Challenge to evolutionists
jca...@gmail.com
must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
observation is not actually made.
So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
Bill Wayne
The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
chances of survival.
What would falsify creationism?
Bill
Lee Oswald Ving
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
Darwin did this in _Origins_. Are you looking for other examples or did you
simply not look into Evolution in the first place?
Scooter the Mighty
The problem with this request is that evolution has already spent 150
years failing to be falsified. Therefore, the things the would falsify
it have already been shown not to be the case.
So what would falsify evolution? If DNA repair mechanisms were perfect
and mutations didn't happen. If all the animals which are alive to day
appeared at the beginning of the fossil record and did not change over
time. If DNA sequences didn't show a nested heirarchy. That kind of
thing.
jcarl...@gmail.com
Evolution would be falsified if:
We found a human in the Pre-Cambrian fossil record
A vertebrate gave birth to an invertebrate
vice-versa
and much more.
Creationism and Intellegent design on the other hand, can't be
falsified, because they rely on assumptions of things outside the scope
of our natural environment.
jca...@gmail.com
Bill Wayne wrote:
>
> The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
> chances of survival.
>
Such a trait could be explained to benefit the organism's genetic
survival over an undefined period of time.
Bill Wayne
Not if it killed it off in the short term, like spontaneously catching
fire in an arid environment.
Bill
Ken Shackleton
Is Natural Selection a theory...or a mechanism? No matter.....
If populations did *not* respond to environmental pressures....that
would be a problem.....too bad it has been observed so many times.
Ken
jca...@gmail.com
But the trait needs to keep the organism alive long enough to reproduce
else it can't spread. The very conditions that are required for a trait
to spread through a population makes it a suitable evolutionary outcome.
rmj
"Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
You mean like the bright colors of birds? Or the oversized antlers of
moose/meese/mooses?
Or the stripes of zebras?
jca...@gmail.com
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
>
> So what would falsify evolution? If DNA repair mechanisms were perfect
> and mutations didn't happen. If all the animals which are alive to day
> appeared at the beginning of the fossil record and did not change over
> time. If DNA sequences didn't show a nested heirarchy. That kind of
> thing.
Scientist had no problem explaining Natural selection without DNA
altogether so the characteristics of DNA are not required. Mutation is
a required but you can verify that mutation never occurs. You can only
observe that mutation isn't occurring on whatever you are observing.
Which doesn't falsify natural selection.
jca...@gmail.com
jcarl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> We found a human in the Pre-Cambrian fossil record
> A vertebrate gave birth to an invertebrate
> vice-versa
>
What about the theory of natural selection makes those impossible?
Ken Shackleton
On Nov 1, 7:58 pm, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
> "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> >> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >> observation is not actually made.
>
> >> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
> > The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
> > chances of survival.
>
>
> You mean like the bright colors of birds?
They enhance reproductive success [which is the only definition of
survival that matters].
> Or the oversized antlers of moose?
Same here.
> Or the stripes of zebras?
The stripes have been shown to confuse parasitic flies.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What would falsify creationism?
>
> > Bill- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
bullpup
<jca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162433118.9...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
Focusing only on NS, and not the ToE, demonstrate that reproductive success
is totally random within a population given individuals with vared traits
within the same environment. For example, a population of mice with various
fur thickness in an artic environment. If NS is false, over time, there
should still be the same ratio of thin furred, meduim furred, and thick
furred mice after ten, twenty, thirty, forty... generations, the same as it
would be when compaired to a control population where fur thickness is
neutral to survival.
Boikat
--
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own"
-Adam Savage, Mythbusters-
rmj
<jcarl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162434392.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> jca...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
>> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
>> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
>> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
>> observation is not actually made.
>>
>> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
>> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
> Evolution would be falsified if:
>
> We found a human in the Pre-Cambrian fossil record
> A vertebrate gave birth to an invertebrate
> vice-versa
>
> and much more.
The question was how can the theory of natural selection be falsified.
jca...@gmail.com
Ken Shackleton wrote:
>
> If populations did *not* respond to environmental pressures....that
> would be a problem.....too bad it has been observed so many times.
>
Thats what happens when a species goes extinct, is it not?
jca...@gmail.com
bullpup wrote:
>
> Focusing only on NS, and not the ToE, demonstrate that reproductive success
> is totally random within a population given individuals with vared traits
> within the same environment. For example, a population of mice with various
> fur thickness in an artic environment. If NS is false, over time, there
> should still be the same ratio of thin furred, meduim furred, and thick
> furred mice after ten, twenty, thirty, forty... generations, the same as it
> would be when compaired to a control population where fur thickness is
> neutral to survival.
>
There could always be unknown selection pressures which are causing the
diversity.
bullpup
"rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote in message
news:29d2h.807$L6....@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> >> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >> observation is not actually made.
> >>
> >> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
> >
> > The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
> > chances of survival.
>
> You mean like the bright colors of birds?
That attracts mates, therefore, the cost/benefit is positive.
> Or the oversized antlers of
> moose/meese/mooses?
Same as above, however, in a surpriseing development (But not very
surprising after you think about it) antler size is shrinking in at least
one species (Bighorn Sheep) due to human hunting taking out the "best".
Also, some male elephants have reduced tusks, since big game poaching
targeted those with large tusks.
> Or the stripes of zebras?
Stripes on a zebra actually helps defend against predation.
Boikat
bullpup
>
> <jcarl...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162434392.5...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> >> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >> observation is not actually made.
> >>
> >> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
> >
> > Evolution would be falsified if:
> >
> > We found a human in the Pre-Cambrian fossil record
> > A vertebrate gave birth to an invertebrate
> > vice-versa
> >
> > and much more.
>
> The question was how can the theory of natural selection be falsified.
NS isn't really a theory. It's more of an observation.
Boikat
Matt Silberstein
<1162433118.9...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com> wrote:
There is no theory of natural selection, there is a theory of
evolution in which natural selection plays a major role. To falsify
that we might go to Darwin and look for organisms that have traits
that exist solely for the benefit of some other species.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
Ken Shackleton
No....the population responded to the environmental pressures by going
extinct. If NS was not happening, extinctions would not occur, since
populations would remain static no matter what the selection pressures.
Ken
Ken Shackleton
Then identify it, create a new experiment to test it, and verify your
hypothesis.
Perplexed in Peoria
Sure. Natural selection only works if traits contributing to fitness
are heritable. If a class of individuals in this generation has some
trait that makes them more-than-average successful in surviving and
reproducing, then it is essential that the offspring of this class
inherit the trait and thereby have greater survival and reproductive
success than their peers in the next generation. If, in general, they
don't, then natural selection is falsified.
Or, rather than focusing on some specific trait, it might make more
sense to look at individual fitness itself - a count of offspring.
So, simply count the number of offspring each individual has (if the
individual dies before reaching sexual maturity, it is credited with
zero offspring); then count the number of offspring again in the next
generation. A simple statistical calculation tells you whether the
fitness (offspring count) of the parents are positively (or negatively)
correlated with the fitness (offspring count) of the offspring.
Another simple statistical test tells you whether the (positive?)
correlation can be considered significant. The null hypothesis, of
course, is that there is no correlation - that fitness is not heritable.
I make this proposal with my tongue firmly in cheek - anti-evolutionists
are encouraged to search the literature (or simply Google) to find out
what the empirical results have been when this simple test of a cornerstone
assumption of the theory of natural selection has been carried out on
wild populations.
Incidentally, I notice that a number of responders missed your specification
that you wanted a falsification of *natural selection*. They provided
potential falsifications of *common descent*. I am sure you will point
out this error on their part.
bullpup
<jca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162437486....@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
What? Like one of the researchers sneaking in and putting all the thin
furred mice in his pocket when the temp hit's -70F?
Get real.
Boikat
>
bullpup
<jca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162437209.4...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Going extinct would be, population wise, a response to the environmental
pressure.
Boikat
Mark VandeWettering
>
> Scooter the Mighty wrote:
>
>
>>
>> So what would falsify evolution? If DNA repair mechanisms were perfect
>> and mutations didn't happen. If all the animals which are alive to day
>> appeared at the beginning of the fossil record and did not change over
>> time. If DNA sequences didn't show a nested heirarchy. That kind of
>> thing.
>
> Scientist had no problem explaining Natural selection without DNA
> altogether so the characteristics of DNA are not required.
This is actually not true. It was hard for Darwin to imagine how traits
were inherited, since he imagined them all to be finely graduated, and that
breeding would result in a sort of averaging behavior. It wasn't really
until genetics (if not DNA) was more clearly understood that the modern
synthesis began to unravel some of the actual mechanics at work.
> Mutation is
> a required but you can verify that mutation never occurs. You can only
> observe that mutation isn't occurring on whatever you are observing.
> Which doesn't falsify natural selection.
Mark
John Harshman
We've been over this before. They're all advantageous. Bill misspoke; in
stead of "survival" he should have said "reproduction".
