every scientific theory functions in a way it can be disproven if certain facts or theory come out. Meanwhile, evolution, while being the current paradigm, seems entirely unfalsifiable (Poppers prerequisite for scientific theory). like the test for real witch - If she dies she is probably a witch, if she survives she isnt.
Example 1: if it survives its more adapted (ergo superior), if it doesnt its less adapted (ergo inferior). That kind of logic should also apply to human races so if whitey dies, he actually wasnt the masterrace, if he survives he actually is. This is mythology and circular reasoning, not scientific reasoning.
Example 2: "useless human body parts". Appendix and wisdom teeth are considered an evolutionary relic...until few years ago when appendix was discovered to be very usefull for keeping gut bacteria. Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them.
in essence, evolution is a Catch 22 of science. If some human part turns out to be usefull in the end, you just claim:
1) "evolutionary adaptation" or if you cant find a certain fossil you claim "we havent found it yet but based on evolutionary theory it was there"
2) or if you dont have a certain body part "it died because of evolution", or find a certain fossil "I told you so I FCK LOOOOVE SCIENCE"
same with homosexuality: 1) disgenics since it doesnt procreate and it diminished the chances of survival 2) EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION towards overpopulation of Earth
What on Earth is falsifiability? What makes science a science?
science=application of scientific method scientific method=empirical hypothesis testing
notice the last part - testing. in order to test it, hypothesis has to be testable. So where does falsifiability come in play here? Notice that the conclussion comes from empirical observation, so we actually make a logical fallacy in ALL legit scientific conclussions because we jump from inductive to deductive reasoning.
So, possibility of falsification in a way proves that therory comes from empirical observation (remember that in science we jump from induction to deduction which we dont do in logic), its POTENTIAL faultiness is a proof for its validity.
theory of evolution DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR FAULTINESS.
To falsify evolution just prove that genes in a population don't change over generations.
Liam Diaz
>genes in a population don't change over generations.
congrats you proved the legitimacy of genetics. genetic mechanism prove creationism as much as evolution.
Carson Cox
natural selection and mutation is a NECESSERY but not SUFFICIENT proof for evolution
e.g. "John is a bachelor", it is necessary that it be also true that he is 1) unmarried, 2 )male, 3) adult
if you have all 3 you have SUFFICIENT proof. but it doenst go the other way ie. if you know an unmmarried person, that doesnt mean he is a bachleor (he might be divorced or a kid)
e.g. II "Evolution exists" it is necessary that it be also true that 1) natural selection/microevolution -100% proof 2) old Earth - "proved" but a huge jump to conclussion since you cant prove that conditions of uranium emmissions were constant during 4.5. bill 3) CROSS SPECIES mutation/macroevolution - NEVER DEMONSTRATED
so just porving "microevolution" isnt SUFFICIENT proof.
>theory of evolution DOES NOT HAVE THE POTENTIAL FOR FAULTINESS it does. one observation that would disprove (at least speak against) evolution is if we observed all lifeforms to be identical.
Adrian Wood
You're thinking of the chromosome theory of inheritance. Evolution is about the change in genes within a population not the inheritance from parent to child. You should consider researching biology if you are interested in it.
Elijah Rodriguez
Would you say that genetic algorithms (i.e. they use the theory of evolution) is a proof of evolution?
Thomas Miller
>2) old Earth - "proved" but a huge jump to conclussion since you cant prove that conditions of uranium emmissions were constant during 4.5. bill
to expand...keep in mind that age of the Earth itself DOES NOT prove evolution since one could argue that God created man 4.5. bill years ago.
Cross species mutation is the crux of evolutionary proof, at it was NEVER proved, eschericia coli exp, even after 60k genes proved nothing.
>Evolution is about the change in genes within a population not the inheritance from parent to child.
Evolution man can satisfy 100 different women all at once.
You tell me that's not the peak of physical fitness!
Eli Diaz
>genetic algorithms
you mean natural selection - that genes of the population change regarding the environmental conditions? They do change...and very fast, but only WITHIN a group of species.
Its definitely not SUFFICIENT proof.
>don't respond to Croatian science pasta famm
pussy antiintellectual.
Landon Young
>be precise in terminology pls. Evolution: any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next
Cameron Torres
>don't respond to Croatian science pasta famm
you just say that because you have an evolutionary demon.
>Evolution: any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next
so species dont have to mutate in another species and 4.5 billion year evolution is proved? semantical manipulation worthy of a wiki article.
I mean algorithms that can be implemented on a computer where they use selection to evolve a program that is "fit" to whatever environment it needs to "live" in.
