On falsifiability of Evolution

[eyedrop]

Here is a little text from wiki on the falsifiability of Evolution, I think it deserves it's own tread since rejection of evolution doesn't really have anything to do with ID, except it's political relation. I thought it could be here, even if it belongs to the science forum.

[edit] Evolution

Main article: Objections to evolution#Evolution is unfalsifiable
Many creationists have claimed that evolution is unfalsifiable.
Numerous examples of potential ways to falsify common descent have been proposed. Richard Dawkins said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[10][11][12] Similarly, J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era".[13] Similarly, the evolution of the great apes and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor of apes and humans. In contrast, many religious beliefs are not falsifiable, because no testable prediction has been made about the supernatural. [14]
Molecular biology identifies DNA as the mechanism for inherited traits. Therefore if common descent is true, human DNA should be more similar to great apes than other mammals. If this is not the case, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis shows this to be the case however (and remarkably so), and hence evolution passes a falsifiable test.
Popper himself drew a distinction between common descent and the process of natural selection. While he agreed common descent was falsifiable (he used the even more drastic example of the remains of a car in cambrian sediments),[15] Popper said that natural selection "is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme".[16] However, Popper later said "I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection, and I am glad to have the opportunity to make a recantation."[17] He went on to formulate natural selection in a falsifiable way and offered a more nuanced view of its status. He still felt that "Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test." However, "[t]here are some tests, even some experimental tests; and in some cases, such as the famous phenomenon known as 'industrial melanism', we can observe natural selection happening under our very eyes, as it were. Nevertheless, really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry."[17]

[ID-guy]

Numerous examples of potential ways to falsify common descent have been proposed. Richard Dawkins said that "If there were a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found."[10][11][12]

No. even if we did find them there. You could just say that that was a case of convergent evolution that made them evolve that way.

On the other hand, the reason why we don't find them there is because the geologic column is based on circular reasoning. It dates the fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils. So when you find a fossil, the evolutionists say which period it is from based on where it was found in the ground. So they actually determine the age of the fossil so we actually can't find them in the same time period. Thus this is not falsifiable.

Similarly, J.B.S. Haldane, when asked what hypothetical evidence could disprove evolution, replied "fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era"

This is the same thing as above.

Molecular biology identifies DNA as the mechanism for inherited traits. Therefore if common descent is true, human DNA should be more similar to great apes than other mammals. If this is not the case, then common descent is falsified. DNA analysis shows this to be the case however (and remarkably so), and hence evolution passes a falsifiable test.

This is actually circular logic.

Humans and apes are said to be close relatives because they are similar. Their similarity is due to similar DNA. So since they have similar DNA they are said to have evolved from a common ancestor because they have similar DNA. That is circular logic. Thus this is not falsifiable.

Do you have anything else?

[Pawn Power]

No. even if we did find them there. You could just say that that was a case of convergent evolution that made them evolve that way.

No, convergent evolution would not cause modern-day rabbits to appear in the Precambrian fossil record.

On the other hand, the reason why we don't find them there is because the geologic column is based on circular reasoning. It dates the fossils by the rocks, and rocks by the fossils. So when you find a fossil, the evolutionists say which period it is from based on where it was found in the ground. So they actually determine the age of the fossil so we actually can't find them in the same time period. Thus this is not falsifiable.

Rocks and fossils are dated in a variety of ways including relative dating methods like the principles of archeolgical stratigraphy (that is, using the rock layers). However, absolute dating methods are used like, for example, potassium- argon dating or radio-carbon dating (for organic matter).

So, no, the reason we don't find rabbits back then is not based on "circular logic" it is because they did not yet exist.

[MarxSchmarx]

Rats pawn power beat me to it in RE: carbon dating.

Humans and apes are said to be close relatives because they are similar. Their similarity is due to similar DNA. So since they have similar DNA they are said to have evolved from a common ancestor because they have similar DNA. That is circular logic. Thus this is not falsifiable.

No. At its most credible interpretation, you are confusing the history of the hypothesis with the hypothesis itself. Humans and apes are HYPOTHESIZED to be "similiar" because it is HYPOTHESIZED that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past. This hypothesis is generated irrespective of DNA. It is, in a strict sense, generated regardless of other similarities. Pretend it is thrown out as an abstract hypothesis; don't focus on its "inspiration", much less the history of this hypothesis. Therefore, according to this abstract hypthothesis, they should be similar. And wonder of wonders, they are similar in DNA, they are similar in anatomy, hell they are similar even in behavior. If the hypothesis that they evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past was FALSE, none (or very few) of these similarities should hold. And lo and behold, they don't hold for humans versus ants, much less humans verses trees, much less humans versus viruses. If ape DNA some how miraculously (intelligently?) resembled virus DNA, we'd falsify the notion that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past.