But jcar is right too. How would a truly disadvantageous trait spread,
since we recognize advantage by reproductive success?
John Harshman
> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> observation is not actually made.
>
> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
Not sure. What exactly do you mean by the theory of natural selection?
The idea that advantageous traits will spread through a population? The
idea that some particular traits are advantageous in particular
environments? The idea that natural selection is responsible for complex
adaptations?
John Harshman
At least one of you has confused natural selection with evolution.
Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution. You can have, for
example, common descent without natural selection, and natural selection
without common descent.
LotsaQuestions
jcarl...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Creationism and Intellegent design on the other hand, can't be
> falsified, because they rely on assumptions of things outside the scope
> of our natural environment.
Would not the creation of a living organism in the laboratory from non
living parts prove them wrong?
John Harshman
This is getting very weird. Natural selection has nothing to say about
extinction. Extinction can happen without any natural selection
happening. This thread is starting very badly.
LotsaQuestions
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
>
> The problem with this request is that evolution has already spent 150
> years failing to be falsified. Therefore, the things the would falsify
> it have already been shown not to be the case.
>
If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
Are you saying that all of Darwin's missing links were found 150 years
ago?
Free Lunch
"LotsaQuestions" <ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1162439842.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
No, because nothing in creationism or intelligent design (other than
religious doctrines) tells us that life cannot be developed in a lab.
Free Lunch
"LotsaQuestions" <ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1162440192.7...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>:
>
>Scooter the Mighty wrote:
>>
>> The problem with this request is that evolution has already spent 150
>> years failing to be falsified. Therefore, the things the would falsify
>> it have already been shown not to be the case.
>>
>
>
>If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
>proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
No. Theories are never proven true, the best they can do is explain the
evidence that has been gathered to date and make predictions for results
in new tests. The falsification test comes from those predictions.
>Are you saying that all of Darwin's missing links were found 150 years
>ago?
New fossils are continually being found. These fossils have all been
consistent with evolution. A large finding of fossils that are
completely inconsistent with the nested hierarchy would provide serious
problems for the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection.
Ken Shackleton
On Nov 1, 8:57 pm, John Harshman <jharshman.diespam...@pacbell.net>
wrote:
That's why I am here...to clear up my misconceptions. I was not
entirely sure if I was going down the correct path when I wrote that,
since I understand that an event that kills everything...such as a
meteorite impact.....is not doing any selecting.....but it certainly
can cause extinctions.
Help me out please.....if the key to NS is differential reproductive
success.....this implies that there must be at least some reproductive
success, and that it is differentiated, based on heritable traits....is
that correct?
Thanks
Ken
rmj
"Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1162436963.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> On Nov 1, 7:58 pm, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
>> "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> messagenews:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
>> >> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
>> >> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
>> >> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
>> >> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
>> >> observation is not actually made.
>>
>> >> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
>> >> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>>
>> > The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
>> > chances of survival.
>>
>>
>> You mean like the bright colors of birds?
>
> They enhance reproductive success [which is the only definition of
> survival that matters].
But not the one given.
rmj
"Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:1162436963.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
Now that is interesting. But hard to see the value since other animals
(giraffes, gazelle, lions, etc) endure the flies.
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
Two of many possibilities that immediately come to mind:
Mermaids
The goo' ol' cretinist "argument": Apes giving birth to humans
Need more? I don't think so. Either one of these would _at least_ be one
whopper of a problem for evolutionary theory.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
hell...@gmail.com
On Nov 2, 6:26 am, "jcarlso...@gmail.com" <jcarlso...@gmail.com> wrote:
> jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> > must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> > falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> > observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> > observation is not actually made.
>
> > So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> > would show the theory of natural selection to be false?Evolution would be falsified if:
>
> We found a human in the Pre-Cambrian fossil record
> A vertebrate gave birth to an invertebrate
> vice-versa
>
what if a vertebrate was impregnated with the egg & sperm of an
invertebrate? .... see? therefore evilution is falsified... i suggest
you ask Baby Jesus for forgiveness for your sins... for hell &
damnation are at hand!!! i baptize you in the blood of the Holy Ghost!
Prime Minister of the Kingdom of God
Ali-G-ing all
er...@swva.net
I always figure that the stripes worked like the blaze camouflage of
ships during WWI, which didn't make them harder to see, but made them
confusing to look at; harder to tell what exactly they were, which way
they were going, and what was their range. If the stripes throw off
the "hand-eye-coordination" of a few more lions, making them miss their
pounce, the genes for stripes could spread through the population.
> Boikat
Eric Root
TomS
Thurisaz the Einherjer stated..."
>
>jca...@gmail.com:
>
>> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
>> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
>Two of many possibilities that immediately come to mind:
>
>Mermaids
The schmoo.
(Yes, there is a Wikipedia article.)
The existence of schmoos would violate the evolutionary principle that
no character of a species exists for the sole benefit of another species.
>
>The goo' ol' cretinist "argument": Apes giving birth to humans
>
>Need more? I don't think so. Either one of these would _at least_ be one
>whopper of a problem for evolutionary theory.
>
--
---Tom S. <http://talkreason.org/articles/chickegg.cfm>
"...works of Nature are not like the works of art which are made only by
progressing from one part to another ... unlike an artisan, Nature ... can
act on all of the parts at once just as well as on a single one ..."
Pierre Gassendi, De Generatione Animalium, Chapter III (1651)
Ron O
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> bullpup wrote:
>
> >
> > Focusing only on NS, and not the ToE, demonstrate that reproductive success
> > is totally random within a population given individuals with vared traits
> > within the same environment. For example, a population of mice with various
> > fur thickness in an artic environment. If NS is false, over time, there
> > should still be the same ratio of thin furred, meduim furred, and thick
> > furred mice after ten, twenty, thirty, forty... generations, the same as it
> > would be when compaired to a control population where fur thickness is
> > neutral to survival.
> >
>
> There could always be unknown selection pressures which are causing the
> diversity.
So what?
Natural selection occurs in nature. Do you deny it? You might want to
know how you determine if natural selection isn't happening for a
particular instance, but you can't disprove that natural selection is a
fact of nature, because it is a fact of nature. Who denies it? Even
when cretinists like Wells (yes, I ment cretin because that would be a
kindness if they were just cretins) make up stupid arguments about
colored mothes they don't deny that it is an example of natural
selection they only argue that we may not know all the selective agents
involved, so what?
For a particular instance you can take the fur example, you can just
take a bunch of polymorphisms (differences in the DNA between
individuals) spread around the genome and you will see that after
repeat experiments starting from the same base populations that the fur
always gets longer in the mice, but certain parts of their genome just
change randomly. This would demonstrate that certain parts of the
genome were not under selection, or were under selection pressure that
was so weak that it didn't matter, in the new environment (the parts
that just changed in a random fashion). You could take the non
randomly changing parts of the genome and do a heck of a lot of work
and find that some of them encoded fur length genes. All regions of
the genome that responded to the environmental shift would not be
involved in fur length for the simple reason that a lot more would be
selected for and against than just fur length.
Ron Okimoto
Larry Moran
> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> observation is not actually made.
>
> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
The short answer is, no. Natural selection is not a theory. It's a proven
fact. We always have to keep in mind that "proof" in science is never
absolute so there's a remote possibility that we have misunderstood the
fact of natural selection, but that's really a remote possibility.
On the other hand, when trying to figure out the history of life we often
invoke mechanisms such as natural selection or random genetic drift to
explain the facts. From time to time we get it wrong and it something
turns out to be an adaptation when we thought it wasn't (or vice versa).
This falsifies our previous explanation of a particular example of evolution
but that's not the question you asked.
Ron Okimoto is the only one in this thread who gave you the correct answer.
I suggest you re-read his posting very carefull and get back to us if
there's still something about evolutionary theory that confuses you.
Larry Moran
Scooter the Mighty
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Scooter the Mighty wrote:
>
>
> >
> > So what would falsify evolution? If DNA repair mechanisms were perfect
> > and mutations didn't happen. If all the animals which are alive to day
> > appeared at the beginning of the fossil record and did not change over
> > time. If DNA sequences didn't show a nested heirarchy. That kind of
> > thing.
>
> Scientist had no problem explaining Natural selection without DNA
> altogether so the characteristics of DNA are not required.
Notice that all of my examples don't require knowledge of DNA. For
example, the one about if all animals which are alive to day were found
unchanged in the fossil record."
If you really think about it you can figure out ways that evolution
could have been falsified yourself. Evolution proposes that life
changes over time as the result of natual selection. Any evidence
against that would falsify it.
Scooter the Mighty
LotsaQuestions wrote:
> Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> >
> > The problem with this request is that evolution has already spent 150
> > years failing to be falsified. Therefore, the things the would falsify
> > it have already been shown not to be the case.
> >
>
>
> If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
> proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof. 2) If you did prove
something true, you can't falsify it.
A theory needs to be supported by evidence before it qualifies as a
theory, but it doesn't have to be "proven"
>
> Are you saying that all of Darwin's missing links were found 150 years
> ago?
