toldailytopic: The theory of evolution. Do you believe in it?

[nicholsmom]

... No data exists that would falsify it. if somehow it were to be falsified, it would be the virtual destruction or complete destruction of all theory in all of the physical sciences. That is how tightly they are linked.

Could this actually happen, though, taikoo? It seems to me that there isn't anything that could really falsify the ever-changing theory of the progression of things along evolutionary paths. It looks, from my vantage, like whenever any new data comes along that would tend to falsify it, the picture of evolution changes to fit the new data.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that our perception of the way things work should change with new information, but the theory of evolution is such an evolving thing as to render it unfalsifiable - or so it would appear.

What possible natural evidence would tend to falsify evolution rather than cause a major shift in the interpretation of the data so as to create a new model for evolution?

Oh right: what does evolution have to do with basic chemistry, the laws of motion, thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, that sort of thing? Not that these aren't used in the sciences concerning the study of evolution, just how would falsification of the ToE alter them?

 

[nicholsmom]

Personally, I believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of a right nostril of a big, big being initially existing by himself in an infinite void..

What does that have to do with evolution? I had thought that evolution didn't address the origin of the universe... :think:

 

[chrysostom]

the only reason we are talking about evolution is because it somehow threatens those who believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis
but
that is not their biggest problem, which is they cannot tell what part of the bible is not important

 

[Town Heretic]

Personally, I believe that the entire universe was sneezed out of a right nostril of a big, big being initially existing by himself in an infinite void.

Seriously, think about it.....makes eminent sense.

:think: Well, can we just agree that your perspective was blown out of an orifice of some sort and leave it at that?

 

[nicholsmom]

Sounds just as logical as complex living organism being "sneezed" out of the primordial goo of the ancient earth. :idunno:

Yep. I'm thinking that if the universe were sneezed out of some biological being's nostril, at least we'd have a good start on abiogenesis, don't you think? I mean that nostril's got to have some organic matter in there, right?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Could this actually happen, though, taikoo? It seems to me that there isn't anything that could really falsify the ever-changing theory of the progression of things along evolutionary paths. It looks, from my vantage, like whenever any new data comes along that would tend to falsify it, the picture of evolution changes to fit the new data.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that our perception of the way things work should change with new information, but the theory of evolution is such an evolving thing as to render it unfalsifiable - or so it would appear.

What possible natural evidence would tend to falsify evolution rather than cause a major shift in the interpretation of the data so as to create a new model for evolution?

Oh right: what does evolution have to do with basic chemistry, the laws of motion, thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, that sort of thing? Not that these aren't used in the sciences concerning the study of evolution, just how would falsification of the ToE alter them?

POTD :first:

 

[Nydhogg]

It looks, from my vantage, like whenever any new data comes along that would tend to falsify it, the picture of evolution changes to fit the new data.

Yup. The paradigm shifts to fit the new data. That's exactly what science does.

 

[pqmomba8]

What does that have to do with evolution? I had thought that evolution didn't address the origin of the universe... :think:

That's actually very, very true. Bravo. It's just that....well....ummmmm.....my theory sounds SO cool. Just visualize THAT!!!!

 

[taikoo]

Life can't just pop in out of nowhere. Science has proven it can't. No life, no evolution.

i always say the only way you can find objections to the ToE is by using misinformation..

so lets look at this:

1) Science, nor anything else can prove that kind of negative.

You cannot prove i dont have an alien spaceport in my molars, for example. You can indicate its real unlikely but you cant prove it.

2) Science is big on disproving things, like the old theory of 'spontaneous generation" that maggots arise from rotting meat, for example.

Science does not propose to prove any theory. Cant be done.

3) Nobody in science says that life just popped out of nowhere. That is actually what the theists say.

There is little to go on regarding how life started. Obviously there had to be plenty of material to work with. All manner of very complex organic molecules are known to self assemble. Nobody knows what all is possible in this regard.

 

[taikoo]

Sounds just as logical as complex living organism being "sneezed" out of the primordial goo of the ancient earth. :idunno:

as long as you know that nobody but someone doing a creationist caricature of evolution says that.

 

[JoeyArnold]

Why wouldnt a person accept evolution as being real as rain?

Evolution is as clear as mud (produced from that rain).

 

[JoeyArnold]

I believe it started as a theory, but since people insist on believing it despite the mountains of evidence against it, it is now the false religion of evolution.

The theory of Evolution was created in order to disprove the existence of a Creator.

 

[Alate_One]

What possible natural evidence would tend to falsify evolution rather than cause a major shift in the interpretation of the data so as to create a new model for evolution?

Find us a few bones from tuna, a whale, a rabbit or a human alongside these critters:

Find us a mammoth or a big cat alongside these critters.

I can say it will never happen because evolution happened. But if it did happen, you'd have to throw out evolution because creatures would be appearing before they could have possibly evolved.

 

[Selaphiel]

Life can't just pop in out of nowhere. Science has proven it can't. No life, no evolution.

The origin of life is not a part of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution is about the origin of species. In other words, it is about the diversification of species from a (or a few) common ancestor(s) through a process of genetic mutation and natural selection.

To comment on your actual statement. Life is a word people tend to throw out there without really thinking about what actually defines it. The line between life and non-life are not as clear as many think.

Are protobionts alive? Are viruses a form of life?

What possible natural evidence would tend to falsify evolution rather than cause a major shift in the interpretation of the data so as to create a new model for evolution?

Demonstrate an inherent limitation of the potential of genetic mutation and natural selection. Finding a human skull in a precambrian strata would also throw the theory on its back.

The core idea of evolution has not changed. The theory is that all species originate from one or a few common ancestors through a process of diversification run by genetic mutation and natural selection.
However, modern biology have a far greater understanding of the exact mechanisms of this process.

