Testable, falsifiable, and makes predictions

[4gold]

Please excuse the amateur nature to this post. I am just a novice at learning the origins of the universe.

I applaud the judge in Pennsylvania for striking down ID from our schools. The theory of Intelligent Design, regardless of overt religious overtones or not, is simply not testable, falsifiable, and it doesn't make successful predictions about the future -- these are three key components I feel are necessary before being taught in science class today.

As such, I believe that there are a few testable and falsifiable theories out there that make predictions about the future that many Christians may be willing to agree with. I will type them out here and I would like to know: What do you make of each of these theories?

Humans are behaviorally distinct from all other hominids and primates

This theory makes the prediction that humans and neanderthals should be behaviorally distinct. Modern humans displayed sophisticated tool-manufacturing practices and superior ability to exploit harsh environmental conditions. While hominids made and used "tools," they were crude and unsophisticated compared to those made by the first modern humans.

In the same manner, this theory predicts that although there may be genetic similarity between humans and certain animals, the genetic differences will always be significant when comparing the biological portions of the brain. Genetic similarity does not necessarily mean evolutionary connection.

This theory could be falsified by finding an advanced level of hominid that was not only adept at problem-solving (as apes, chimps, and neanderthals were able to do), but were also capable of advanced tools to solve their problems.

The expedient preparation of a fit habitat for life

The events that took place in the formation of the early universe allowed for life to occur as quickly as possible after the Big Bang. We now know that there were a large number of galaxies after the Big Bang and a higher-than-expected star formation rate, both of which are necessary for the explosion of massive stars which produce the elements necessary for life.

This theory could be falsified if it could be determined that life could have existed any earlier, or that life did exist any earlier than it did on earth. This theory also predicts that all future research will indicate events that had to take place when they did at a rate suitable for the earliest possible habitat for advanced life to exist today.

Geological/astronomical-driven changes in the earth’s environment are accompanied by extinction events and the introduction of new species that are better suited to the new environment.

This theory could very well be accepted among naturalists as well, except that both sides use this theory to accomplish differing perspectives. When we look into the past of geological and astronomical catastrophes that changed the earth, we find that new species of animals closely follow the events. Stephen Jay Gould called this process punctuated equilibrium.

The naturalists argue that these species were already pre-existent and that new conditions drove the evolutionary process to larger bodies and larger populations. The supernaturalist argues that the earth suddenly becomes populated with life well-suited to newly developed conditions -- sort of a biological Big Bang, if you will.

The falsifiable part of this theory comes in whether these species were pre-existent to the astronomical/geological catastrophes, or whether they quickly appeared ex post facto.

Life, even in its most minimal form, is complex

Current evolutionary theory require life in its minimal form to be simple. As more and more research becomes available, we find that minimalist life is complex.

This theory predicts that even the simplest, earliest life will always be very complex. This theory could be falsified if it could be determined that early life required very few genes to survive and reproduce. If, however, early life required hundreds or thousands of genes to survive and reproduce, this would support this theory of complex early life.

Humanity originated from a very small population

This one is currently still being debated among naturalists. Some naturalists posit that human life is too diverse to have one original patriarch. Others believe there is a Y-chromosomal "Adam" and a mitochondrial "Eve".

This theory has three sub-predictions:

1. humanity had a recent origin from a single location

2. humanity’s original population size was small and that all of humanity traces back to a single woman, called mitochondrial Eve, and a single man, called Y-chromosomal Adam

3. humanity expanded from near the Middle East to populate the globe.

Large-body-sized species possess a high probability for rapid extinction and a very low probability for speciation and, thus, are not candidates for natural evolution.

This theory predicts that large-body-sized species possess extinction rates higher than even the most optimistic speciation rates. This could be falsified should any evidence come up that speciation rates among large-body-sized species exceeds the extinction rate.

This theory does not exclude the possibility of natural evolution. Rather, it provides an end to a phylogeny. Current evolutionary thought assumes that phylogenies never end, but rather continuously improve and adapt.