Of course not. I wasn't talking about missing links at all, I was
talking about falsification. A theory is not falsified by not finding
every concievable bit of supporting evidence, a theory is falsified by
finding evidence that goes against the theory.
CreateThis
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
>On 1 Nov 2006 18:05:19 -0800, jca...@gmail.com <jca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
>> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
>> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
>> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
>> observation is not actually made.
>>
>> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
>> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
>The short answer is, no. Natural selection is not a theory. It's a proven
>fact. We always have to keep in mind that "proof" in science is never
>absolute so there's a remote possibility that we have misunderstood the
>fact of natural selection, but that's really a remote possibility.
We also should keep in mind that the "alternative" being promoted is
as unlikely as natural selection is likely, so by comparison NS *is* a
proven fact. We don't have to be so rigorous when rebutting complete
nonsense - "evolution is a fact" is precise compared with
creationism/ID.
CT
Ken Shackleton
On Nov 1, 11:16 pm, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote in messagenews:1162436963.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 7:58 pm, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
> >> "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> >> >> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >> >> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >> >> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >> >> observation is not actually made.
>
> >> >> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >> >> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
> >> > The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
> >> > chances of survival.
>
> >> You mean like the bright colors of birds?
>
> > They enhance reproductive success [which is the only definition of
> > survival that matters].
>
>
> But not the one given.
Then so what? If your definition is meaningless....or irrelevant to
evolutionary processes....then it does not merit a response.
Ken
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Or the oversized antlers of moose?
>
> > Same here.
>
> >> Or the stripes of zebras?
>
> > The stripes have been shown to confuse parasitic flies.
>
> >> > What would falsify creationism?
>
> >> > Bill- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Ken Shackleton
On Nov 1, 11:22 pm, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.shackle...@shaw.ca> wrote in messagenews:1162436963.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 1, 7:58 pm, "rmj" <gle...@jps.net> wrote:
> >> "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >> messagenews:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> >> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> >> >> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >> >> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >> >> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >> >> observation is not actually made.
>
> >> >> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >> >> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
> >> > The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
> >> > chances of survival.
>
> >> You mean like the bright colors of birds?
>
> > They enhance reproductive success [which is the only definition of
> > survival that matters].
>
> >> Or the oversized antlers of moose?
>
> > Same here.
>
> >> Or the stripes of zebras?
>
> > The stripes have been shown to confuse parasitic flies.
>
> Now that is interesting. But hard to see the value since other animals
> (giraffes, gazelle, lions, etc) endure the flies.
So? The stripes are shown to help zebras survive and breed....that's
all that is important to the question.
>
>
>
>
>
> >> > What would falsify creationism?
>
> >> > Bill- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Bill Wayne
Féachadóir wrote:
> Scríobh John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
> >rmj wrote:
> >
> >> "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >>
> >>>jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> >>>>must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >>>>falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >>>>observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >>>>observation is not actually made.
> >>>>
> >>>>So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >>>>would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
> >>>
> >>>The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
> >>>chances of survival.
> >>
> >>
> >> You mean like the bright colors of birds? Or the oversized antlers of
> >> moose/meese/mooses?
> >> Or the stripes of zebras?
> >
> >We've been over this before. They're all advantageous. Bill misspoke; in
> >stead of "survival" he should have said "reproduction".
I spent some time debating which term to use before settling on
survival. You're right.
> >But jcar is right too. How would a truly disadvantageous trait spread,
> >since we recognize advantage by reproductive success?
>
> How do you define "truly disadvantageous"? Would sickle cell anemia
> count?
People with sickle cell anemia die around 40, giving them plenty of
time to reproduce. It also makes them more resistant to malaria, which
is a definite plus.
> --
> 'Donegal: Up Here It's Different'
> © Féachadóir
Bill
Desertphile
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> observation is not actually made.
>
> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
Yes. Also note that Popper said natural selection is falsifiable.
Now then. What can show Creationism to be false?
Desertphile
jcarl...@gmail.com wrote:
> jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> > must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> > falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> > observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> > observation is not actually made.
> >
> > So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> > would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
> Evolution would be falsified if:
He wrote "natural selection," not "evolution."
> We found a human in the Pre-Cambrian fossil record
> A vertebrate gave birth to an invertebrate
> vice-versa
>
> and much more.
Dick C
> You mean like the bright colors of birds?
How are those a disadvantage? They are only bright to creatures that
see the colors, which may not include their predators. And they may
help birds hide, the colors can blend in with the back ground.
And their main defense is to fly away from harm, so the bright
colors do not matter. Plus the bright colors tell the potential mate
that the bird is healthy and well fed, will make a good mate.
Or the oversized antlers of
> moose/meese/mooses?
the plural of moose is moose. And the large antlers do not hurt
the moose, as a matter of fact, they can be a powerful defensive
weapon.
> Or the stripes of zebras?
The stripes break up the outline of the zebra while it stands in tall
grass, which is its' natural habitat. That makes it hard for lions to
find.
You really should spend some time learning about nature, it is a
fascinating subject. Just go out an observe some animals. Squirrels,
even though they are grey, almost disappear when in a green and brown
tree.
Or a bright orange tabby cat can disappear with no trouble, even in a house
where it would not seem to blend in. All it needs is a bit of shadow and
the bright orange seems to fade, and the stripes break up the outline and
suddenly the cat is almost invisible. Not just a house cat, the tiger has
very similar markings, and disappears in the jungle with ease.
Bright colors and markings are a very common hiding mechanism.
It is not just dull colors that work.
>>
>> What would falsify creationism?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>
--
Dick #1349
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
~Benjamin Franklin
Home Page: dickcr.iwarp.com
email: dic...@comcast.net
Desertphile
Thurisaz the Einherjer wrote:
> jca...@gmail.com:
>
> > So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> > would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
> Two of many possibilities that immediately come to mind:
>
> Mermaids
>
> The goo' ol' cretinist "argument": Apes giving birth to humans
Both examples would falsify the theory of evolution: they would not
falsify natural selection.
John Harshman
> Scríobh John Harshman <jharshman....@pacbell.net>:
>
>>rmj wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
>>>>>must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
>>>>>falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
>>>>>observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
>>>>>observation is not actually made.
>>>>>
>>>>>So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
>>>>>would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>>>>
>>>>The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
>>>>chances of survival.
>>>
>>>
>>>You mean like the bright colors of birds? Or the oversized antlers of
>>>moose/meese/mooses?
>>>Or the stripes of zebras?
>>
>>We've been over this before. They're all advantageous. Bill misspoke; in
>>stead of "survival" he should have said "reproduction".
>>
>>But jcar is right too. How would a truly disadvantageous trait spread,
>>since we recognize advantage by reproductive success?
>
>
> How do you define "truly disadvantageous"? Would sickle cell anemia
> count?
>
It's not a trait, just an expression of a genotype. The trait is sickle
trait, which can be advantageous in certain environments. There is of
course an equilibrium frequency, and below that frequency the trait will
spread; above that frequency it will decline.
John Harshman
Yes. So all that matters to natural selection is whether individuals in
a population vary heritably in ways that influence reproductive success.
This is true whether the population is growing, remaining stable, or
declining. The currency of selection is allele frequency, not population
size. If an allele is increasing in frequency while the population
declines (even if it causes the population to decline), the increase in
frequency is natural selection. The extinction that may result is not
natural selection.
evilgeniusabroad
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> observation is not actually made.
You should stop repeating that old duck.
Karl Popper added:
"Biologists employ optimization analyses to predict which combinations
of morphological, behavioral, or physiological traits are more likely
to be advantageous (i.e., to increase 'fitness') in the range of
environments actually encountered by a given living form. They then
sample natural populations of organisms, determine in which
environments they actually live, measure those traits they hypothesize
are more likely to make a difference, and obtain statistical
predictions on where natural selection should push the population next.
Finally,biologists wait until the next generation of organisms comes
out and measure their characteristics again." (Dialectica 32:344-346).
So Popper worked out that in principle and practice evolution is
falsifiable.
off you go.
This is lifted from:
http://idiot64.blogspot.com/2006/01/is-evolution-falsifiable.html
Matt Silberstein
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) in
<slrnekjp4o....@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca> wrote:
[snip]
>Ron Okimoto is the only one in this thread who gave you the correct answer.
>I suggest you re-read his posting very carefull and get back to us if
>there's still something about evolutionary theory that confuses you.
I'll assume you missed my post.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
eyelessgame
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> observation is not actually made.
>
> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
Distinguish between theory and observation.
Instances of natural selection are observed. That's not theory. You
don't falsify observation.
Natural selection itself is a mechanism, not a theory. Theories would
be things like "natural selection is responsible for X".
Theories regarding natural selection could in principle be falsified.
One could in principle falsify the theory that "speciation can occur
through natural selection".