 

[nicholsmom]

That's actually very, very true. Bravo. It's just that....well....ummmmm.....my theory sounds SO cool. Just visualize THAT!!!!

Wow lain: You are very excited about this.

 

[taikoo]

Could this actually happen, though, taikoo? It seems to me that there isn't anything that could really falsify the ever-changing theory of the progression of things along evolutionary paths. It looks, from my vantage, like whenever any new data comes along that would tend to falsify it, the picture of evolution changes to fit the new data.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that our perception of the way things work should change with new information, but the theory of evolution is such an evolving thing as to render it unfalsifiable - or so it would appear.

What possible natural evidence would tend to falsify evolution rather than cause a major shift in the interpretation of the data so as to create a new model for evolution?

Oh right: what does evolution have to do with basic chemistry, the laws of motion, thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, that sort of thing? Not that these aren't used in the sciences concerning the study of evolution, just how would falsification of the ToE alter them?

It looks, from my vantage, like whenever any new data comes along that would tend to falsify it, the picture of evolution changes to fit the new data.

You would need to provide an example of this. You are stating it as if the WHOLE picture, of the basics changes. Not at all.

Don't get me wrong, I agree that our perception of the way things work should change with new information, but the theory of evolution is such an evolving thing as to render it unfalsifiable - or so it would appear.

Nothing that i know of has ever come along to challenge or call for a modification of the basic concept... descent with modification over time.

The changes you refer to are tweaks! Like the discovery of a specimen of some species existed earlier than previously known.

its like say, t theory in aircraft flight dynamics. Flight is based on the application of the Bernouli principle to provide lift. Technicians constanly learn new little details about flight dynamics but that does not make the underlying theory a moving target; Bernouli principle holds firm.

What possible natural evidence would tend to falsify evolution rather than cause a major shift in the interpretation of the data so as to create a new model for evolution?

simplest way to express the idea is the discovery of the Cambrian bunny.

Oh right: what does evolution have to do with basic chemistry, the laws of motion, thermodynamics, electro-magnetism, that sort of thing? Not that these aren't used in the sciences concerning the study of evolution, just how would falsification of the ToE alter them

lets say that we find the bunny. Ok, then all of the physics that goes into radiometric dating goes out the window. With it goes atomic theory, the string pulls chemistry out the window with it, and poor old geology is left wandering around wondering how all this stuff happened.

 

[nicholsmom]

Falsify evolution?

Demonstrate an inherent limitation of the potential of genetic mutation and natural selection.

That would be an argument to ignorance, or trying to prove a negative, either way, not logically possible.

Finding a human skull in a precambrian strata would also throw the theory on its back.

I don't think so. Even if the dating showed that the skull actually belonged to the same strata (rather than some other weird way of winding up there), it seems to me that theorists would never be able to determine if it really was human or merely looked human. They'd find a way to alter the theory to make it fit - and I'm not faulting them for that, it just shows that this would not actually falsify the theory of evolution.

The core idea of evolution has not changed. The theory is that all species originate from one or a few common ancestors through a process of diversification run by genetic mutation and natural selection.

Sort of. The theory seems to be moving in the direction of many parallel and intertwining paths. I may be wrong in this, but that's what it looks like from my perspective - they've changed from a tree to a web so that it more realistically fits the data points.

Regardless, the trouble is finding a way to falsify that core. What would do that? I haven't seen any decent ideas yet, but then I'm just a mom sitting at home on a computer...

However, modern biology have a far greater understanding of the exact mechanisms of this process.

So is it falsifiable? If so, how?

 

[taikoo]

POTD :first:

POTD...

that is just completely weird.

 

[Town Heretic]

POTD...

that is just completely weird.

Well, in fairness to Knight, he hadn't seen my unrelated answer to Chrysostom, here.

Probably just as well...lain:

 

[Selaphiel]

That would be an argument to ignorance, or trying to prove a negative, either way, not logically possible.

No, you would merely demonstrate a limitation of a specific process. Is there any reason to suspect that random genetic mutation and natural selection can not create the diversity of life observed today?(Taking into account what we know about natural history of course). Are there any inherent limitations as to what this process can accomplish?

I don't think so. Even if the dating showed that the skull actually belonged to the same strata (rather than some other weird way of winding up there), it seems to me that theorists would never be able to determine if it really was human or merely looked human. They'd find a way to alter the theory to make it fit - and I'm not faulting them for that, it just shows that this would not actually falsify the theory of evolution.

I don't think you can justify that statement from the history of science. Paradigm shifts can indeed face resistance, but new paradigms tend to eventually break through if they are correct. There were resistance against quantum mechanics at first, but it eventually broke through.
I can not imagine a way you could still maintain the ToE if a human skull was found among precambrian fossils. Even if it merely looked human (experts have no problem identifying whether a skull is from a human or not) it would be revolutionary find beyond belief that would shake the ToE to its very core.

Sort of. The theory seems to be moving in the direction of many parallel and intertwining paths. I may be wrong in this, but that's what it looks like from my perspective - they've changed from a tree to a web so that it more realistically fits the data points.

There are disagreements within biology, no one denies that. Gould and Dawkins did not see eye to eye on many things, but they agreed on the core principles of the ToE. The theory is under constant development, but this development is in continuity with the past.

So is it falsifiable? If so, how?

I would say definitely. It is not only fossil predictions you can falsify. There are tons of molecular predictions that can be falsified as well. Pseudogenes is a famous example. Humans carry a broken gene for vitamin C synthesis. If we match the mutations in this pseudogene with the line of ancestry predicted by the ToE we see that the closer a species is to us, there is an increased amount of shared accumulated mutations in that gene we share with each other. The chance that such identical accumulations originate by pure chance is unthinkably small.