Why evolution should not be a religious issue

[Speedwell]

You're asking me to just show things which don't exist.

How do you know? Have you checked the duck and platypus genomes? But your assertion was that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable in principle. All that is necessary to refute it is an hypothetical.

The point is not that there are random things that could end the theory, but that there should be things which can't be explained by any other means, which could end the theory.

The absence of any other credible explanation for the observed diversity of life, for instance?

 

[Belk]

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

Yes. Anytime something is falsified it does not matter the means. It has been falsified and is no longer valid.

 

[AV1611VET]

Yes. Anytime something is falsified it does not matter the means. It has been falsified and is no longer valid.

Who determines the rules of falsification?

 

[Belk]

Who determines the rules of falsification?

What rules of falsification?

 

[AV1611VET]

What rules of falsification?

Who determines what falsifies what?

For instance, will rabbits in the Precambrian falsify biological evolution?

 

[Radrook]

ID is a religious reason. What do you think the "D" is?

ID means intelligent design. Intelligent design need not involve the supernatural. In my discussions with atheists concerning ID they are the ones who constantly bring in the word deity or god or gods into the discussion not me.

 

[Radrook]

Jesus spoke in parables and was often deliberately unclear. He was not trying to teach people science, but to teach them about the spiritual world.

I never claimed that Jesus was striving to teach science. However, if he believed events to be historically accurate and atheistic science contradicts him-then I choose to believe him instead of atheistic science.

BTW
Jesus' Parables are very well understood. They are unclear only to folks who don't take the time to read them and only vaguely might hear about them second and third hand.

Parables of Jesus

 

[Belk]

Who determines what falsifies what?

Logic last I checked.

For instance, will rabbits in the Precambrian falsify biological evolution?

Yes.

 

[Renee Tahass]

I never claimed that Jesus was striving to teach science. However, if he believed events to be historically accurate and atheistic science contradicts him-then I choose to believe him instead of atheistic science.
BTW
Jesus' Parables are very well understood. They are unclear only to folks who don't take the time to read them and only vaguely might hear about them second and third hand.
Parables of Jesus

Which part of the Bible did Jesus write?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's a different kind of evidence to direct observation of something in the lab.

Not really. If you get down to it, I'ld say that the "full picture" of anything is rarely, if ever, "directly observed" in a lab.

However, every single mechanism of evolution has been observed.
Mutation, check. Selection, check. Speciation, check.

No, we don't processes that take a million years to unfold. That doesn't mean that we can't determine that they actually happened. Because we can, off course.

Just like we don't need to directly observe your parents having sex in order to be able to determine that your parents are your actual biological parents, wouldn't you agree?

It is educated and elegant guesswork

No, it's not guesswork.

, not comparable to something like physics where you can test it in a lab.

Ow really? So... how do you test the workings of a black hole in a lab?
Or the formation of a solar system? The birth of a star? A super nova?

See?

Anyway....what part of evolution "can't be tested", in your opinion?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

What is this "other explanation" you are talking about?
Or does it not actually exist and are you simply making stuff up?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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.

Seeing a super nova happen is like seeing an individual being born with variation.

The observation of it, does not explain how it happened.

 

[Larniavc]

There being no better explanation does not necessarily mean the only available one is true.

And that is why science is tentative.

There is ALWAYS the chance some future data point could cause ToE to fall over.

But until that happens we have to tentatively conclude that based on the available evidence ToE is sound science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

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

The same way you "repeat" looking at a super nova and draw conclusions from that observation.

I don't claim to know exactly the mechanics of it all. I wasn't there in the distant past.

You don't need to be. Life exists, survives and reproduces today. You can observe and study all processes and mechanisms that life is subject to, today, just fine.

However the onus is not on me, but the one proposing the hypothesis to convince me.

Sure. And all that information is widely available. All you have to do is inform yourself.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Why don't dogs give birth to cats?

According to evolution theory?
Simple: because every individual that ever lived was of the same species at its direct parents. Speciation is a vertical process, not a horizontal one. All descendends of canines will be canines. A canine will not be giving birth to a feline.

Just like you will not give birth to your cousin, but rather to your son or daughter.

One could come up with an evolutionary explanation, as well as a non-evolutionary one.

Actually, it's not an explanation. It's more like a prediction.
If a species gives birth to a member of another species, then evolution theory is false.

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?

What other explanations?

 

[SteveB28]

According to evolution theory?
Simple: because every individual that ever lived was of the same species at its direct parents. Speciation is a vertical process, not a horizontal one. All descendends of canines will be canines. A canine will not be giving birth to a feline.

Just like you will not give birth to your cousin, but rather to your son or daughter.



Actually, it's not an explanation. It's more like a prediction.
If a species gives birth to a member of another species, then evolution theory is false.



What other explanations?

Well done sir.....you write with a rapier!


.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Who determines what falsifies what?

The hypothesis itself.

If I have a hypothesis that says I stayed at home last night, then from that hypothesis it follows that I wasn't at some other place. So logically, you can falsify my hypothesis by demonstrating that I was at some other place.

Nobody needs to determine anything here. The testable prediction of me not being anwywhere except home, naturally flows from the hypothesis.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

ID means intelligent design. Intelligent design need not involve the supernatural. In my discussions with atheists concerning ID they are the ones who constantly bring in the word deity or god or gods into the discussion not me.

Dude.... ID is a religious model, created by creationists, in response to their YEC nonsense being banned from science classes. So they redefined their YEC nonsense and disguised it in a lab coat. That's literally what it is.

Google cdesign proponentsists.

It is a religious model put forward by religious people and natural science deniers.

This is why you don't see this "hypothesis" show up in the scientific literature. This is why it only shows up in religious organizations like the one that actually invented this model, being the Discovery Institute.

 

[Jimmy D]

I would say it's evidence that there is a tendency within the scientific community to dogmatise their evolutionary theory and that there exist calls within the community to be more skeptical of the tenets underlying evolution, and the problem that most observations can be fit within the wider evolutionary theory.

That seems reasonable, it seems like more of a warning about taking results for granted rather than any sort of argument against the TOE of which the writers fully accepted. BTW Does it occur to you why observations fit within the wider evolutionary theory?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I realise your atheist faith demands unquestioning belief in evolution

LOL!

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

I haven't seen you mention any real problem, though.

- But take my logical objection to the impossibility of proving a single common descendant is spot on, which makes common descent an unprovable hypothesis

So, you are of the opinion that DNA testing can't determine that your brother is your actual brother, your dad your actual dad, etc?

LOL!

- 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.

Human Chromosome 2 being the result of a fusion of what is chromosome 2 and 13 in the chimp lineage, is entirely based on the data found in human chromosome 2, as is explained by the devout christian and evolutionary biologist Ken Miller in that youtube clip I linked. For your convenience, I even formatted the link in such a way that it starts at the relevant section in the clip.

So perhaps you should go to Ken Miller and all his collegues and explain to them how they don't know what they're talking about.

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

Says the science denier, who doesn't even bother to quote my posts to address the points raised directly and then accuses me of "not reading".