Falsifying Evolution.

[Furrowed Brow]

As far as evolutionary theory goes Dollo's Law seems to have been disproved. Thus evolution is reversible. A recent article in the Newscientist 13 January 2007, looks at possible examples of atavism.

Atavist examples cited are an hump back whale with a pair of leg-like appendages, web toes in humans, a dolphin with an extra pair of flippers similar to those found in the fossil record of 40 million years ago. Things get even more interesting when it transpires that some traits such as metamorphism (tadpole to adult form) in salamanders has been turning on and off for tens of millions of years.

Thus a trait/characteristics can appear in a population that has not been present for tens of millions of years.

So here is a crazy thought. What conclusion should we reach if fossil skeleton were found in 40 million year old rock that appear to be modern human. Would evolutionary theory as it applies to humans be utterly disproved, or would evolutionist need to look harder at the genetic story. Are their back doors in the theory like atavism that allow the theory not to be falsified. If the latter, is Q1 evolution theory really falsifiable?

I for one say evolution theory is falsifiable. I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock. But lets test if I am just swallowing evolutionary dogma. What if rabbits do start turning up in Cambrian rock?

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

[diggnate]

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

It's an impenetrable fortress. "Evolution" is a synthesis of many theories, a compilation of various ideas. It is a multi-layered conclusion. It is the combination of geologic gradient tables, genetics, natural-history, chemistry, and physics. Each of these is a sandbag that keeps the hot air ballon on the ground. remove one sandbag, the others keep the balloon on the ground, and the removed sandbag is quickly replaced with an alternate explanation.

Evolution as a synthetic theory, is by its very nature unfalsifiable. Does that mean that it's not a valid scientific theory? you be the judge.

[Goat]

As far as evolutionary theory goes Dollo's Law seems to have been disproved. Thus evolution is reversible. A recent article in the Newscientist 13 January 2007, looks at possible examples of atavism.

Atavist examples cited are an hump back whale with a pair of leg-like appendages, web toes in humans, a dolphin with an extra pair of flippers similar to those found in the fossil record of 40 million years ago. Things get even more interesting when it transpires that some traits such as metamorphism (tadpole to adult form) in salamanders has been turning on and off for tens of millions of years.

Thus a trait/characteristics can appear in a population that has not been present for tens of millions of years.

So here is a crazy thought. What conclusion should we reach if fossil skeleton were found in 40 million year old rock that appear to be modern human. Would evolutionary theory as it applies to humans be utterly disproved, or would evolutionist need to look harder at the genetic story. Are their back doors in the theory like atavism that allow the theory not to be falsified. If the latter, is Q1 evolution theory really falsifiable?

I for one say evolution theory is falsifiable. I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock. But lets test if I am just swallowing evolutionary dogma. What if rabbits do start turning up in Cambrian rock?

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

If it was a single trait, such as tooth formation, then it would be interesting information, but not upsetting.

If it was a number of different 'modern' traits, then that would be kicking in a whole bunch of doubts.

If it was from before the time that we thought primates existed.. well, that would falsify out concept of human evolution.

"Modern man' is different than his ancestors by more than one trait. Each of these traits are handled by different genes. To have multiple genes that have not been expressed in a long time be suddenly expressed would upset our understanding on how those genes work.

[Goat]

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

It's an impenetrable fortress. "Evolution" is a synthesis of many theories, a compilation of various ideas. It is a multi-layered conclusion. It is the combination of geologic gradient tables, genetics, natural-history, chemistry, and physics. Each of these is a sandbag that keeps the hot air ballon on the ground. remove one sandbag, the others keep the balloon on the ground, and the removed sandbag is quickly replaced with an alternate explanation.

Evolution as a synthetic theory, is by its very nature unfalsifiable. Does that mean that it's not a valid scientific theory? you be the judge.

You are totally incorrect about evolution not being unfasifiable. After 150 years of testing, it is unlikely for it to be falsified (although certain of the sub-theories might be.