Conclusion

It should be quickly noted that none of these theories are nonharmonious with the naturalists, either. These theories neither prove an Intelligent Designer, nor disprove a naturalist universe. Science does not, and should not, attempt to use God as an answer to scientific questions.

Rather, they are alternative theories to the current popular thought and these theories probably would not have much opposition in the Christian community.

Edited to add: I think my original question was a little too open-ended. The whole gist of my post is that if ID wants to make it into the school systems, they need to have testable, falsifiable, predictable theories. What do you think of these theories as they relate to Intelligent Design? Certainly, they do not indicate a god at all. But they certainly fit in with the biblical perspective of origins. Are there any theories that should be thrown out right away as "overtly religious" or non-scientific?

[Grumpy]

4gold

First, welcome to the forum.

Humans are behaviorally distinct from all other hominids and primates

The differences between humans and Chimps/gorillas is a matter of degree, not kind. Both chimps and gorillas make and use tools, both have been taught,understand and can use American sign language, both show "human" social traits(altruism,love,grief,humor,anger,etc.). Their mental comprehension is equal to a human child of 6, their brain is only 20% less capable compared to the average human. The entire difference between us is contained within that 20%.
We are all still animals, we're just more capable than the next most capable group(the apes) and we share a common ancestor.

The expedient preparation of a fit habitat for life

The universe is biased toward our type of life by the nature of it's laws, is it any wonder, then that we exist?

Geological/astronomical-driven changes in the earth’s environment are accompanied by extinction events and the introduction of new species that are better suited to the new environment.

As you said, punk-eek. But even the Cambrian "Explosion" took millions of years, so "sudden" appearence of divergent lifeforms is a relative term.
And, yes, all of the emergent lifeforms developed from other preexistant forms through evolutionary changes.

Life, even in its most minimal form, is complex

The simplest "self-replicating" molecule yet developed by man is 32 molecules long and assembles itself from two 16 molecule amino acids(which occur naturally). The simplest natural cell surviving today which can self replicate has a DNA strand 200 pairs long. The difference between them is not even one magnitude(power of ten). Life can be very simple indeed.
Life first appeared 3.7 billion years ago, the first organized multi-cellular life 800million years ago. So to go from the simplest life(simular to the above referenced molecule) to the level of a bacterium took 2.9 billion years, most of which we have little data about. During this period DNA, cell walls, internal structures and chemistry developed. All the systems for the further development of life were ready 800 million years ago after 2.9 billion years of evolution.

Humanity originated from a very small population

Most probably true, according to the DNA evidence, but this occured much deeper in the African continent(by the fossil evidence) than the Middle East. If "Eden" is to be found, look there.

Large-body-sized species possess a high probability for rapid extinction and a very low probability for speciation and, thus, are not candidates for natural evolution.

All animals are subject to the same evolutionary pressures, witness pygmy elephant/mammoth fossils.

These postulates are part of the give and take of evolutionary arguements, rather than set up a parallel theory Christians should simply accept the science and examine their erronious interpretations of scripture to correct the errors of interpretation to conform with reality.

Grumpy 8)

[QED]

Please excuse the amateur nature to this post. I am just a novice at learning the origins of the universe.

Think nothing of it. We're all in the same boat Seeing as it's amateurs night anyway, I quite fancy taking my own stab at what you've set out here.

I applaud the judge in Pennsylvania for striking down ID from our schools... I believe that there are a few testable and falsifiable theories out there that make predictions about the future that many Christians may be willing to agree with.

Well here's a problem straight away: you must realize that Christianity proceeds according to untestable and unfalsifiable divine revelations, so what's to be gained from cherry-picking a small selection of scientific observations that might seem to fit in with some of the revelations, when at the same time many more are contradicted? I can't guess at your full motives at the moment so I'll just make a few comments about some of your premises:

Humans are behaviorally distinct from all other hominids and primates

It's interesting how our old friends the Neanderthals need to be lugged around with us now we know that they had burial ceremonies and who knows what else in the way of recognizable culture. We still lack a definitive answer as to whether Neanderthals were a different species from modern humans or not. Either way it still looks like an awkward bit of rationalizing to give ourselves some sort of special status in the animal kingdom. Most species specialize in something, tool making (and imagination) may be our thing but viewed from afar (I'm thinking of a technological civilization millions of years more advanced than our own) I can see how we might barely register above the other species on the planet. What I'm saying is that we are not well placed to be objective about this matter.