One could in principle falsify the theory that "natural selection
occurs through inherited characteristics", i.e. that showed Lamarck
over Mendel.
One could in principle falsify the theory that "common descent occurred
(through, among other mechanisms, natural selection)".
One could in principle falsify the theory that "natural selection was
responsible for the diversity of finches in the Galapagos."
One could in principle falsify the theory that "fossils show the
results of natural selection over time."
One could in principle falsify the theory that "copy errors in genotype
result in modifications to phenotype."
You see? There are many well-founded theories of natural selection for
which one could set up tests that could in principle falsify them. But
"natural selection" itself is a mechanism, not a theory.
HTH.
eyelessgame
Perplexed in Peoria
"eyelessgame" <aa...@surewest.net> wrote in message news:1162487999....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Nice posting, on what is fast becoming a dismal thread. I agree that NS
is a mechanism, but it is a mechanism which can only operate if some
assumptions are made, and those assumptions are falsifiable. The two most
vulnerable assumptions are the heritability of traits affecting fitness and
the existence of a continuing source of variation.
As to your position that the NS mechanism becomes a theory when you claim
something of the form "NS explains X" - a question: How would you falsify
the common claim that NS explains adaptation in biology?
LotsaQuestions
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> LotsaQuestions wrote:
> > Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > >
> >
> > If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
> > proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
>
> No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof.
Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider
creationism a scientific theory?
> 2) If you did prove
> something true, you can't falsify it.
Is that not the nature of science, "to prove something is true"? What
use is calling it science if you can't prove something true? What am I
missing here?
>
> A theory needs to be supported by evidence before it qualifies as a
> theory, but it doesn't have to be "proven"
> >
> > Are you saying that all of Darwin's missing links were found 150 years
> > ago?
>
> Of course not. I wasn't talking about missing links at all, I was
> talking about falsification. A theory is not falsified by not finding
> every concievable bit of supporting evidence, a theory is falsified by
> finding evidence that goes against the theory.
Would not the first step in proving a theory true, be finding the facts
that support your theory instead of finding facts that fail it?
Are you implying that "creationism is true if you can't create life
from dead materials in the lab"?
Larry Moran
> On Thu, 2 Nov 2006 12:29:12 +0000 (UTC),
> lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
>
>>On 1 Nov 2006 18:05:19 -0800, jca...@gmail.com <jca...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
>>> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
>>> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
>>> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
>>> observation is not actually made.
>>>
>>> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
>>> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>>
>>The short answer is, no. Natural selection is not a theory. It's a proven
>>fact. We always have to keep in mind that "proof" in science is never
>>absolute so there's a remote possibility that we have misunderstood the
>>fact of natural selection, but that's really a remote possibility.
>
> We also should keep in mind that the "alternative" being promoted is
> as unlikely as natural selection is likely, so by comparison NS *is* a
> proven fact.
Why do you think that random genetic drift is unlikely?
Larry Moran
Scooter the Mighty
LotsaQuestions wrote:
> Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > LotsaQuestions wrote:
> > > Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > > >
> ,snip>
>
> > >
> > > If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
> > > proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
> >
> > No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof.
>
> Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider
> creationism a scientific theory?
>
must be cats because they're also not 10 feet tall.
> > 2) If you did prove
> > something true, you can't falsify it.
>
> Is that not the nature of science, "to prove something is true"? What
> use is calling it science if you can't prove something true? What am I
> missing here?
What you're missing is an understanding of science. Science describes
how the world works using the best available data. The best available
data changes over time.
For example, it used to be thought that things fell at speeds related
to their weight. Then Gallileo dropped a bunch of different weights
and saw that they all fell at the same speed. Did he "prove" that
everything falls at the same speed? No, because it turns out that
things DO fall at different speeds according to their weight, it's just
that the difference is tiny and hard to detect. Now we have better
equipment, so the data is improved. How can we say that there isn't
any other factors to falling speed that we haven't detected yet?
> >
> > A theory needs to be supported by evidence before it qualifies as a
> > theory, but it doesn't have to be "proven"
> > >
> > > Are you saying that all of Darwin's missing links were found 150 years
> > > ago?
> >
> > Of course not. I wasn't talking about missing links at all, I was
> > talking about falsification. A theory is not falsified by not finding
> > every concievable bit of supporting evidence, a theory is falsified by
> > finding evidence that goes against the theory.
>
> Would not the first step in proving a theory true, be finding the facts
> that support your theory instead of finding facts that fail it?
Yes, although I would substitute "finding evidence for" for "proving."
I think you're either confused or misusing the word "proof." If you
have proved something to be true, that means it's 100% certain to be
true. If something is 100% certain to be true, you can't very well
falsify it, can you? If you could, you couldn't have proved it to be
true.
On the other hand, if you have bucket loads of evidence that supports
something, but not absolute proof, you can still falsify it.
> Are you implying that "creationism is true if you can't create life
> from dead materials in the lab"?
What does that have to do with what I wrote?
Creationism is a valid theory if you have evidence that supports
creationism and don't have evidence that falsifys it.
Inez
LotsaQuestions wrote:
> jcarl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > Creationism and Intellegent design on the other hand, can't be
> > falsified, because they rely on assumptions of things outside the scope
> > of our natural environment.
>
> living parts prove them wrong?
I should think that would rather support creationism, depending on how
you define the term. Isn't an intelligent entity creating life
mechanically out of non-living substances "creation?"
CreateThis
lam...@bioinfo.med.utoronto.ca (Larry Moran) wrote:
Is drift an alternative? I thought it was an additional process.
CT
TCE
John Harshman wrote:
> rmj wrote:
>
> > "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >>
> >>>Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> >>>must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >>>falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >>>observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >>>observation is not actually made.
> >>>
> >>>So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >>>would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
> >>
> >>chances of survival.
> >
> >
> > You mean like the bright colors of birds? Or the oversized antlers of
> > moose/meese/mooses?
> > Or the stripes of zebras?
>
> We've been over this before. They're all advantageous. Bill misspoke; in
> stead of "survival" he should have said "reproduction".
>
> But jcar is right too. How would a truly disadvantageous trait spread,
> since we recognize advantage by reproductive success?
The question invites a single falsifiable statement in answer; but
surely that's not likely. ToE is supported by lots of evidence, some
of which supports other theories in other disciplines. In order to
falsify evolution wouldn't you need a bunch of things to be proven
incorrect?
Could anyone actually work out the number of things you'd need to
falsify at this stage? I have serious doubts when you consider geology,
biology, chemistry and so on.
---
Strange
LotsaQuestions
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> LotsaQuestions wrote:
> > Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > > LotsaQuestions wrote:
> > > > Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > > > >
> > ,snip>
> >
> > > >
> > > > If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
> > > > proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
> > >
> > > No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof.
> >
> > Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider
> > creationism a scientific theory?
> >
> No. That's sort of like saying cats aren't 10 feet tall, so horses
> must be cats because they're also not 10 feet tall.
Are you playing calvin ball? Can you explain how this analogy applies
to the question posed?
If as you claim that science is not about absolute truth, how can you
blame the creationists for calling their theory science?
>
> > > 2) If you did prove
> > > something true, you can't falsify it.
> >
> > Is that not the nature of science, "to prove something is true"? What
> > use is calling it science if you can't prove something true? What am I
> > missing here?
>
> What you're missing is an understanding of science.
Is not science defined as observable and lab tested?
> Science describes
> how the world works using the best available data. The best available
> data changes over time.
Would that not mean that either the laws of physics change or your
theory was not scientific?
>
> For example, it used to be thought that things fell at speeds related
> to their weight. Then Gallileo dropped a bunch of different weights
> and saw that they all fell at the same speed. Did he "prove" that
> everything falls at the same speed? No, because it turns out that
> things DO fall at different speeds according to their weight, it's just
> that the difference is tiny and hard to detect. Now we have better
> equipment, so the data is improved. How can we say that there isn't
> any other factors to falling speed that we haven't detected yet?
Then is what you are saying, that science is not precise?
Then how can we know any fact for sure?
Then how can you deny the creationists theory as being scientific?
Or are you playing calvin ball again?
>
>
> > >
> > > A theory needs to be supported by evidence before it qualifies as a
> > > theory, but it doesn't have to be "proven"
> > > >
> > > > Are you saying that all of Darwin's missing links were found 150 years
> > > > ago?
> > >
> > > Of course not. I wasn't talking about missing links at all, I was
> > > talking about falsification. A theory is not falsified by not finding
> > > every concievable bit of supporting evidence, a theory is falsified by
> > > finding evidence that goes against the theory.
> >
> > Would not the first step in proving a theory true, be finding the facts
> > that support your theory instead of finding facts that fail it?
>
> Yes, although I would substitute "finding evidence for" for "proving."
Did Darwin not establish that missing links would be required for the
establishment of his theory?
>
> I think you're either confused or misusing the word "proof." If you
> have proved something to be true, that means it's 100% certain to be
> true. If something is 100% certain to be true, you can't very well
> falsify it, can you?