Quad era demonstratum.

[eyedrop]

Your ignorance shows once again ID-guy. Ever heard of C14 dating? It's really useless when you don't even know the basis.

And as Marxsmarx said above the similar DNA was predicted before we knew it and when we got to know it it fit perfectly with what evolution and common ancestry predicted.

Learn the history of a science and the methods it uses before claiming that it's wrong.

[apathy maybe]

http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...disproved.html

To count as science, hypotheses and theories should make predictions that might turn out to be wrong. In other words, it should be possible to falsify these ideas. Some claim this is not true of evolution, but this is simply because we find it hard to imagine how different life might have been if it had not evolved.

When asked what would disprove evolution, the biologist J. B. S. Haldane reportedly growled: "Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian". What he meant is that the progression over time seen in the millions of fossils unearthed around the world is exactly what evolutionary theory predicts.

Unicellular organisms, for example, appear before multicellular ones. Jawless fish precede jawed fish. Lunged fish precede amphibians. Amphibians precede reptiles. Reptiles with scales precede mammals and birds with modified scales (fur and feathers). Apes precede humans. All it would take is one or two exceptions to seriously challenge the theory.

Rabbits with feathers could also disprove evolution. There are animals with a mixture of mammalian and reptilian features, such as echidnas, and there are fossils with a mixture of bird and reptilian features, such as the toothy archaeopteryx. However, no animals have a mixture of mammalian and bird features.

[ID-guy]

No, convergent evolution would not cause modern-day rabbits to appear in the Precambrian fossil record.

They wouldn't be rabbits, but they would look 100% like rabbits. You wouldn't be able to tell them apart. So yes, they would count as rabbits.

Rocks and fossils are dated in a variety of ways including relative dating methods like the principles of archeolgical stratigraphy (that is, using the rock layers).

Yes, and guess how the fossils are dated? By the rocks? And how are the rocks dated? By the fossils? And how are the fossils dated? By the rocks? Catching on already?

However, absolute dating methods are used like, for example, potassium- argon dating or radio-carbon dating (for organic matter).

And they are all wrong. If you think they are correct, explain how they work.

So, no, the reason we don't find rabbits back then is not based on "circular logic" it is because they did not yet exist.

No, it's because of circular logic.

[ID-guy]

Rats pawn power beat me to it in RE: carbon dating.

No. At its most credible interpretation, you are confusing the history of the hypothesis with the hypothesis itself. Humans and apes are HYPOTHESIZED to be "similiar" because it is HYPOTHESIZED that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past. This hypothesis is generated irrespective of DNA. It is, in a strict sense, generated regardless of other similarities. Pretend it is thrown out as an abstract hypothesis; don't focus on its "inspiration", much less the history of this hypothesis. Therefore, according to this abstract hypthothesis, they should be similar. And wonder of wonders, they are similar in DNA, they are similar in anatomy, hell they are similar even in behavior. If the hypothesis that they evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past was FALSE, none (or very few) of these similarities should hold. And lo and behold, they don't hold for humans versus ants, much less humans verses trees, much less humans versus viruses. If ape DNA some how miraculously (intelligently?) resembled virus DNA, we'd falsify the notion that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor in the recent past.

Quad era demonstratum.

They are similar because they have similar DNA. So of course they are going to be said to be close relatives because they are similar, and of course they are going to have similar DNA since they are similar. It's still circular logic.

[ID-guy]

Your ignorance shows once again ID-guy. Ever heard of C14 dating? It's really useless when you don't even know the basis.

I know about it, and it doesn't work.

And as Marxsmarx said above the similar DNA was predicted before we knew it and when we got to know it it fit perfectly with what evolution and common ancestry predicted.

Learn the history of a science and the methods it uses before claiming that it's wrong.

IT'S STILL CIRCULAR LOGIC! Prediction or not, it's still circular.

[apathy maybe]

And they are all wrong. If you think they are correct, explain how they work.

No, how about you explain why they are wrong.
Why should we tell you how they work, when you are so sure that they don't? Explain why they don't work and what is wrong with them.