Connor Sanders
You have the operating definition of evolution. To falsify evolution prove the frequency of alleles within a gene pool do not change after successive generations.
Dominic Powell
This.
Evolution is so much a scientific theory that even have practical applications.
Jaxson Carter
examples of unfalsifiable claims:
>Jesus will come back soon >"Im not a racist. Racist confrmed, only a racist would deny that he is racist" >"I dont hate women." "Mysoginists confirmed, only a hater indoctrinated by institutional mysog would so passionatly deny his hate for wammen." >Catch 22 - too crazy to fly therefore ideal for a pilot
I know about that, but in order for it to be valid analogy you have to first prove that species can mutate to another species.
>To falsify evolution prove the frequency of alleles within a gene pool do not change after successive generations.
congrats you proved natural selection. you just semantically manipulate because you have an evolutionary demon.
>congrats you proved natural selection. That's not the definition of natural selection.
Hunter Martinez
evolutionary algorithms work and have been tested over billions of generations same goes for microbes who can generate thousands of generations in a few weeks stop being a retard
Chase Cooper
>I know about that, but in order for it to be valid analogy you have to first prove that species can mutate to another species.
It happen you retard. When you use genetic algorithms or run a simulation in a computer you set the mechanism for mutations, inheritance, and crossbreeding.
You set how often random mutations occur, how characteristics are inhereted through generations, etc.
Blake Bailey
>I know about that, but in order for it to be valid analogy you have to first prove that species can mutate to another species. By iterating selection and mutation of DNA over generations we can trace one string of DNA to another. The theory says that this is a possibility.
Thomas Anderson
>When you use genetic algorithms or run a simulation in a computer >You set
you methodological imbecile, and what makes your SF computer game a valid analogy for what supposedly happen? should you first prove on small sample that species can even MUTATE into another species and then EXTRAPOLATE.
Or should we just EXTRAPOLATE to 4.5 billion years everything we feel like?
I FCK HAAAAATE SCIENCE!!!
>The theory says that this is a possibility.
I never said it wasnt, but the proof isnt sufficient. If esch coli exp created another species of bacteria and not just demonstrated natural selection by environmental pressures, that would be smth.
this theory already predicted >globalization of culture >advent of wordlwide political organizationS >spread of christianity to the biggest religion in the world
The theory of evolution is part a constructive proof of logic, where given the premise of mutation and selection it explains how radical change can occur over generations. You can not disprove a valid proof of logic, and theres your problem. The only thing you can disprove of the theory would be that selection or mutation doesn't occur.
William Lopez
yeah it's falsifiable just prove that there is no such thing as genetic adaptation. Of course there is room for error, I don't know what kind of uber strict entepretation you have chosen to use. Why are you so assblasted about this anyway?
>where given the premise of mutation and selection it explains how radical change can occur over generations
What are your thoughts about this: "We observed a rise in human height from birth to late puberty, give the constructive logic we concluded that human height of an individual rises to the end of his life"
>yeah it's falsifiable just prove that there is no such thing as genetic adaptation
""We observed a rise in human IQ from birth to late 20s, give the constructive logic we concluded that human IQ of an individual rises to the end of his life""
Oliver Hernandez
>congrats you proved natural selection. That's not natural selection. Natural selection is when an organism with advantageous traits has more children which are more likely to survive.
Alexander Allen
>Natural selection is when an organism with advantageous traits has more children which are more likely to survive.
genes of a population dont change by natural selection?
William Cruz
No, genes change by mutation but the frequency they are found in a population is effected by natural selection. We call this phenomenon: evolution.
Jeremiah Clark
>"We observed a rise in human height from birth to late puberty, give the constructive logic we concluded that human height of an individual rises to the end of his life" We don't need to go into detail of specific phenotypes to understand why theory of evolution works. The only proof you would need is how a specific genotype expresses its phenotype (for example in the way you want to proof), but this is independent from the theory of evolution.
Caleb Wright
>genes change by mutation but the frequency they are found in a population is effected by natural selection.
correct, that is what I said in the first place. but where do you get 4.5billion or whatevers years of from amebas to humans from?
>We don't need to go into detail of specific phenotypes to understand why theory of evolution works.
you need ONE example of new species being crated to even theoreticize the possibiltiy of evolution, until that there is no intellectual right to conclude that natural selection crosses the species barrier.
Christian Sanchez
>correct, that is what I said in the first place. You did not.
Joseph Brown
>You did not.
stop with this semantics faggotry.
Nathan Moore
>you need ONE example of new species being crated to even theoreticize the possibiltiy of evolution, until that there is no intellectual right to conclude that natural selection crosses the species barrier. Well I could define one "species" as a specific instance of a DNA string and any change would then have to cross a "species-boundary". We would observe within the first generation that a new species is created.