Thank you.
> If you could, you couldn't have proved it to be
> true.
Then would not a requirement of falsification mean that the theory is
not proven beyond a shadow of doubt? And thus it would not be
scientific?
LotsaQuestions
Free Lunch wrote:
> On 1 Nov 2006 19:57:23 -0800, in talk.origins
> "LotsaQuestions" <ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> <1162439842.9...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>:
> >
> >jcarl...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>
> >> Creationism and Intellegent design on the other hand, can't be
> >> falsified, because they rely on assumptions of things outside the scope
> >> of our natural environment.
> >
> >Would not the creation of a living organism in the laboratory from non
> >living parts prove them wrong?
>
> religious doctrines) tells us that life cannot be developed in a lab.
Are you saying that religious doctrines say that "life cannot be
developed in a lab", but that statement is not good enough for you to
qualify as the falsifiable part of the creationists theory?
hersheyhv
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> Bill Wayne wrote:
> > jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Bill Wayne wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > The spread of a trait that significantly decreases an organism's
> > > > chances of survival.
> > > >
> > >
> > > survival over an undefined period of time.
> >
> > Not if it killed it off in the short term, like spontaneously catching
> > fire in an arid environment.
> >
>
> But the trait needs to keep the organism alive long enough to reproduce
> else it can't spread. The very conditions that are required for a trait
> to spread through a population makes it a suitable evolutionary outcome.
Well, duh.
But, as I am sure any creationist can tell you without a trace of
irony, with God *anything* is possible. With evolution, as you point
out, that is not the case. Does this mean that you accept that
differential reproductive success does happen in the material world we
live in and that variants with traits that reduce reproductive success
get lost *in favor of* variants that increase reproductive success.
Sounds like Darwin was right about that to me.
The trait need not be lethal in any case. Mere infertility or even
reduced reproductive success will suffice. Surely any God worth
pledging one's celibacy and sexual purity to should be able to ensure
the success of the celibates He apparently prefers to the sexually
active. Or perhaps God defines biological 'success' differently than
'secular atheist biologists' do, prefering the organisms he creates to
die out and be unfruitful? Success = extinction and death. Nice
slogan that. Very Orwellian.
Ernest Major
jca...@gmail.com writes
>Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
>must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
>falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
>observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
>observation is not actually made.
>
>So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
>would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
>
You've asked a different question, probably much narrower in scope,
though your precise meaning escapes me.
Natural selection presumably here means changes in the hereditary makeup
of a population due to differential reproductive success causally
correlated with hereditary traits. I'm not sure why you ask for an
evolutionary outcome, or what you mean by this, but subject to the usual
problems of proving a negative, if we found that all populations were
genetically identical (i.e. all variation was environmental), that would
falsify the existence of natural selection. However, as variation in the
genetic makeup of individuals in populations, differential reproductive
success correlated with this, and change to allele frequencies in
populations have all been observed, the existence of natural selection
has passed this test.
However you asked about not natural selection (the observed fact), but
the theory of natural selection. It is far from obvious what you mean by
this, so perhaps the test above meets your request. Alternatively if you
mean the theory (not proposed by Darwin, not, AFAIK, by any other
biologist) the natural selection accounts for all of evolution, this is
not only falsifiable, but false, as other processes are known to be
involved. It's hard to think of a reason why genetic drift would not
operate in nature, but experimentally it would seem to be easy to
demonstrate - randomly remove 90% of each generation of a small
population of fruit flies before reproduction.
--
alias Ernest Major
hersheyhv
rmj wrote:
> "Bill Wayne" <HWa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1162433569....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jcar...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> >> falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> >> observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> >> observation is not actually made.
> >>
> >> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> >> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
> >
> > chances of survival.
>
> moose/meese/mooses?
> Or the stripes of zebras?
Ah, yes. Good old sexual selection. Which is why "survival" really
means "differential reproductive success" in all the accurate
definitions. Except for the zebra's stripes, which is actually a
camoflage pattern (remember that most zebra predators hunt at dusk and
dawn and are color blind).
LotsaQuestions
Touche. But don't creationists define the creator outside of the
creation?
jca...@gmail.com
John Harshman wrote:
> >
> At least one of you has confused natural selection with evolution.
> Natural selection is one mechanism of evolution. You can have, for
> example, common descent without natural selection, and natural selection
> without common descent.
My question was about natural selection.
jca...@gmail.com
bullpup wrote:
>
> NS isn't really a theory. It's more of an observation.
>
What? then why did it take so long for NS to prevail over theory of
aquired characteristics? if its something that can be observed?
hersheyhv
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> bullpup wrote:
>
> >
> > Focusing only on NS, and not the ToE, demonstrate that reproductive success
> > is totally random within a population given individuals with vared traits
> > within the same environment. For example, a population of mice with various
> > fur thickness in an artic environment. If NS is false, over time, there
> > should still be the same ratio of thin furred, meduim furred, and thick
> > furred mice after ten, twenty, thirty, forty... generations, the same as it
> > would be when compaired to a control population where fur thickness is
> > neutral to survival.
> >
>
> There could always be unknown selection pressures which are causing the
> diversity.
If an environment feature (in this case, climate) has no significant or
detectable *differential* effect (which is what he is saying is
happening) on phenotype, it, by definition, means that no NS is
occurring that is influenced by that environmental feature. Other
environmental features can either be controlled for (hard) or
randomized (easier). It is quite possible for an environmental feature
to have no significant or detectable differential effect on phenotype.
It is also possible for a phenotype to not be the result of a genetic
difference. There are many examples of both types of phenomena.
I should also point out that the *absence* of NS does not produce
genetic stasis; it produces neutral drift, which is slower change, but
change nonetheless. In fact, NS, for the most part, is the feature
that tends to produce such stasis as exists in organisms. NS only
produces change when the environmental conditions change.
In the example given, however, we would actually *expect* fur thickness
to be affected by temperature and would *expect* fur thickness to have
a genetic component based on prior observations. Natural selection is
not something which is *inevitable*. It *is* something that can,
however, be distinguished from cases where there is no selection. And
both the environmental 'reason' and the 'genetic' basis can be further
understood when NS occurs.
To claim that NS does not happen, however, or that one can "falsify" NS
as something that cannot happen or that cannot produce genetic changes
in populations, is ignorance, pure and simple. Trying to falsify
evolution by arguing against NS is a fool's game. Better would be an
argument that NS cannot lead to speciation. That may even be true (but
not universally), since much speciation seems to be due to localized
accumulation of changes that reduce interfertility between populations,
such as chromosomal rearrangements.
jca...@gmail.com
John Harshman wrote:
>
> Yes. So all that matters to natural selection is whether individuals in
> a population vary heritably in ways that influence reproductive success.
> This is true whether the population is growing, remaining stable, or
> declining. The currency of selection is allele frequency, not population
> size. If an allele is increasing in frequency while the population
> declines (even if it causes the population to decline), the increase in
> frequency is natural selection. The extinction that may result is not
> natural selection.
Sounds good. So to prove natural selection wrong you would need an
increasing allele frequency that doesn't result in reproductive
success? Since reproduction is the only way for that increase in
frequency will occur then it follows that it's impossible for a trait
to increase in frequency while being deterimental to reproduction.
Am I missing something, this sounds like a tautology.
Ernest Major
jca...@gmail.com writes
inheritance of acquired characteristics are not mutually exclusive - as
can be seen by Darwin's (tentative?) acceptance of the latter. The
inheritance of acquired characteristics is a hypothetical (and as yet
unobserved) source of hereditary variation. This would provide fuel for
natural selection to act upon just as much as "random" mutation doee.
--
alias Ernest Major
Perplexed in Peoria
<jca...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1162500665....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes. So all that matters to natural selection is whether individuals in
> > a population vary heritably in ways that influence reproductive success.
> > This is true whether the population is growing, remaining stable, or
> > declining. The currency of selection is allele frequency, not population
> > size. If an allele is increasing in frequency while the population
> > declines (even if it causes the population to decline), the increase in
> > frequency is natural selection. The extinction that may result is not
> > natural selection.
>
> Sounds good. So to prove natural selection wrong you would need an
> increasing allele frequency that doesn't result in reproductive
> success?
Did you mean to write "doesn't result FROM reproductive success"?
> Since reproduction is the only way for that increase in
> frequency will occur then it follows that it's impossible for a trait
> to increase in frequency while being deterimental to reproduction.
>
> Am I missing something, this sounds like a tautology.
Actually, it is not really a tautology, because 'sampling error' - resulting
from the fact that meiosis preserves only half of the genome (supposedly
a randomly chosen half) - can cause an increase in frequency of some alleles
even though selection is not involved. This is one of the primary mechanisms
of genetic drift.