(Also, how old is the Earth anyway? Last time I checked I think scientists had dated it around 6000 years. Do you disagree with that?)

[eyedrop]

Ahh, no I'm getting it. You are now starting to claim that nuclear and nuclear radiation science is wrong too. Why didn't you just tell us this from the start so we could just clearly disregard you as a nut with no understanding of science.

IT'S STILL CIRCULAR LOGIC! Prediction or not, it's still circular.

No understanding of science and scientific methods. I suspect you disregard all science on the same grounds.

[Pawn Power]

They wouldn't be rabbits, but they would look 100% like rabbits. You wouldn't be able to tell them apart. So yes, they would count as rabbits.

This is foolishness. What is "counting as a rabbit?" Either the Precambrian produced what we call "rabbits," or it didn't...hint.... it didn't.

Also this has nothing to do with convergent evolution like you mentioned before. Read you own link.

Yes, and guess how the fossils are dated? By the rocks? And how are the rocks dated? By the fossils? And how are the fossils dated? By the rocks? Catching on already?

Certianly, you must read the entire post before you respond and make yourself look foolish. Indeed, relative dating methods do not use "circular logic" when there are many absolute dating techniques to date various fossiles, rocks, soil, etc. with in different layers of strata.

And they are all wrong. If you think they are correct, explain how they work.

No, it's because of circular logic.

Can you see the irony? You are now using "circular logic" yourself!

Becasue you are ignorant of the processes which make these dating methods work does not prove anything... besides you own ignorance. (no offense, really)

If you want a brief explanation of how they work wikipedia is a fine tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating

To be sure, there are dozens of other absolute dating methods which are used to date certain things in certain time frames.

[ID-guy]

No, how about you explain why they are wrong.
Why should we tell you how they work, when you are so sure that they don't? Explain why they don't work and what is wrong with them.

(Also, how old is the Earth anyway? Last time I checked I think scientists had dated it around 6000 years. Do you disagree with that?)

You can't use C14 dating since it depends on the C14 being in equillibrium in the atmosphere. But it's not. C14 is still building up. So when you measure the amount of C14 in artifacts you want to know how old they are, you are going to get the wrong date. Since C14 method is actually calculating the ratio between the amount C14 in the atmosphere and the artifact you are measuring. If there is no equilibrium than you can not measure it, since you are always going to get the wrong number.

[ID-guy]

Ahh, no I'm getting it. You are now starting to claim that nuclear and nuclear radiation science is wrong too. Why didn't you just tell us this from the start so we could just clearly disregard you as a nut with no understanding of science.




No understanding of science and scientific methods. I suspect you disregard all science on the same grounds.

You are an imbecile. Don't respond to me anymore.

[ID-guy]

This is foolishness. What is "counting as a rabbit?" Either the Precambrian produced what we call "rabbits," or it didn't...hint.... it didn't.

Also this has nothing to do with convergent evolution like you mentioned before. Read you own link.

You don't get it. If we found fossils of animals that looked 100% like rabbits, evolutionists would jsut say that that is not a rabbit but some other creature that looks like a rabbit becasue of the convergent evolution.

Certianly, you must read the entire post before you respond and make yourself look foolish. Indeed, relative dating methods do not use "circular logic" when there are many absolute dating techniques to date various fossiles, rocks, soil, etc. with in different layers of strata.

Explain than how does relative dating works.

Can you see the irony? You are now using "circular logic" yourself!

Becasue you are ignorant of the processes which make these dating methods work does not prove anything... besides you own ignorance. (no offense, really)

If you want a brief explanation of how they work wikipedia is a fine tool.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potassium-argon_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_carbon_dating

To be sure, there are dozens of other absolute dating methods which are used to date certain things in certain time frames.

Yes, I know about them, and they are all wrong. Since they are based on faulty assumptions.

[Pawn Power]

You don't get it. If we found fossils of animals that looked 100% like rabbits, evolutionists would jsut say that that is not a rabbit but some other creature that looks like a rabbit becasue of the convergent evolution..

I am not sure that this is what evolutionist would say. The problem with this hypothetical "rabbit," apart from not existing, is that it would onyl resemble modern-day "rabbits" is fossilized form. If there match was "100%" I don't think evolutionist would simply disregard it as another similar creature, but woud seriously questions what is happening... however, this has not happened.

Explain than how does relative dating works.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_dating

Yes, I know about them, and they are all wrong. Since they are based on faulty assumptions.

