|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What could DISPROVE Evolution?
|
Ender's Shadow
Shipmate
# 2272
|
Posted
Prompted by this impressive about turn where Dawkins successfully justifies two totally opposing interpretations of the evidence about DNA in terms of Evolution, I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
--------------------
Test everything. Hold on to the good.
Please don't refer to me as 'Ender' - the whole point of Ender's Shadow is that he isn't Ender.
Posts: 5018 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
Prompted by this impressive about turn where Dawkins successfully justifies two totally opposing interpretations of the evidence about DNA in terms of Evolution, I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
To answer the question, before going of on a tangent:
Haldane's Rabbit might do the trick...
The link is one important point that should be raised more often in discussion with Dawkinist's - he has an amazing ability to quickly change his mind about things within a very short space of time... having overwhelmingly backed 'junk DNA' as evidence of evolution and his particular stance he manages to make a complete turn to adovcate that this DNA that actually has some purpose is evidence of his position - he is either a sloppy scientist in that he hasn't checked out anothers conclusions and seen if they are valid before pontificating to the world on his philosophy, bandwagoning because he seems to understand that his position is flawed, or... infact that is it actually in my opinion.
I've had my little rant on Dawkin's, to all the scientists who will take this thread where it should probably go, happy arguing!
[ 14. January 2013, 11:11: Message edited by: Sergius-Melli ]
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
In 1900 the leader of the Conservative Party was Lord Salisbury. In 1950 it was Winston Churchill. In 1975 it was Edward Heath. In 2000 it was William Hague. Today it's David Cameron. That doesn't just disprove evolution: it shows that it's actually running backwards.
[ 14. January 2013, 11:14: Message edited by: Albertus ]
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.
As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven. It's a theory that all the available evidence fits. I doubt it will ever be proven. Its a case of, "We've looked and this is the thing that is most likely after looking hard at the world we live on".
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
It's not quite the about turn it looks like. It remains true that "junk DNA", had it existed, would have been hard for a creationist to explain. That evolution could explain it does not mean that its existence was inevitable. Evolution might produce junk DNA; it might not. It is beginning to look like it didn't.
It's one hell of a jump from there to the idea that evolution is unfalsifiable. Haldane's Rabbit is the obvious one. A crow existing prior to basal archosaurs would be a bit of a bugger as well. Creationists understand this, hence the industry in bogus out of place artefacts, like Carl Baugh's laughable "fossil finger". http://paleo.cc/paluxy/finger.htm
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.
As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven. It's a theory that all the available evidence fits. I doubt it will ever be proven. Its a case of, "We've looked and this is the thing that is most likely after looking hard at the world we live on".
Which is fine and good and exactly how science should work, and that is what I want all true, proper scientists to do. However…
In Dawkins’ case he gets no such treatment because he has used his scientific position to further a political and religious dogma, to deliberately go out of his way to offend people and to further his own agenda and financial position. He isn’t a proper scientist anymore, and hasn’t been for a while. He is a politician with an agenda; a businessman with a strategy.
He doesn’t get to change his position based on new evidence as he has nailed his colours very, very firmly to his own mast. Instead he gets to slip away quietly like any politician who has been found to have been wrong on a fundamental principle must do if they change it.
Unfair? Unjust? Yep. But if you live by the sword…
What disappoints me though is that it will merely give Creationist’s more scientific processes to distort in their stupid theology. We need to keep these people on the back foot, not let them get any kind of advantage anywhere.
[ 14. January 2013, 12:51: Message edited by: deano ]
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
iamchristianhearmeroar
Shipmate
# 15483
|
Posted
All this shows is that we shouldn't bother to listen to Dawkins?!
Back to the OP, a pre-Cambrian rabbit suitably verified and preferably duplicated would certainly rock the foundations of the theory of evolution as it is currently understood. Whether that in itself would be sufficient to disprove evolution as a concept would remain to be seen. One or two counter examples are not always sufficient for the whole pack of cards to come tumbling down.
In a similar manner what would "disprove Christianity"? An authenticated sealed bone box marked "Yeshuah-bar-Yosef of Nazareth, born Bethlehem of Judea to Mary of Nazareth, died Jerusalem by Crucifixion" containing authenticated 2000 year old bones? It would rock Christianity to its core, but would it really disprove Christianity? Even if such a discovery were made it wouldn't necessarily stop my praying, reading my Bible, going to church or receiving the Sacrament...