Unfortunately, the phenomenon of drift makes it difficult to construct a
falsification test of NS along these lines. For one thing, drift happens
(a lot) even with random meiotic segregation, so a change in allele frequency
doesn't necessarily mean NS is operating. For another thing, there are
various known 'meiotic drive' genes which *don't* segregate randomly, so
if you don't allow for these, then NS is empirically falsified.
jca...@gmail.com
Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> Sure. Natural selection only works if traits contributing to fitness
> are heritable. If a class of individuals in this generation has some
> trait that makes them more-than-average successful in surviving and
> reproducing, then it is essential that the offspring of this class
> inherit the trait and thereby have greater survival and reproductive
> success than their peers in the next generation. If, in general, they
> don't, then natural selection is falsified.
>
So to use an example. If the AIDS virus developed a resistence to
medications in one generation and then the next generation that
resistence wasn't there then it would follow that natural selection is
false? right.
Would NS preclude the possiblity of a trait that requires a
enviromental trigger that is no longer present?
John Harshman
People need to focus here. The question was about natural selection, not
evolution. And as asked it's extremely ambiguous. I don't know what
would count as falsifying "the theory of natural selection" because I
don't know what it means. Does it mean falsifying the idea that natural
selection happens at all? That it happens in some particular case? That
it's an important evolutionary mechanism? That you can make an eye or a
wing with it? Until the OP clarifies, I don't see much profit in
answering it, and I certainly see no profit in confusing selection with
evolution as a whole.
John Harshman
It's an alternative in any particular case. This all comes from the
original question being poorly defined. We really don't know what the OP
meant by "the theory of natural selection".
hersheyhv
jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> John Harshman wrote:
>
> >
> > Yes. So all that matters to natural selection is whether individuals in
> > a population vary heritably in ways that influence reproductive success.
> > This is true whether the population is growing, remaining stable, or
> > declining. The currency of selection is allele frequency, not population
> > size. If an allele is increasing in frequency while the population
> > declines (even if it causes the population to decline), the increase in
> > frequency is natural selection. The extinction that may result is not
> > natural selection.
>
> Sounds good. So to prove natural selection wrong you would need an
> increasing allele frequency that doesn't result in reproductive
> success?
That is the point. Natural selection occurs in nature *because*
environments differ and change and *because* phenotypic variation
occurs in populations and this process has evolutionary importance
*because* some component of this phenotypic variation is genetic and NS
can thus lead to change in allele frequencies in a population. There
are also cases where NS does NOT occur.
You can have natural selection that is not due to genetic differences.
There are genetic defects that produce 'seal limbs'. Similar
*phenotypic* defects can be produced by thalidomide. NS will work
against (or for) these variants regardless of whether or not the defect
is genetically based. Whether the variant is favored or disfavored
depends on the specific interaction of environment and trait (the
relative utility (or not) of limbs wrt reproductive success). There
can even be environments where the phenotype differences no significant
effect on reproductive success.
You can demonstrate, in a particular case, whether NS is occurring or
not. But the absence of NS is called "selective neutrality" and does
not falsify the existence of NS as a mechanism that describes the
(frequent, but not inevitable) impact of environment on biological
organisms' differential reproductive success when they exhibit
different phenotypes.
So, yes. One can easily come up with examples of phenotypes that are
not undergoing NS. And one can easily come up with examples of
phenotypes that are undergoing NS. And one can easily demonstrate that
when NS selection occurs (when the environment differentially and
usually unintelligently discriminates differentially between two
phenotypes) and the two phenotypes are a consequence of genetic
differences, NS can change the genetic composition of a population.
How, exactly, do you plan to falsify the very existence of NS (not the
existence of cases where NS is not occurring) *without* making one of
the following claims:
1) No environment exists that can differentially distinguish between
any phenotypic variations in any organism.
2) All phenotypes are equally successful in all environments.
3) All organisms are phenotypically identical.
4) Phenotypic variation cannot be made or destroyed.
5) No phenotype has any genetic basis (needed for NS to have an
evolutionary impact but not for its existence as a mechanism).
All the above actually do go to the basic assumptions of the mechanism
of NS. All are rather obviously inconsistent with the empirical
reality we observe.
John Harshman
That was my point. But your question wasn't well defined, so I am unable
to answer it. What do you mean by "the theory of natural selection"?
John Harshman
> John Harshman wrote:
>
>
>>Yes. So all that matters to natural selection is whether individuals in
>>a population vary heritably in ways that influence reproductive success.
>>This is true whether the population is growing, remaining stable, or
>>declining. The currency of selection is allele frequency, not population
>>size. If an allele is increasing in frequency while the population
>>declines (even if it causes the population to decline), the increase in
>>frequency is natural selection. The extinction that may result is not
>>natural selection.
>
>
> Sounds good. So to prove natural selection wrong you would need an
> increasing allele frequency that doesn't result in reproductive
> success?
No, but then again I'm not clear on what you mean by "prove natural
selection wrong". Certainly if you showed that a change in allele
frequency was not due to increased reproductive success you would be
showing that natural selection was not operating in that particular
instance. Is that what you mean?
> Since reproduction is the only way for that increase in
> frequency will occur then it follows that it's impossible for a trait
> to increase in frequency while being deterimental to reproduction.
>
> Am I missing something, this sounds like a tautology.
It is, as stated. Natural selection *is* differential reproductive
success associated with differences in genotype. To make it
non-tautological you can insert "expected" before "reproductive
success". That makes it a predictive theory. After all, allele
frequencies can change through strictly stochastic processes too.
Natural selection should be deterministic: if you run the same
experiment many times you should get similar results. And you should, in
many cases at least, be able to predict which alleles would be favored
based on prior analyses of environment and the phenotype produced by the
allele. You know, we could predict that dense fur would be advantageous
in a cold environment and would expect that result in a breeding experiment.
But I still don' know what "prove natural selection wrong" means. Do you
refer to some particular instance?
By the way, it's actually possible for a detrimental trait to increase
in frequency. Reproductive success has a stochastic (random) component.
The race is not always to the swift, that's just the way to bet. The
stronger the selection -- the more disadvantageous the allele -- the
less likely it is to increase in frequency. And the larger the
population, the less likely a bad allele is to increase. But for small
populations and/or weak selection, a deleterious allele can even be
fixed. Look up "nearly neutral evolution".
Matt Silberstein
<hers...@indiana.edu> in
<1162499314....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
And remember that zebras live in herds and are moving when attacked.
it is very hard to see a specific spot on a specific zebra in a moving
herd. Even in good light and with color vision.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
CreateThis
<ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Scientific theories are never proven; they're just more and more
thoroughly *not disproved* - never absolutely true, just less and less
likely to be false. Since proving is impossible but disproving isn't,
science tests hypotheses by trying to disprove them. When we've
tested a hypothesis all the ways we can think of (usually over many
years) and have failed to disprove it, it may become a "scientific
law" or a "scientific theory" (an explanation of how some laws work
together) that we don't expect to ever be disproved.
By contrast, creationism can't be disproved at all (since we have no
idea what a "creator" can't do), so we have no way to scientifically
test it, so science can't be used to investigate it. That's what is
meant when we say creationism "isn't science".
CT
Mark Isaak
> "Ken Shackleton" <ken.sha...@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:1162436963.4...@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> The [zebra] stripes have been shown to confuse parasitic flies.
>
> Now that is interesting. But hard to see the value since other animals
> (giraffes, gazelle, lions, etc) endure the flies.
*Some* giraffes, gazelles, lions, etc. endure the flies. More than a few
get killed by them. Parasitic flies are dangerous.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are
being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and
exposing the country to danger." -- Hermann Goering
Perplexed in Peoria
<jca...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1162502095.0...@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Perplexed in Peoria wrote:
>
> >
> > Sure. Natural selection only works if traits contributing to fitness
> > are heritable. If a class of individuals in this generation has some
> > trait that makes them more-than-average successful in surviving and
> > reproducing, then it is essential that the offspring of this class
> > inherit the trait and thereby have greater survival and reproductive
> > success than their peers in the next generation. If, in general, they
> > don't, then natural selection is falsified.
> >
>
> So to use an example. If the AIDS virus developed a resistence to
> medications in one generation and then the next generation that
> resistence wasn't there then it would follow that natural selection is
> false? right.
That is not even close to what I said. My method of falsification involves
looking at individual organisms, counting the offspring of organisms, keeping
records of who begat who, and then counting offspring again in the next
generation. Something that is very difficult to carry out with the reproduction
of virus particles. It has been done with wild birds, though, and probably also
with laboratory populations of mice and fruit flies. Quite possibly with humans
as well.
But to respond to your suggested example: Yes, that might indicate that NS is
false if the environment in which the next generation of viruses arose still
was subject to that anti-viral medicine.
> Would NS preclude the possiblity of a trait that requires a
> enviromental trigger that is no longer present?
Not clear what you are saying here. If a trait is clearly advantageous in one
kind of environment, but only slightly detrimental in second environment
(without the 'trigger'?), then the trait will disappear very slowly in that
second environment.
Several people have asked you to clarify just what you mean by 'falsifying
natural selection'. I think that you should pay particular attention to what
eyeglassgame wrote. In some sense, NS is a tautology - a theorem of mathematics.