A fantastic claim...now you need to prove it.

[Lord Testicles]

(Also, how old is the Earth anyway? Last time I checked I think scientists had dated it around 6000 years. Do you disagree with that?)

The Earth is 4.54 billion years old.

[ID-guy]

I am not sure that this is what evolutionist would say. The problem with this hypothetical "rabbit," apart from not existing, is that it would onyl resemble modern-day "rabbits" is fossilized form. If there match was "100%" I don't think evolutionist would simply disregard it as another similar creature, but woud seriously questions what is happening...

He would just say that it is a case of convergent evolution.

however, this has not happened.

Because it can't happen. Because of circular logic used to date the rocks.

Look at what your link says:

Though relative dating can determine the order in which a series of events occurred, not when they occurred, it is in no way inferior to radiometric dating; in fact, relative dating by biostratigraphy is the preferred method in paleontology, and is in some respects more accurate.(Stanley, 167-9)

It says that relative dating is even superior to absolute dating. How can that be? You use the so called index fossils to tell the relative dates of the rocks, and than you use the relative dates to tell the date the fossils. You see, it's circular logic.

A fantastic claim...now you need to prove it.

As you can clearly see, this si teh assumption:

For more than three decades potassium-argon (K-Ar) and argon-argon (Ar-Ar) dating of rocks has been crucial in underpinning the billions of years for Earth history claimed by evolutionists. Critical to these dating methods is the assumption that there was no radiogenic argon (40Ar*) in the rocks (e.g., basalt) when they formed, which is usually stated as self-evident.

Yet this is the reality:

However, this dogmatic statement is inconsistent with even Dalrymple's own work 25 years earlier on 26 historic, subaerial lava flows, 20% of which he found had non-zero concentrations of 40Ar* (or excess argon) in violation of this key assumption of the K-Ar dating method.2

Therefore, radiometric dating fails the test.

http://www.icr.org/article/436/

[Pawn Power]

He would just say that it is a case of convergent evolution.

Who would? You are assuming what people would think in a fantastically hypothetical situation.

Because it can't happen. Because of circular logic used to date the rocks.

No, it can't happen because evolution exists.

It says that relative dating is even superior to absolute dating. How can that be? You use the so called index fossils to tell the relative dates of the rocks, and than you use the relative dates to tell the date the fossils. You see, it's circular logic.

You keep repeating the same thing without knowing the significance of the words you are using. Look up the term 'index fossil.' These are used to identify geological periods, however, the priciples of stratigraphy are still used. Relative dating messures materials in relative relation to each other, but one can still date individual materials... relative dating can then be used to place things in geological periods.

As you can clearly see, this si teh assumption:

These are not assumptions but are tested realities.

Yet this is the reality:

Therefore, radiometric dating fails the test.

http://www.icr.org/article/436/

The vast majority of the scientific community which understand how these processes work would diseagree with you. Certianly, you are going to have to disprove the other dozen or so dating techiniques false... not that providing a link to a creationist blog accomplishes this.

[ID-guy]

Who would? You are assuming what people would think in a fantastically hypothetical situation.

The evolutionists would.

No, it can't happen because evolution exists.

Do you have any proof of this?

You keep repeating the same thing without knowing the significance of the words you are using. Look up the term 'index fossil.' These are used to identify geological periods, however, the priciples of stratigraphy are still used.

However!?!? That is the same thing!? The principles of the branch of stratigraphy, which is biostratigraphy is based on index fossils! That is circular logic.

Biostratigraphy is the branch of stratigraphy which focuses on correlating and assigning relative ages of rock strata by using the fossil assemblages contained within them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biostratigraphy

Relative dating messures materials in relative relation to each other, but one can still date individual materials...

But how do you know the age of the individual to begin with!?

relative dating can then be used to place things in geological periods.

And relative dating is based on index fossils. And now I ask you, how do you know the age of the fossils?

These are not assumptions but are tested realities.

Yes, and they were wrong. As you can clearly see, the assumption WAS that there will be no Argon in the rocks. But guess what!? There was! Therefore, PA dating is wrong.

The vast majority of the scientific community which understand how these processes work would diseagree with you. Certianly, you are going to have to disprove the other dozen or so dating techiniques false... not that providing a link to a creationist blog accomplishes this.

I don't care what the vast majority of "scientists" think. OK? Sto with the arguments from authority. I'm not falling for it. And if you do not accept my links than I'm not accepting yours. So there.