Talk:Evolution can't be falsified (Talk.Origins)
"It's not only because the past is untestable that evolution is referred to as unfalsifiable and therefore not science. It is because when evolution does make predictions and those predictions, when tested, fail, the evolutionist doesn't consider his theory falsified but makes an excuse or gives an ad hoc hypothesis"
This has been said of creationists as well. I'm wondering who's right?
Not only that but for the totality of evolution to be observed, therefore reproducable and falsifiable a valid explanation of the evolution from fish to philosopher is required. Yet this is something which has never been scientifically observed, can never be experimentally tested nor empirically falsifiable. This huge assumption is what evolutionary scientists rely on and assume has already happened to justify their unobserved extrapolations of the evidence we all have.
It is important to remember that creationism relies on what is literally observed by science more so than evolution, especially within the field of genetics, specifically random mutations and selection producing the types of changes needed for evolution. These natural mechanisms by which we see variety produced are only shown to do just that and they do have limits. It has only been observed to produce variety within a created kind. It has not however been scientifically observed as evolution predicts to produce the massive increase of genetic information to which allows the primate to man change.
You might say that, "time is all that is required for this change to happen." Indeed that is right except there are, again, limits to what these mutations can do. Time is more enemy than friend regarding random mutations.
The mathematical problems arise when related mutations are needed, thousands upon millions mind you are needed for evolutionary changes to happen. This simply cannot happen, by the time you start to hit four related mutations, there is not enough room on planet earth to hold that many organisms to make that chance very likely.
References
Talk Origins
I feel that the Talk Origins page on this is rather weak. You might like to consider responding to EvoWiki's page ( http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/Evolution_can%27t_be_falsified ) though of course as a Wiki its contents are subject to change... Bunnyform 20:38, 7 January 2008 (EST)
EvoWiki has no understanding of creationism and lacks credibility. They also don't like constructive criticism. EvoWiki's page on this matter makes several good points, but it's by far a personal rant.
Lets be honest with our selves. There are some conclusions that are merely extensions of other conclusions. So debating about the extensions is next to pointless. It's the core issues that are important. The falsifiability debate will plague both sides as long as there is an debate.
You might be interested in this page: Oard's Flood Follies (EvoWiki)--Nlawrence 21:00, 7 January 2008 (EST)
I simply claim that what EvoWiki suggests as things that might falsify evolution are perhaps more reasonable than the Talk Origins page. But since I've promised not to enter into debates, this is the last you'll hear from me about this page. :-) Bunnyform 21:06, 7 January 2008 (EST)
- The Talk.Origins page is indeed rather weak, but the EvoWiki article provided is no better. Creationists have fulfilled every single point on their list, but the evolutionists just keep going. --Zephyr Axiom 22:37, 7 January 2008 (EST)