Eyeglassgame called it a 'mechanism'. As such, it can not be falsified.
However, Darwin made various claims about what natural selection has
accomplished and can accomplish in the real world. Those claims CAN be
falsified. All we need to know is which claim(s) you are asking about.
Jeff Lanam
>> > Or the stripes of zebras?
>>
>> Stripes on a zebra actually helps defend against predation.
>>
>
>I always figure that the stripes worked like the blaze camouflage of
>ships during WWI, which didn't make them harder to see, but made them
>confusing to look at; harder to tell what exactly they were, which way
>they were going, and what was their range. If the stripes throw off
>the "hand-eye-coordination" of a few more lions, making them miss their
>pounce, the genes for stripes could spread through the population.
Particularly in a herd. A single zebra on the veldt stands out, but
in a herd it's hard to tell where one stops and another begins.
Free Lunch
"LotsaQuestions" <ivegotlots...@yahoo.com> wrote in
<1162499086.5...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com>:
I'm saying that the testable scientific claims of ID/Creationism do not
rule out life being created in a lab. Of course the testable scientific
claims of ID/Creationism don't rule out anything, really, so they have
nothing to do with science.
If no test can ever prove ID/Creationism wrong, it isn't science.
Mark Isaak
> [...]
> So I wonder, is it possible to think of a evolutionary outcome that
> would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
If it can be shown that any illustration of peppered moths, contrasting
the visibilities of two varieties of moths, was staged rather than taken
of wild moths, then all of Darwinism is falsified.
Scooter the Mighty
LotsaQuestions wrote:
> Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > LotsaQuestions wrote:
> > > Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > > > LotsaQuestions wrote:
> > > > > Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > ,snip>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
> > > > > proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
> > > >
> > > > No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof.
> > >
> > > Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider
> > > creationism a scientific theory?
> > >
> > No. That's sort of like saying cats aren't 10 feet tall, so horses
> > must be cats because they're also not 10 feet tall.
>
> Are you playing calvin ball? Can you explain how this analogy applies
> to the question posed?
*sigh* OK.
Science isn't about absolute proof. Creationism has no absolute proof.
Therefore creationism is science.
Cat's aren't 10 feet tall. Horses aren't 10 feet tall. Therefore
horses are cats.
Do you need more explaination than that?
> If as you claim that science is not about absolute truth, how can you
> blame the creationists for calling their theory science?
>
Because while science is not about absolute truth, it does actually
have a definition beyond "not absolute truth," and creationism doesn't
fit into this definition.
> > > > 2) If you did prove
> > > > something true, you can't falsify it.
> > >
> > > Is that not the nature of science, "to prove something is true"? What
> > > use is calling it science if you can't prove something true? What am I
> > > missing here?
> >
> > What you're missing is an understanding of science.
>
> Is not science defined as observable and lab tested?
I doubt that's what it says in the dictionary. But does "observable
and lab tested" mean "100% true" to you?
>
> > Science describes
> > how the world works using the best available data. The best available
> > data changes over time.
>
> Would that not mean that either the laws of physics change or your
> theory was not scientific?
>
No. It means that your data is never complete.
> >
> > For example, it used to be thought that things fell at speeds related
> > to their weight. Then Gallileo dropped a bunch of different weights
> > and saw that they all fell at the same speed. Did he "prove" that
> > everything falls at the same speed? No, because it turns out that
> > things DO fall at different speeds according to their weight, it's just
> > that the difference is tiny and hard to detect. Now we have better
> > equipment, so the data is improved. How can we say that there isn't
> > any other factors to falling speed that we haven't detected yet?
>
> Then is what you are saying, that science is not precise?
I'm saying that in the real world, you never get to know everything.
> Then how can we know any fact for sure?
We can't.
> Then how can you deny the creationists theory as being scientific?
Because creationism doesn't fit the definition of science. To be
specific, it is not based on observation, tests, or objective evidence.
It's based on faith.
> Or are you playing calvin ball again?
>
No.
> >
> > > >
> > > > A theory needs to be supported by evidence before it qualifies as a
> > > > theory, but it doesn't have to be "proven"
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you saying that all of Darwin's missing links were found 150 years
> > > > > ago?
> > > >
> > > > Of course not. I wasn't talking about missing links at all, I was
> > > > talking about falsification. A theory is not falsified by not finding
> > > > every concievable bit of supporting evidence, a theory is falsified by
> > > > finding evidence that goes against the theory.
> > >
> > > Would not the first step in proving a theory true, be finding the facts
> > > that support your theory instead of finding facts that fail it?
> >
> > Yes, although I would substitute "finding evidence for" for "proving."
>
> Did Darwin not establish that missing links would be required for the
> establishment of his theory?
I don't know, I've never read his work. Many "missing links" have been
found though, so if he did, his theory is supported in the way he
prefers.
> > I think you're either confused or misusing the word "proof." If you
> > have proved something to be true, that means it's 100% certain to be
> > true. If something is 100% certain to be true, you can't very well
> > falsify it, can you?
>
> Thank you.
For what?
> > If you could, you couldn't have proved it to be
> > true.
>
> Then would not a requirement of falsification mean that the theory is
> not proven beyond a shadow of doubt? And thus it would not be
> scientific?
No offense, but you seem to be incapable of taking in fairly simple
concepts. Are you actually trying to understand this?
The "requirement of falsification" means that there is some way that a
theory can be falsified. Let's take creationism for an example.
Creationism posits magic that can do anything. You can't falsify it,
because whatever you observe or test for, magic could explain it. The
world is 6,000 years old according to the bible. But in real life, we
know it isn't. Does that falsify creationism? No, because God could
have used magic to trick us.
Magic cannot be tested, and thus is not subject to science.
On the other hand, something which can be observed and tested is
subject to science, even if you can only ever by 99.99% sure you've got
it all figured out.
LotsaQuestions
CreateThis wrote:
<snip>
> >>
> >> I think you're either confused or misusing the word "proof." If you
> >> have proved something to be true, that means it's 100% certain to be
> >> true. If something is 100% certain to be true, you can't very well
> >> falsify it, can you?
> >
> >Thank you.
> >
> >> If you could, you couldn't have proved it to be
> >> true.
> >
> >Then would not a requirement of falsification mean that the theory is
> >not proven beyond a shadow of doubt? And thus it would not be
> >scientific?
>
> Scientific theories are never proven;
Is that you final answer? :-)
> they're just more and more
> thoroughly *not disproved* - never absolutely true,
Aint that convenient?
> just less and less
> likely to be false.
So the poster child of science "boiling water" is illegitimate?
> Since proving is impossible but disproving isn't,
Would it then not be easy to disprove creationism?
> science tests hypotheses by trying to disprove them.
Would it then not be more scientific to disprove creationism in stead
of playing calvin ball with them?
> When we've
> tested a hypothesis all the ways we can think of (usually over many
> years) and have failed to disprove it, it may become a "scientific
> law" or a "scientific theory" (an explanation of how some laws work
> together) that we don't expect to ever be disproved.
Is that a shift of burden of proof?
Should science not be about observation of an object of event under lab
conditions?
Should not the same experiment have the same outcome every time in
order for it to fall under the dictionary definition of science?
Is that not the proof us Joe Public expects?
>
> By contrast, creationism can't be disproved at all (since we have no
> idea what a "creator" can't do),
Are not those creationists pretty sure of what their creator can or
can't do?
Are you not invalidating science by playing calvin ball with them?
If you want them to be playing in the science arena, then would you not
have to accept their definitions also?
> so we have no way to scientifically
> test it,
Is not the reason that creationism is not science because (as the
courts have held) it talks about an event that is religious (not
observable and as far as we know has not repeated itself)?
Hence it would be a religious event?
Why would you want to change the definitions?
Would that not be a better way to take it off the science charts
instead of playing calvin ball with the creationists?
> so science can't be used to investigate it.
> That's what is
> meant when we say creationism "isn't science".
Is it not science because it (creation of dirt from nothing and mankind
from dirt) is about a religious event?
Is that not what happens when the insane run the asylum? Should the
scientist set up their own definitions?
LotsaQuestions
Free Lunch wrote:
> >
> >Are you saying that religious doctrines say that "life cannot be
> >developed in a lab", but that statement is not good enough for you to
> >qualify as the falsifiable part of the creationists theory?
>
> I'm saying that the testable scientific claims of ID/Creationism do not
> rule out life being created in a lab.
Since they claim only their creator can create life from dead materials
why do you not accept that?
> Of course the testable scientific
> claims of ID/Creationism don't rule out anything, really, so they have
> nothing to do with science.
>
> If no test can ever prove ID/Creationism wrong, it isn't science.
Why would the creation of life from dead stuff in a lab not prove them
wrong?
How do you prove wrong the theory of abiogenesis?
But is the science definition not about observation and lab testing?
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066286/science
Why is it that I do not see this proving wrong?