--------------------
My blog: http://alastairnewman.wordpress.com/
Posts: 642 | From: London, UK | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
What could disprove heliocentrism? Is it unfalsifiable? Does that render it untrue or meaningless?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven.
It hasn't been proven to a standard that would satisfy a mathematician doing mathematics.
I'd say it's been sufficiently demonstrated by any standard that it's reasonable to apply to the subject matter.
[ 14. January 2013, 16:45: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
It's one hell of a jump from there to the idea that evolution is unfalsifiable. Haldane's Rabbit is the obvious one. A crow existing prior to basal archosaurs would be a bit of a bugger as well.
Up to a point. There's a distinction between disproving the currently accepted history of life and disproving evolution.
Also, a crow fossil in precambrian rock could also be interpreted as falsifying the theory that the rock in question is precambrian. Or as falsifying the claim that crow fossils can't get embedded in precambrian rock subsequent to the rock formation. The latter is probably the most sensible option should something of the sort turn up.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eliab
Shipmate
# 9153
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.
I agree.
'Junk DNA' is going to be a problem for any explanatory theory. Something which apparently has no function or benefit is able to persist is a challenge. If junk DNA actually exists, nothing that Richard Dawkins has said on why it might be explicable on an evolutionary basis needs to be unsaid.
If there isn't any junk DNA, then there isn't a problem for evolution to explain here. No evolutionist needs to be embarrassed by something that once looked like a problem in need of explanation suddenly not being one.
Which seems to me to be what Richard Dawkins said in the debate. He says that a utility explanation for apparently junk DNA is what any Darwinian would "hope for" (not "expect" as the article ES links to has it, but "hope for"). Darwinians like to find that biological features are useful. That sort of explanation fits the evolutionary view very well. Evolution can cope with other sorts of explanation, but Darwinians would, in general, rather say "X exists because X is useful for...".
What could disprove (or at least discredit) evolution as a convincing explanation would be the widespread existence of features which had neither utility themselves, or any plausible explanation of who they could have arisen from changes driven by utility. Demonstrating that junk DNA is in fact useful is hardly evidence against evolution. All it does is move the class of DNA from the category of "this might be a problem, but we think we might have an explanation" to the category of "not a problem at all".
--------------------
"Perhaps there is poetic beauty in the abstract ideas of justice or fairness, but I doubt if many lawyers are moved by it"
Richard Dawkins
Posts: 4619 | From: Hampton, Middlesex, UK | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
"Junk DNA" does nothing to disprove evolution. Evolution is not 100% efficient. There will be remnants of mutations which may not serve a function. This does more to hurt the Intelligent Design school, than the evolutionary school. I mean, as a designer, God is heavy on On The Job Training or a Hell of a practical joker.
Finding more of the DNA chain useful expands our understanding, not changes its direction.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Evolution provides a plausible explanation for how species change over time. To supersede it, you'd need a theory that better explains more of the ways that species change over time - wouldn't you ?
As I understand it; the fundamental prediction is that any mutation that gives a species more chance of successfully reproducing, is likely to become increasingly widespread in that species. Any other mutations that have no impact on successful reproduction or lack of same, will spread a lot if they are tied genetically to another trait that does increase reproduction chance, or at chance levels if not.
I am not aware of any other overarching theory that better explains species change over time - nor, tbh, am I familiar with the intelligent design arguments in this direction.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
As others have said, a single anomaly, or in fact a number of anomalies, would not cause evolution to be undermined. A widespread phenomenon might, but it's actually quite difficult to think of one, since evolution has been tested for a long time. Thus, suppose that more evidence for punctuated equilibrium should emerge - this would not throw evolution into crisis.
I think convergent evolution has been cited by some Christian palaeontologists as indicating some kind of 'direction', or inevitability, in evolution - see Conway Morris, and his book 'Life's Solution' - but this does not 'disprove' evolution at all.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
What would disprove evolution? The design plans,suitably verified to be of the right date. Of course, you'd also have to prove that the intelligent designer hadn't evolved either.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Perhaps a DNA strand with a copyright date? Say of about 4000 B.C.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Wonder if that has been done on Worth1000 yet?
[ 15. January 2013, 06:41: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
As far as I know evolution hasn't been proven.
It hasn't been proven to a standard that would satisfy a mathematician doing mathematics.
I'd say it's been sufficiently demonstrated by any standard that it's reasonable to apply to the subject matter.
Philosophically it has been shown that it is impossible to prove anything in science (you can thank Karl Popper for that one). That, of course, includes a proof that something is incorrect - you can not disprove a scientific theory any more than you can prove it.
