without serious numbers. A single rabbit would be an oddity worth investigating, hundreds of rabbits would be a problem for the theory of evolution. It's never just a single thing, you need lots of things.

And deep time is only a problem for one such as yourself, AV.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I'm not giving you advice; I'm not giving anyone advice. I am stating that from what I understand about evolution, the evidence presented by science still makes it look untrue to me. Since this is a Christian website, I want all Christians who view this information to know that there are people who disagree with the theory of evolution and that there are flaws with it (which I listed in another post)(yes, someone here tried to debunk them but I still stand by them and they are here so other (who don't believe in evolution) have something to go on.

The point you are failing to address is that the Theory of Evolution is potentially falsifiable with every new experiment and with every new discovery in the relevant fields, yet it continues to survive such tests as the most reasonable scientific explanation. No reputable scientist is claiming the Theory is without its flaws as it continues to be updated and refined with the acquisition of new information from the field. However, a flawed theory is not necessarily a falsified theory.

It is fine if you want to hold a personal disagreement with the Theory of Evolution, but that is not a sufficient justification to pretend it is false. If you want to disprove the Theory of Evolution, conduct a new experiment or make a new discovery that will provide the evidence we would expect to find if it is false, subject your analysis to critical peer-review, and publish the results in a reputable scientific journal. Otherwise, your personal opinion is merely noted but without having any meaningful impact on the acceptance of the theory as the most reasonable explanation within the scientific community.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I agree with all you're saying. What kind of evidence could falsify evolution? I did a quick search and got:

Fossil Evidence​

• Anomalous Fossils: Discovery of a vertebrate fossil, such as a rabbit, in Precambrian rocks would contradict the established timeline of evolution.
• Incorrect Fossil Order: If fossils were found in a sequence that contradicts the expected evolutionary lineage, it would challenge the theory.

Genetic Evidence​

• Lack of Genetic Variation: If most species showed no genetic variation, it would undermine the basis for evolution, which relies on variation for natural selection.
• Adaptations Benefiting Other Species: Finding adaptations in one species that only benefit another species, without any advantage to the first, would contradict evolutionary principles.

Observational Evidence​

• Absence of Evolutionary Change: If populations of organisms remained unchanged over extensive periods, despite environmental pressures, it would challenge the concept of evolution.
• Adaptations That Cannot Evolve Gradually: Evidence showing that certain complex traits could not have evolved through small, incremental changes would question the validity of natural selection.

Do these look like possible falsifiers? Some of these seem highly unlikely given the evidence we have. For instance, it seems unlikely there would ever be a large number of species with no genetic variation, right? Why would that be a live possibility? I don't know so I'm open to suggestions.

It is my assessment that the falsifiers from the list you provided are references to how the Theory of Evolution could have been falsified prior the acquisition of the evidences we currently have available to us. For instance, immediately after discovering the existence of DNA, the Theory of Evolution became the basis for making the prediction that there should be genetic variations between species. The falsifier of the Theory of Evolution at that point in time would have been the discovery of little to no genetic variations between species. Because the scientists found genetic variations between various species, the Theory of Evolution was retained as the most reasonable explanation.

What could falsify the Theory of Evolution today? I'm not an expert in the field to know what experiments are currently underway, but the fact that there are new experiments happening today means there is a possibility for them to produce the disconfirming evidence necessary to falsify the theory. If those experiments happen to produce results that function to falsify it, then someone will likely be receiving the Nobel Prize for the monumental achievement while the rest of the scientific community begins formulating and testing other falsifiable hypotheses to explain the diversity of species on this planet. What won't happen is the acceptance of an unfalsifiable claim as the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life we observe because no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to demonstrate if such a claim is true or false.

 

[BCP1928]

It is my assessment that the falsifiers from the list you provided are references to how the Theory of Evolution could have been falsified prior the acquisition of the evidences we currently have available to us. For instance, immediately after discovering the existence of DNA, the Theory of Evolution became the basis for making the prediction that there should be genetic variations between species. The falsifier of the Theory of Evolution at that point in time would have been the discovery of little to no genetic variations between species. Because the scientists found genetic variations between various species, the Theory of Evolution was retained as the most reasonable explanation.