This is a very common misconception that is spread by the promoters of 'creationsim' and 'intelligent design'. If you wish to read an essay about it that
explains in better detail about it, there is a very good one at the Talk origins website

[diggnate]

You are totally incorrect about evolution not being unfasifiable. After 150 years of testing, it is unlikely for it to be falsified (although certain of the sub-theories might be.

I'm curious, so let's do an example. You play the falsifier, and I'll play the darwinist. You throw out some way evolution as a synthetic theory, and I'll attempt to keep evolution standing by either redefining a certain aspect, or using my creative abilities.

Outta be fun.

This is a very common misconception that is spread by the promoters of 'creationsim' [sic] and 'intelligent design'. If you wish to read an essay about it that
explains in better detail about it, there is a very good one at the Talk origins website

The main reason I'm here is because I'd rather talk rationally than read propaganda, which is what both the TO website and newsgroup is.

[Goat]

You are totally incorrect about evolution not being unfasifiable. After 150 years of testing, it is unlikely for it to be falsified (although certain of the sub-theories might be.

I'm curious, so let's do an example. You play the falsifier, and I'll play the darwinist. You throw out some way evolution as a synthetic theory, and I'll attempt to keep evolution standing by either redefining a certain aspect, or using my creative abilities.

Outta be fun.

This is a very common misconception that is spread by the promoters of 'creationsim' [sic] and 'intelligent design'. If you wish to read an essay about it that
explains in better detail about it, there is a very good one at the Talk origins website

The main reason I'm here is because I'd rather talk rationally than read propaganda, which is what both the TO website and newsgroup is.

Fine.. if we find a rabbit fossil (or another 'modern' animal) in a strata that is dated from before we think mammals develop, it is falsified.

[diggnate]

Fine.. if we find a rabbit fossil (or another 'modern' animal) in a strata that is dated from before we think mammals develop, it is falsified.

Well, as a darwinist, I would first have to get over the initial shock of finding such a thing. Then:

1) Rigorously examine the area to find out who tampered with the surrounding land.

2) If, and only if, it could be demonstrated to a high probability that the rabbit fossil (or any mammal) was indeed dated to pre-mammalian geologic age, we then pull out our handy tree of life and reclassify the "rabbit mammal" into that age. It certainly messes up our conclusions about mammals, but hardly falsifies evolution as a synthetic theory.

3) start looking for other rabbits (or whatever mammal you found) in the same age. If we found one, there must be more. If we don't find one (much like the small number, but not necessarily lack of, pre-human hominid fossils) we just say there weren't very many and move on. After all, everything else is still in place.

4) dust hands and continue claiming that evolution is falsifiable.

[upallnite]

Digg,
Then when you tried to publish your move the mammals hypothesis other scientist will rip it apart. Your simple 1,2,3,4 would not convince very many people. And yes a bunny in the wrong time would destroy evolution. Just think of a bunny hopping around a bunch of single celled organisms.

[Cathar1950]

Digg,
Then when you tried to publish your move the mammals hypothesis other scientist will rip it apart. Your simple 1,2,3,4 would not convince very many people. And yes a bunny in the wrong time would destroy evolution. Just think of a bunny hopping around a bunch of single celled organisms.

Maybe the bunny is made in God's image?
It is weird how the fossils show up in the right times and places together.

[jcrawford]

I for one say evolution theory is falsifiable.

It has to be falsifiable in order to qualify as a "scientific" theory.

I often use the example of digging up a rabbit in Cambrian rock. But lets test if I am just swallowing evolutionary dogma. What if rabbits do start turning up in Cambrian rock?

Q2 What things can really falsify evolution, and at what point will the evidence be so strong that the theory can not survive regardless of how much it is tinkered with.?

Although Rabbits are a great example to use because magicians seem capable of pulling them out of their hats with great ease at will, I would draw your attention to an actual case of the evolutionary timetable being out of sync with the fossil evidence such as the Laetoli footprints fossilized in volcanic ash somewhere in East Africa, supposedly 3-4mya.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

According to the date, the footprints cannot be human, yet according to the footprints themselves the date needs to be changed to about 2mya in order to associate them with H. erectus who was about as human as any of us posting on this forum.