Inez
If you create monsters in a lab using non-living ingredients, are you
not a creator? And is the monster non outside of you?
bullpup
<jca...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1162499950....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> bullpup wrote:
>
> >
> > NS isn't really a theory. It's more of an observation.
> >
>
> What? then why did it take so long for NS to prevail over theory of
> aquired characteristics?
LM is right: You are confusing NS with the ToE. "Acguired Characteristics"
is Lamarkism. NS is one element of the process of evolution that filters
variation relative to the environment.
> if its something that can be observed?
Science is a learning curve.
Boikat
LotsaQuestions
Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > ,snip>
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you are talking about Darwin's theory, does not a theory need to be
> > > > > > proven true before it can be set up for a falsification test?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. 1) science isn't about absolute proof.
> > > >
> > > > Then, since creationism has no absolute proof, do you really consider
> > > > creationism a scientific theory?
> > > >
> > > No. That's sort of like saying cats aren't 10 feet tall, so horses
> > > must be cats because they're also not 10 feet tall.
> >
> > Are you playing calvin ball? Can you explain how this analogy applies
> > to the question posed?
>
> *sigh* OK.
Can you forgive me my ignorance?
>
> Science isn't about absolute proof. Creationism has no absolute proof.
> Therefore creationism is science.
Why does this seem to be a correct assessment of what you stated above?
>
> Cat's aren't 10 feet tall. Horses aren't 10 feet tall. Therefore
> horses are cats.
>
> Do you need more explaination than that?
Yes, does it apply to the price of tea in China?
Why do you not require observation under lab conditions of a theory
about an object or event to be scientific as the rest of the world
does?
>
> > If as you claim that science is not about absolute truth, how can you
> > blame the creationists for calling their theory science?
> >
> Because while science is not about absolute truth,
Is that not why you argue with creationists? Have you not watered down
the definition of science to the point that the creationists religious
beliefs now fall under your umbrella of science?
> it does actually
> have a definition beyond "not absolute truth," and creationism doesn't
> fit into this definition.
Why does the definition of science always include "lab tested
observation" and not "mother/scientist approved"?
Is that not the reason creationism does not fit the mold?
>
> > > > > 2) If you did prove
> > > > > something true, you can't falsify it.
> > > >
> > > > Is that not the nature of science, "to prove something is true"? What
> > > > use is calling it science if you can't prove something true? What am I
> > > > missing here?
> > >
> > > What you're missing is an understanding of science.
> >
> > Is not science defined as observable and lab tested?
>
> I doubt that's what it says in the dictionary. But does "observable
> and lab tested" mean "100% true" to you?
http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066286/science
Why would you settle for any less?
> >
> > > Science describes
> > > how the world works using the best available data. The best available
> > > data changes over time.
> >
> > Would that not mean that either the laws of physics change or your
> > theory was not scientific?
> >
> No. It means that your data is never complete.
Why does that sound like religious statement to me?
>
> > >
> > > For example, it used to be thought that things fell at speeds related
> > > to their weight. Then Gallileo dropped a bunch of different weights
> > > and saw that they all fell at the same speed. Did he "prove" that
> > > everything falls at the same speed? No, because it turns out that
> > > things DO fall at different speeds according to their weight, it's just
> > > that the difference is tiny and hard to detect. Now we have better
> > > equipment, so the data is improved. How can we say that there isn't
> > > any other factors to falling speed that we haven't detected yet?
> >
> > Then is what you are saying, that science is not precise?
>
> I'm saying that in the real world, you never get to know everything.
Should you then not judge others for their religious statements?
>
> > Then how can we know any fact for sure?
>
> We can't.
Is that not the sad?
>
> > Then how can you deny the creationists theory as being scientific?
>
> Because creationism doesn't fit the definition of science.
Thank you. Is it not because the creation of dirt from nothing and
mankind from dirt is not observable and has not been lab tested?
> To be
> specific, it is not based on observation, tests, or objective evidence.
Thank you
> It's based on faith.
Thank you
>
> > Or are you playing calvin ball again?
> >
> No.
Thank you
<snip>
>
> The "requirement of falsification" means that there is some way that a
> theory can be falsified. Let's take creationism for an example.
> Creationism posits magic that can do anything. You can't falsify it,
Since they claim that only their creator can create mankind from dirt,
why do you not accept the challenge and accept that the falsification
of creationism is creating life from dead stuff in the lab?
If you do not accept this falsification are you not playing calvin ball
again?
> because whatever you observe or test for, magic could explain it. The
> world is 6,000 years old according to the bible. But in real life, we
> know it isn't.
Forgive me, but were you not the one that said you can't know anything
for sure?
Is this not a great example of calvin ball? Having your cake and
eating it too?
How can you be sure the world is any older than we can measure with
calibrated tools?
How do you calibrate those tools?
Do you see that you are confusing historical events with religious and
with science events and thus attempt to have one size fit all?
> Does that falsify creationism? No, because God could
> have used magic to trick us.
Since creatisonism is not science, would not your attempt to falsify it
be baseless?
>
> Magic cannot be tested, and thus is not subject to science.
Thank you. Is not what you are trying to say, that science can not
verify events of religious nature? Then should that not be the answer
to creationists instead of deceiving them with this falsification idea?
>
>
> On the other hand, something which can be observed and tested is
> subject to science, even if you can only ever by 99.99% sure you've got
> it all figured out.
Thank you.
eyelessgame
> "eyelessgame" <aa...@surewest.net> wrote in message news:1162487999....@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > jca...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > Karl Popper said that in order for a scientific theory to be valid it
> > > must be falsifiable. This means that for a proposition to be
> > > falsifiable, it must be possible, at least in principle, to make an
> > > observation that would show the proposition to be false, even if that
> > > observation is not actually made.
> > >
> > > would show the theory of natural selection to be false?
> >
> >
> > Instances of natural selection are observed. That's not theory. You
> > don't falsify observation.
> >
> > Natural selection itself is a mechanism, not a theory. Theories would
> > be things like "natural selection is responsible for X".
> >
> > Theories regarding natural selection could in principle be falsified.
> >
> > One could in principle falsify the theory that "speciation can occur
> > through natural selection".
> >
> > One could in principle falsify the theory that "natural selection
> > occurs through inherited characteristics", i.e. that showed Lamarck
> > over Mendel.
> >
> > One could in principle falsify the theory that "common descent occurred
> > (through, among other mechanisms, natural selection)".
> >
> > One could in principle falsify the theory that "natural selection was
> > responsible for the diversity of finches in the Galapagos."
> >
> > One could in principle falsify the theory that "fossils show the
> > results of natural selection over time."
> >
> > One could in principle falsify the theory that "copy errors in genotype
> > result in modifications to phenotype."
> >
> > You see? There are many well-founded theories of natural selection for
> > which one could set up tests that could in principle falsify them. But
> > "natural selection" itself is a mechanism, not a theory.
>
> Nice posting, on what is fast becoming a dismal thread. I agree that NS
> is a mechanism, but it is a mechanism which can only operate if some
> assumptions are made, and those assumptions are falsifiable. The two most
> vulnerable assumptions are the heritability of traits affecting fitness and
> the existence of a continuing source of variation.
>
> As to your position that the NS mechanism becomes a theory when you claim
> something of the form "NS explains X" - a question: How would you falsify
> the common claim that NS explains adaptation in biology?
The only ways I know are:
1) Show that some other mechanism more persuasively explains
adaptation.
2) Come up with some reason, or some set of adaptations, that cannot be
the result of natural selection. How you do that I don't know...
eyelessgame
Shane
> Free Lunch wrote:
>>>
>>>Are you saying that religious doctrines say that "life cannot be
>>>developed in a lab", but that statement is not good enough for you to
>>>qualify as the falsifiable part of the creationists theory?
>>
>> I'm saying that the testable scientific claims of ID/Creationism do not
>> rule out life being created in a lab.
>
> Since they claim only their creator can create life from dead materials
> why do you not accept that?
1. There is no evidence for their claim. What they claim as evidence is
not testable nor repeatable, even by themselves.
2. They would also have to show that no other creator can create in that
manner. They have failed to do so.
>> Of course the testable scientific
>> claims of ID/Creationism don't rule out anything, really, so they have
>> nothing to do with science.
>>
>> If no test can ever prove ID/Creationism wrong, it isn't science.
>
> Why would the creation of life from dead stuff in a lab not prove them
> wrong?
Because they rely on the upernatural. No natural, materialistic test can
disprove the existance of the supernatural. The best science can do is
remove the need for the supernatural as an explanation. Ligtning may
indeed be caused by Thor, but it is also caused by an electric discharge
between stored charges in the cluods and the ground.
> How do you prove wrong the theory of abiogenesis?
You show that the theory fails in some way. Or does not explain some
aspect of abiogenesis.
> But is the science definition not about observation and lab testing?
> http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9066286/science
> Why is it that I do not see this proving wrong?
Because the link does not give the full definition of science.