Do you know what falsifiability means?
Yes
It means that something can potential be disproven.
For example DNA analysis could have disproven common descent. Comparison between the Pan and homo genomes could have indicated completely separate isolated origins. It however didn't.
Could have is not an acceptable test for strict falsifiability. Your examples would not have disproven it in any case. If some animals didn't arrive through common descent it wouldn't disprove that others did. If markedly similar individuals didn't have similar DNA it would not call common descent into question but rather DNA as the information carrier and characteristic determinant. If "species" didn't diverge at one point they can be claimed to have diverged at another.
The theory could potentially be made to fit anything found accidentally. I know what the retort would be "but that's what science does." But if you can change something in order for it not to be false you have to ask yourself the question can it still be logically claimed falsifiable? Luckily Popper isn't the only authority and other criteria are used besides just falsifiability to determine if something is science.
Your point is moot. Evolution is observed fact. The Theory of Evolution is the explanation of that observation.
If you have an alternative explanation to explain the facts in existence please present it, a Nobel prize awaits.
Unfortunately for you it's not moot. It is still commonly accepted that YOU must prove something not ME disprove it. You are skirting around this fact and your derogatory remark doesn't phase me.
So nothing eh? I thought so.
Indeed nothing because you still haven't proven anything. Why is this fact so hard to grasp?
Except it isn't. Thank you for playing.
Except you can't show it isn't. You only believe it isn't.
You did not, and no matter how much you insist otherwise, it is still an outright lie.
Carry on believing what you want... you have just shown everyone you're not interested in learning anything.
Which was the intention of the thread; For people who deny the reality of evolution to show that they understand that which they reject.
Thus far, I have no reason to think that any of them do have the slightest notion.
I don't know hey. Plenty of us have showed we have an understanding of the
unreality of
the theory of evolution. On the contrary look at who the usual crowd is that actually derailed it the most with their derogatory remarks against creationists. Quite ironic that this is now your stance yet you haven't shown any understanding of the subject yourself and you are one of the prime examples that use evolution to refer to the theory of evolution.
The misunderstanding appears to be yours, and it's concerning the definition of theory. Even wikipedia got it wrong.. lol, must be terrible being a creationist and all those damn 'sciencey' references are always wrong.
Did you even read it? Something cannot be both a theory and a fact. Wikipedia is wrong but then it's wrong on so many things now isn't it?
the·o·ry
noun \ˈthē-ə-rē, ˈthir-ē\
plural the·o·ries
Definition of THEORY
1
: the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
2
: abstract thought : speculation
3
: the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
4
a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances —often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
5
: a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <the wave theory of light>
6
a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : conjecture c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>
Exactly what I said. The misunderstanding is on your part, not mine.
Here you are referring to the 5th or 6th possible meanings of "theory" as listed above, when you should be using number 3. Have you perhaps heard of musical theory? Do you expect someone to still prove the chromatic scale is true?
No I am referring to the common meaning of the term evolution according to which it IS just a theory (as defined by #3) and NOT a fact. I don't know why this concept is so hard for so many people to grasp.
(#5 is actually correct as well. Dictionaries do state the same thing in multiple different ways for people that get confused but it does not seem to help for some people on here
)
:wtf: What a diabolical twist of logic. If you saw mutations in a petri dish, it happened. No if or could, it happened. And if it happened in a petri dish, it can happen in nature. Unless you have philosophical issues about the reality of what your senses present to you?
The only thing that happened is the mutations in the petri dish. The real twist of logic is using it to "prove" that any mutation from pond scum to human can happen. It's also called a logical fallacy. I really don't know why these concepts are so hard to grasp.
er, that's what you should be hearing, not saying, since you're the follower of faith?
So are you.
Sign up with Google