What could falsify the Theory of Evolution today? I'm not an expert in the field to know what experiments are currently underway, but the fact that there are new experiments happening today means there is a possibility for them to produce the disconfirming evidence necessary to falsify the theory. If those experiments happen to produce results that function to falsify it, then someone will likely be receiving the Nobel Prize for the monumental achievement while the rest of the scientific community begins formulating and testing other falsifiable hypotheses to explain the diversity of species on this planet. What won't happen is the acceptance of an unfalsifiable claim as the most reasonable explanation for the diversity of life we observe because no quantity or quality of evidence will ever function to demonstrate if such a claim is true or false.

It doesn't matter--those sneaky evolutionists would just modify the theory to accommodate the evidence (a complaint frequently made here by creationists.)

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

That's because scientists can simply change the criteria as necessary.

Be it moving the decimal point to accommodate deep time, to gerrymandering the geologic column to erase evidence against it.

Case in point: rabbits in the Precambrian.

According to Wikipedia:

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

Simply move the dates of the Precambrian up or down to include them and voila, problem solved.

Deep time is another good example.

Simply move the decimal place to the right as needed to make things look older and older.

From AI Overview:

The concept of deep time provided the necessary timescale for Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, allowing for the gradual accumulation of evolutionary changes over millions of years.

Reputable science doesn't function to "prove" a proposed hypothesis by any means necessary. It functions by demanding that the scientists design the experiments to try and disprove the hypothesis if it is false. The deep time hypothesis is falsifiable in this way but continues to survive the experiments that are designed to try and disprove it. Gerrymandering of the results is not something that can occur without being immediately exposed in the replication and critical peer-review process.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

It doesn't matter--those sneaky evolutionists would just modify the theory to accommodate the evidence (a complaint frequently made here by creationists.)

Yeah, maybe scientists would have better luck if they just borrowed a page from the Christian apologetic playbook instead. We all know how much intellectual honesty is valued and exhibited in the Christian apologetic community.

 

[AV1611VET]

Gerrymandering of the results is not something that can occur without being immediately exposed in the replication and critical peer-review process.

I'm saying science, as a whole, would do that.

With, of course, some exceptions.

They would simply convince each other of the need to go back to the drawing board and move things around.

Then they would go back to the drawing board and move things around.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yeah, maybe scientists would have better luck if they just borrowed a page from the Christian apologetic playbook instead. We all know how much intellectual honesty is valued and exhibited in the Christian apologetic community.

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I'm saying science, as a whole, would do that.

With, of course, some exceptions.

They would simply convince each other of the need to go back to the drawing board and move things around.

Then they would go back to the drawing board and move things around.

I'm sure it's intellectually dishonest to claim others are being intellectually dishonest when you have no reason to do so other than it offends your religious sensibilities.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

I'm saying science, as a whole, would do that.

With, of course, some exceptions.

They would simply convince each other of the need to go back to the drawing board and move things around.

Then they would go back to the drawing board and move things around.

Is the claim that scientists "convince each other of the need to go back to the drawing board and move things around" falsifiable or unfalsifiable? If falsifiable, what reasonably obtainable evidence would disprove the claim?

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

Using the Bible as a science book is like using Bill Gate's diary as a computer manual.

Sooo... you've decided to undermine all of your previous anti-science rhetoric with that statement because...?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Sooo... you've decided to undermine all of your previous anti-science rhetoric with that statement because...?

He's AV1611VET. He does what he does, and there's no way to explain it.

 

[NxNW]

Only on paper.

It's also on my computer.

 

[BlueGreenEarth]

No, I'm trying to show people who question the theory of evolution that there are scientists who also question it. If you want to believe in evolution as fact go right ahead.

All reputable scientists question all scientific hypotheses as a matter of principle. Don't mistake their rigorous defense of a scientific claim for a faith-based loyalty. All it would take to disabuse reputable scientists from their tentative acceptance of a scientific claim is the disconfirming evidence they would expect to find if the hypothesis is false.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is the claim that scientists "convince each other of the need to go back to the drawing board and move things around" falsifiable or unfalsifiable? If falsifiable, what reasonably obtainable evidence would disprove the claim?

Pluto

 

[AV1611VET]

Sooo... you've decided to undermine all of your previous anti-science rhetoric with that statement because...?

You don't know me very well, do you?

Here are my standards I use:

1. Bible says x, Science says x = go with x
2. Bible says x, Science says y = go with x
3. Bible says x, Science says ø = go with x
4. Bible says ø, Science says x = go with x
5. Bible says ø, Science says ø = free to speculate on your own

Prime Directive: Under no circumstances whatsoever is the Bible to be contradicted.

What you're calling "anti-science rhetoric," I call "prioritizing."