Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Larniavc]

It's a different kind of evidence to direct observation of something in the lab. It is educated and elegant guesswork, not comparable to something like physics where you can test it in a lab.

Can you tell me in your own words why falsification is important for hypothesis testing?

 

[essentialsaltes]

"If biological evolution (not talking abiogenesis here, just evolution) was proven to your satisfaction, would it cause you to lose your faith in God?"

As one might expect, people can't even address the question.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Well, if you put it that way . . . no. Not all physics scientific isn't that it can be tested in the lab -- supernovas, for example, don't fit in laboratories, but they can still be studied by astrophysicists. What makes both physics and evolutionary biology scientific fields is that they can test their hypotheses against empirical data. That means that neither is "guesswork".

Supernovas can be directly observed as they're happening.

I can observe quantum effects in a lab. This is the science that convinces me.

 

[Larniavc]

Supernovas can be directly observed as they're happening.

No they can't.

Many many years have passed before the light reaches us.

We can't see it happening. We can only see that it happened.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Can you tell me in your own words why falsification is important for hypothesis testing?

Because otherwise the hypothesis can be conveniently used to explain everything without anything actually striking it down. It just becomes a self-verifying idea.

The mammal in the Cambrian layer issue could falsify evolution, but if there are other explanations for the absence of said mammals in the layer, is this falsification really worth anything? You need falsification for an aspect of evolution that cannot be explained by any other hypothesis.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No they can't.

Many many years have passed before the light reaches us.

We can't see it happening. We can only see that it happened.

That's a detail, we can make deductions based on observations such as that, taking into account the speed of light etc. We didn't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

"If biological evolution (not talking abiogenesis here, just evolution) was proven to your satisfaction, would it cause you to lose your faith in God?"

As one might expect, people can't even address the question.

No it wouldn't. Sorry I didn't get to your question.

 

[Mountainmike]

Your posting is a waste of words tagliatelle.

I realise your atheist faith demands unquestioning belief in evolution , but really: if you wish to be taken seriously you should question evolution, and engage with the problems that still remain,

I am not an anti evolutionist, just realistic about the problems.

No point in reiterating, with someone like you who won't read the answers I write,

- But take my logical objection to the impossibility of proving a single common descendant is spot on, which makes common descent an unprovable hypothesis, certainly not a theory, and even less of a fact. If you don't understand it, then keep studying the logic until you do. It is not that hard.

- And fusion hypothesis doesn't explain fission or duplication, increasing numbers of chromosomes by path as yet unknown ... I know atheists belief set forces them to focus on C2 fusion - they have to for the creed of how humans came to be. But the generality of how chromosomes came to increase is still a problem. The postulated ideas ( in the main,as yet not hypotheses) in as far as they exist are conjecture.

Etc
Etc


Can't be bothered discussing with someone who won't engage with a useful scientific argument, or even read what I write.

<Usual set piece waffle and refusal to read>

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

When you call something "guess work" that can be repeated many times over you are simply showing your lack of knowledge and prejudice about the science that you do not like.

How do you repeat looking at a fossil record and drawing a conclusion? Do you just look at it again and again?

Creationism has utterly failed whenever they have tired to use it to explain the biological diversity that we can see today. Creationists are too afraid to even create a proper scientific hypothesis of creationism, much less a theory of creationism.

I don't claim to know exactly the mechanics of it all. I wasn't there in the distant past. However the onus is not on me, but the one proposing the hypothesis to convince me.

 

[Larniavc]

The mammal in the Cambrian layer issue could falsify evolution,

Bingo.

You said it couldn't.

I guess a dog giving birth to a cat would work as a falsification, too.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Bingo.

You said it couldn't.

I guess a dog giving birth to a cat would work as a falsification, too.

Ah, there you go! I was trying to think of an analogy and you gave it to me.

Why don't dogs give birth to cats? One could come up with an evolutionary explanation, as well as a non-evolutionary one.

Sure, a dog giving birth to a cat would falsify evolutionary theory as we know it, but is this falsification really worth anything, when other explanations already exist as to why the dog doesn't give birth to a cat?

 

[Larniavc]

That's a detail, we can make deductions based on observations such as that, taking into account the speed of light etc. We didn't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene.

You do know that's how we can conclude that evolution has happened, don't you?

Deductions based on observation: no lab needed.

Phew, we got there, we made it!

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

You do know that's how we can conclude that evolution has happened, don't you?

Deductions based on observation: no lab needed.

Phew, we got there, we made it!

I just said, we don't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene. You look at the fossils, and then make connections between them, and look at genetic similarities, and draw conclusions from them.

However with a supernova, you know the speed of light, and from that you can logically deduce the time etc.

With evolution these are not logical deductions that proceed from a set of determined variables. This is physical data that you look at and try to connect the dots, and genome data that you make conclusions from based on similarities.

 

[Larniavc]

One could come up with an evolutionary explanation,

No one could not. Evolution does not predict a dog giving birth to a cat.

In fact if a dog did (without tinkering by the High Evolutionary) give birth to a cat it would falsify evolution.

Just like finding a bunny in the Cambrian or a Crocaduck.

All these are potentially falsification of ToE (you said there were none).

 

[Larniavc]

I just said, we don't need to look for patterns like we're in a crime scene. You look at the fossils, and then make connections between them, and look at genetic similarities, and draw conclusions from them.

However with a supernova, you know the speed of light, and from that you can logically deduce the time etc.

With evolution these are not logical deductions that proceed from a set of determined variables. This is physical data that you look at and try to connect the dots, and genome data that you make conclusions from based on similarities.

Can we stick to the point?

You said there were no potential falsifications for ToE.

I showed you that there are.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

No one could not. Evolution does not predict a dog giving birth to a cat.

In fact if a dog did (without tinkering by the High Evolutionary) give birth to a cat it would falsify evolution.

Just like finding a bunny in the Cambrian or a Crocaduck.

All these are potentially falsification of ToE (you said there were none).

Where did I say there was no falsification of evolution?

I'm saying the falsification isn't worth anything when there are other explanations for the observation at hand. So this does not run counter to what Birch and Ehrlich is saying. Anyone can come up with a ludicrous example of something that could falsify evolution, but this is worthless when the thing at hand already could have another explanation.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Can we stick to the point?

You said there were no potential falsifications for ToE.

I showed you that there are.

Where did I say there was no potential falsifications for ToE?

My point is that these are not worthwhile falsifications when other explanations exist. These are pointless, and do not serve to actually combat what Birch and Ehrlich are saying.

 

[Larniavc]

But there are those who have come to realise that it has become something outside of empirical science, one that cannot be falsified and has become a dogma.

Got to got to bed, now.

G'night.

 

[Belk]

Ah, there you go! I was trying to think of an analogy and you gave it to me.

Why don't dogs give birth to cats? One could come up with an evolutionary explanation, as well as a non-evolutionary one.

Sure, a dog giving birth to a cat would falsify evolutionary theory as we know it, but is this falsification really worth anything, when other explanations already exist as to why the dog doesn't give birth to a cat?

Yes. Simply because there could be other reasons Dogs do not give birth to cats does not change the fact that it would falsify evolution if it happened. That something could be a falsification for multiple different hypothesis does not invalidate that it is a falsification for the hypothesis you are evaluating.

 

[Sultan Of Swing]

Yes. Simply because there could be other reasons Dogs do not give birth to cats does not change the fact that it would falsify evolution if it happened. That something could be a falsification for multiple different hypothesis does not invalidate that it is a falsification for the hypothesis you are evaluating.

But is that falsification worth anything if it is as zany as dogs giving birth to cats?