The expedient preparation of a fit habitat for life

Sure Carbon has been detected at a surprisingly early stage of the evolution of the universe, but the same Hubble based research puts the maximum production of Carbon at around 7 billion years ago. Our own star formed a few billion years after this point in time so it doesn't look all that expedient to me

Geological/astronomical-driven changes in the earth’s environment are accompanied by extinction events and the introduction of new species that are better suited to the new environment.

Well, we have mammals lurking in the undergrowth during the long tyrannical reign of the dinos, so it's not like God gets fed up and invents something new!

Life, even in its most minimal form, is complex

There is this thing called scaffold that is generally a simple structure used in the building of more complex structures. One of it's common properties is that it does not get to hang around after its work is done. I think its very existence makes any theory that says life has to be of minimal complexity somewhat worthless.

Large-body-sized species possess a high probability for rapid extinction and a very low probability for speciation and, thus, are not candidates for natural evolution.

Is this an attempt to chop down the tree of life? Whether or not large body size is a risk factor in extinction all niches tend to be occupied so there is plenty of raw material waiting to adapt to vacated spaces. I can't see any merit in promoting this theory either.

[4gold]

This reply is intended for both Grumpy and QED.

I appreciate your responses to my post. Quite obviously, all 6 of the theories that I have plagiarized from other authors have their own set of concerns and critiques...otherwise they wouldn't be theories.

And as Grumpy so adequately stated, many of my arguments are not an issue of yes/no, but rather an issue of degree.

I will post forward some of the evidences I have seen for these theories, but please realize that you are probably far more advanced in scientific training than I ever hope to be. My point in this reply is not an apologistic review of the six theories, but rather to show the point-of-view from those who wrote them.

Lastly, the overall gist of my post is that if Creationists wish to make it into the school system, their best shot at getting in there is to pick a testable, falsifiable theory that makes predictions and throw a lot of money at it in the hopes that it attains scientific consensus. Absent that consensus, there is no way it makes it into a high school classroom -- perhaps a psychology class or advanced college course is the best they can hope for.

Take the example of "cherry-picked" Intelligent Design, as QED states. Sure, there are a few examples of evidence that indicate a complex universe. But there are also a few examples of "unIntelligent Design" such as the blind spot we all have in the middle of our eyes. Should we therefore teach an "unIntelligent Designer" who could have made our vision perfect but chose not to? Of course not! An unIntelligent Designer is not testable, falsifiable, and it does not make predictions.

Alas, on to the support for these theories:

Humans are behaviorally distinct from all other hominids and primates

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 1&SRETRY=0

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/va ... 04006.html

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- ... 5/ABSTRACT

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0502656102v1

http://www.emilianobruner.it/pdf/bruner_jhe2004.pdf

The expedient preparation of a fit habitat for life

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 03979.html

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/ApJ/jo ... tract.html

Geological/astronomical-driven changes in the earth's environment are accompanied by extinction events and the introduction of new species that are better suited to the new environment.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/102/29/10227

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 4/2202/DC1

Life, even in its most minimal form, is complex

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0505863102v1

http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/ast/5/2

http://www.liebertonline.com/toc/ast/5/2

Humanity originated from a very small population

http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... =1545-7885

Large-body-sized species possess a high probability for rapid extinction and a low probability for speciation and, thus, are not candidates for natural evolution

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 4/2202/DC1

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/f ... 4/2202/DC1

Granted, these are not popular theories. Nor did I do an adequate job of explaining all the ins and outs of these theories. But just like every other unpopular theory, it gets tossed out there for review and time and research determines the validity of it all.

If Creationists want to spend time in the science classroom, they have a much greater chance of doing it by embracing a theory that fits their biblical viewpoint and then testing it, modifying it, and testing it again.

Out of the list of 6 I just mentioned, I cannot think of one that could not logistically end up in a classroom IF it withstands peer review.