What you can do is compare two competing theories and ask "which has the greater power to explain the data?" and "what predictions do they make?" - and then test those predictions, if possible. Then, you can decide which theory is most likely to be closest to describing how things actually work.
And, even when you have a more accurate theory, there are times when the less accurate theory is still retained - eg: Newtonian mechanics are still used extensively despite the superiority of Relativity as a theory on the pragmatic grounds that in the vast majority of cases for everyday folk dealing with objects travelling much slower than light speed it is more than adequate.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Slartibartfast's signature on a glacier?
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Posted by Spigot:
quote:
I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.
True, except Dawkin's isn't really a scientist - more a pseudo philosopher and parody of a bigot; a kind of self parody if you will.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Posted by Spigot:
quote:
I thought changing your mind when new evidence is discovered was how science worked. And a good thing too otherwise it would be a form of fundamentalism.
True, except Dawkin's isn't really a scientist - more a pseudo philosopher and parody of a bigot; a kind of self parody if you will.
Incorrect. His books 'The Selfish Gene' and 'The Extended Phenotype' are well-written summaries of certain ideas in evolutionary biology. He himself did research in ethology under Tinbergen, and has been a lecturer and then reader in zoology, at Oxford.
The fact that he has been involved in the atheist movement, and in various controversies, should not obscure his skills in science writing and science education.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What would disprove it? Convincing evidence that the world is young. From what we know about how reprodcution works, modification through natural selection seems inevitable, so given enough time, speciation also seems inevitable.
"Junk DNA" is neither here nor there, not really relevant to the argument. And even if you don't like the word, there certainly is some DNA in our chromosomes that has no function. For example mutated and now unexpresible retrovirus genomes. Oer evolutionary time stuff like that can get recruited into new function - not quite the same thing.
[ 15. January 2013, 15:19: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
Quetza, yes to fair, in those earlier years he was interesting, good and challenging, but I fear those skills of scientific objectivity have left him as a parody of himself and a mirror of what he hates. there was always that element to his writing, but it never really felt like a crusade, even if he did make a poor theologian. If I'm honest about it, it rather sad to watch a good mind go to waste.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
No, he still writes well when he writes about biology. I think The Ancestor's Tale is one of his best books - maybe even the best from the point of view of giving an overview of the actual course of evolution - and it was written well into his "Devil#s Chaplain" period.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
And to say that Dawkins 'isn't really a scientist' is both absurd and incorrect. How can a former reader in zoology at Oxford University be classed like that?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The problem with Dawkins is that he's a great scientist and he and his minions think that that makes him a great philosopher. Sagan had the same problem. They are both shit philosophers.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.
Please define the term "real scientists" (especially taking into account the context in which you have used it).
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.
Please define the term "real scientists" (especially taking into account the context in which you have used it).
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
The problem with Dawkins is that he's a great scientist and he and his minions think that that makes him a great philosopher.
Dawkins's a great popular science writer. As I understand it, he's as good a scientist as many other scientists who have less of a flair for a catchy writing style.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
If something ever did disprove evolution, you can be damned sure it will be discovered by real scientists and not by "Intelligent Design" adherents.
Please define the term "real scientists" (especially taking into account the context in which you have used it).
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
It's possible to be motivated by more than one thing at a time.
For me, Dawkins is a "real scientist". I wouldn't consider him to be an active research scientist - he's far to busy doing other things to find out new stuff. But, he is a great science communicator, and communicating science is a vital part of the scientific process.
The question is, how strong are his credentials as a philosopher? Because, it's when his writing and speaking moves from science to philosophy that he tends to trip up.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.
Furthermore, what if a scientist looked at the evidence and concluded that abiogenesis is just not a plausible theory, and therefore, by default, some kind of design causation had to be inferred? Are you suggesting that such a scientist is bogus?
(If you are suggesting that, then that is tantamount to saying that the naturalistic theory of origins is unfalsifiable, given that no alternative can be considered consistent with the scientific method. But an unfalsifiable theory is also unscientific.)
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.
Which is why an agnostic scientist's opinion is more likely to be valuable than a theist or atheist. Anyone with an agenda has their neutrality compromised.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
Why would you want to?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
I think there is an implicit accusation in the OP that evolution is unfalsifiable and, hence, unscientific.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
I still don't understand the underlying need to make such accusations. What is the motivation? What are they trying to prove?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief
People who are motivated by following the evidence, not by proving or supporting an a priori assumption, such as, oh, say, that God made everything.
