How do I respond to that?

Views: 353

Replies to This Discussion"
This link takes you to arguement where falsifiablity of evolution is the topic.
It is written from the POV of the creationist and rebutted by a normal person.
It's easy to see that this statement is just circular logic that ID'sts use to confuse the mentally challenged. But read it for yourself and decide.
For some reason clicking on your link brought me back to this page.

The correct link is: Topic: Intelligent Design, Evolution, and Falsifiability.
Surely it is falsifiable because all you have to do is find an animal with 'made by God' written on its bones and bob's your uncle.
You could then point out how creationism aka ID, is not falsifiable.
Exactly. At some point we'll get down to the the argument about how quarks and leptons are intelligently designed.
Yes, but that lends credence to their "they are both equal, so let's teach them all and let the kids decide" argument.
You people are great, thanks for the replies. I'm currently making a youtube vid as a response to a creationist making this argument. I'll post it here too when I'm done.

Now I've preparing to reply to a section of quotes, and we all know how honest creationists are when it comes to quotes (he says sarcastically).

First up is a quote from C. H. Waddington, and goes as follows:

"The theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, if an animal evolves one way, biologists have a perfectly good explanation; but if it evolves some other way, they have an equally good explanation... . The theory is not a predictive theory as to what must happen."

I've tried using google and I've only managed to find a handful of creation websites that quote this but never a source. Can anyone clarify?
First of all, a theory doesn't have to be predictive in every particular to be falsifiable. For example, quantum mechanics cannot make a prediction of exactly when a radioactive nucleus will decay or, often, which decay route it will take. There are probabilistic falsifiable theories.

That said, one strong prediction of evolutionary biology is the existence of multiple nested hierarchies. For example, suppose you do a study of comparative anatomy and build a tree representing the similarities based on anatomical structure. Now do a study of your favorite protein, say cytochrome C and build a tree based on similarities in the structure of this protein in different species. Then do the same with your second favorite protein. ALL of these trees should be compatible if they are caused by evolution of ancestors. if they were not (a very likely thing a priori), evolution would be falsified. Well, of course, the different trees *are* compatible.

Next, look at retroviral inserts. These are caused when certain viruses insert their DNA into the germ line of an animal. This DNA then gets passed to the animals progeny. A prediction of evolution is that animals with more recent common ancestors will have more of these inserts in common. Furthermore, the tree obtained by the commonalities should match the trees obtained in the last paragraph. Again, if this turned out not to be the case, it would show that common ancestry was untenable. Once again, the prediction holds up in the real world.

Next, and closer to home, humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46 while chimpanzees have 24 pairs for a total of 48. This seems like an unlikely thing under evolution. So, what must have happened is that two of the chimpanzee ancestral chromosomes fused to produce the humans ones (or one split to produce the chimp's). If this did not turn out to be the case, the common recent ancestry of humans and chimps would be falsified. Now, we can tell when chromosomes have been fused because of structures called teleomeres, which usually are located at the *end* of the chromosomes. In human chromosome 2, however, there are teleomeres in the *middle* of the chromosome. Furthermore, if you split that chromosome at that internal teleomere, the two pieces exactly match up with two of the chimp chromosomes. Once again, a very specific prediction based on common ancestry that could have shown evolution of humans to be wrong, yert it passed.
Polymath: I don't say this to a lot of people but you are a smart mf'er. Nicely put and I don't think a quality answer could be phrased more concisely. Cheers to you.
Polymath, you have made a very fine contribution to this debate involving matters of falsification testing. The chromosome/teleomere situation for humans and chimpanzees is a splendidly apt example of falsifiability recognition.
heh heh heh... zing!
Thanks for explaining this so clearly. The only bit I got lost on was the protein bits. What is "cytochrome C"?

The retrovirus and chromosome fusion passages are top notch summaries of info I have only recently come across. Bravo!



Update Your Membership :




Nexus on Social Media:


© 2017   Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service