But the theory that God (or rather an intelligence) made everything is no more an a priori assumption than the naturalistic idea that everything (especially the most complex of systems) must have self-assembled without any kind of intelligent guidance or input.
Which is why an agnostic scientist's opinion is more likely to be valuable than a theist or atheist. Anyone with an agenda has their neutrality compromised.
Even better, the recognition that science deals with the physical universe - matter, energy and fields. Questions relating to the existance (or otherwise) and nature of non-physical entities are beyond the ability of science to address.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
Why would you want to?
For the very same reason that some people want to disprove creation.
Truth.
Or should we just accept that a particular theory should remain de facto unfalsifiable?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
Bollocks. It is in principle falsifiable. Lots of possible observations would falsify it. If you want to falsify it, the off you toddle and actually make those observations.
Just like everything else from germ theory to general relativity.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
For the very same reason that some people want to disprove creation.
Truth.
What kind of creation are you talking about here? That God created everything in 6 days 6000 years ago - or something else?
I believe in creation.
I believe God created everything and S/he took billions of years to do it, using evolution to create life.
We have minds to discover the how of creation and to philosophise about the why. It's the 'why' that we take on faith, not the 'how' imo.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
George Spigot
Outcast
# 253
|
Posted
To those who accuse him of being a hate monger all I can say is I will continue to applaud whenever I see a clip of him arguing against those who preach that homosexuality is a sin, or getting a religious leader to admit that the punishment for apostasy is death in their country, or pointing out all the flaws in the arguments of people who want to see young earth creationism taught in school.
Shrug. I just have a different perspective I suppose.
--------------------
C.S. Lewis's Head is just a tool for the Devil. (And you can quote me on that.) ~
Philip Purser Hallard
http://www.thoughtplay.com/infinitarian/gbsfatb.html
Posts: 1625 | From: Derbyshire - England | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, what if a scientist looked at the evidence and concluded that abiogenesis is just not a plausible theory, and therefore, by default, some kind of design causation had to be inferred? Are you suggesting that such a scientist is bogus?
Yes, such a scientist would be bogus. Not for reaching her conclusion about abiogenesis (assuming that the strength of her observations actually supported her conclusion), but for assuming you can prove something "by default" through disproving something else.
This gets to the heart of the problem with "intelligent design" as a scientific theory. Its supporters don't seem to be interested in doing any research to support their hypothesis. They don't even seem to be interested in formulating the parameters of what such research would look like. Their assumption seems to be that if they can disprove [descent with modification/abiogenesis/general relativity/whatever] that their own pet theory will be accepted "by default".
There are no default prizes in science.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
quote:
Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
I'm wondering whether there is anything that could disprove Evolution.
Why would you want to?
For the very same reason that some people want to disprove creation.
Who would that be, then?
Certainly not Darwin, who merely observed the various animals of Madagascar (and later the world) and drew conclusions based on those observations. And certainly not the scientists who followed up his work, delving deeper into the biological mechanisms by which evolution works and expanding our knowledge.
None of them set out with the intention to disprove a literal interpretation of Genesis, it just so happened that that was a side effect of their findings.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This gets to the heart of the problem with "intelligent design" as a scientific theory. Its supporters don't seem to be interested in doing any research to support their hypothesis. They don't even seem to be interested in formulating the parameters of what such research would look like. Their assumption seems to be that if they can disprove [descent with modification/abiogenesis/general relativity/whatever] that their own pet theory will be accepted "by default".
Indeed. It's like a form of "God of the gaps", but where they're trying to create the gaps so they can wedge God into them!
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I still don't understand the underlying need to make such accusations. What is the motivation? What are they trying to prove?
I think the motivation, for many, is fear.
Plenty of theists are able to join acceptance of evolution with belief in their deities, including Christians, so it is not a compatibility issue. They can coexist.
Fear if people accept evolution, they will have no need for God.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by George Spigot:
Of course he can also be a reactionary, misogynist prick at times.
Who, God?
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Surely, ID is in no shape or form, a scientific theory. It seems to me to be largely parasitic upon genuine scientific disciplines, such as biology, geology, paleontology, and so on, in that it takes information from them, and uses that to argue against evolution. Some of it is quite ridiculous, see the ignoble episode of 'human teeth' found near dinosaur tracks.
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/tooth.htm
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I think there is an implicit accusation in the OP that evolution is unfalsifiable and, hence, unscientific.
Which would be a noddy-level idea of what "scientific" might mean.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