Ayden Ortiz
prestani spamat ovaj thread svaki dan retardu glupi
Lame, since when did Jow Forums start trying to sound serious
Carter Ward
duvaj nintendo kontrolol slinavac antiintelektualni! ODI GLEDAT ŠARIĆEV STAND UP ONI NA TED TALK! KUPI SI PLETENI ŠAL!
>We would observe within the first generation that a new species is created.
Well I could define that that proves that God exists.
>> something didn't happen in my lifetime,so it can't happen
nice strawman, why dont you one up your SF novel an claim that before 4.5 billion years we entered the galaxy as black science mans and then turned ourselves to prime matter to start evolution. Its unironically thesible and you cant disprove it.
Steps to disprove evolution: >Step 1: Find a large carnivore that lived hundreds of thousands of years ago >Step 2: Find its stomach contents >Step 3: Carbon date the carnivore and its stomach contents to ensure nothing has been fucked with >Step 4: Find a single case anywhere where the stomach contents are what evolution claimed to be a descendant of the carnivore that wouldn't appear until hundreds of thousands of years afterwards
A second example: >Step 2: Prove that carbon dating is impossible by proving radioactivity false
So what's the problem? If evolution was a lie there should be millions of examples of dinosaurs with birds in their stomachs, or why not just a dire-boar with a normal boar in its stomach (boars are omnivors) ?
Last question, oh ye who is too smart, have you found any theory that's done better predictions about evolution? Such as the turtles EVOLVING the last 60 years due to beaches changing? Or bacteria EVOLVING to survive new medicines? Both predicted by evolutionary theory?
The problem isn't that evolution isn't true, it's that it's not a scientific theory. There is no falsifying because there are no controlled experiments. It's very strange that the masses have forgotten this when it used to be common knowledge. I guess it comes with the times of making everything political. Believing in "evolution" is now like climate change.
Easton Baker
So for example the millions of studies on bacteria and antibiotics aren't controlled experiments? Nor are the experiments to make chicken lay eggs in colder environments during the 90's?
>Such as the turtles EVOLVING the last 60 years due to beaches changing?
evolved to what, mammals? do you think that high lactose tolerance in Nordics is a proof of evolution?
>So for example the millions of studies on bacteria and antibiotics aren't controlled experiments? Nor are the experiments to make chicken lay eggs in colder environments during the 90's?
oh, those are CONTROLLED and SCIENTIFIC, but your logical jump to conclussion that those prove evolution is a fallacy.
Why havent we found ONE human fossil that looks like Xavier? Infact, there should be plenty of those kind of humans living now.
Ah, so what you mean is that evolution is not scientific because we cannot perform a controlled experiment to reproduce SOME of the thing we explain with it, for example we can't take a lizard and exactly reproduce the steps that led to mammals over the course of millions of years correct? And the fact that evolution not only explains everything we can se throughout history and can be used to accurately predict future developments is not enough?
Brayden Sanders
>we can't take a lizard and exactly reproduce the steps that led to mammals over the course of millions of years correct?
if you make a lizzard into a mammal that would be extremly strong evidence for evolution.
>And the fact that evolution not only explains everything we can se throughout history and can be used to accurately predict future developments is not enough?
that is the joke. evolution is retroactive, not proactive and predictable. They look what happens and tell a story, all evolutionary predictions failed.
They couldnt even predict the IQ drop. Even when they failed, they can claim "its evolutionary adaptation, fancy that, evolution works". circularity.
But you can observe evolution in some places, surely aren't denying that the genetic material of bacterial strains change when exposed to for example antibiotics? If you're denying that you must clearly not have all horses home.
Isaiah Bell
They are controlled experiments but they only apply to their specific domain. Evolution kind of comes in two parts: an almost trivial claim about survival, which can be observed at any scale (genes, DNA, individual, population, species, food chain, ecosystem, planet, etc), and a second part, which is predictive rather than historical, about what will survive. The second part is where scientists go off the rails, since the only way to apply the results of lab experiments to the actual world is by inductive extension. If you find a bird with a long tongue, you can infer the existence of a deep flower, but this is not a scientific prediction.
Lucas Baker
FIRST POST THAT ISN'T OP SPAM BEST POST
Jace Foster
Okay you are retarded then. Because then by extension you don't believe in gravity or photons either since you don't believe the experiments prove anything outside the controlled environment they where done in. Sorry for bumping the thread.
Hunter Ross
That's not what I'm saying but nice spazzing faggot.
Cooper Lopez
>But you can observe evolution in some places, surely aren't denying that the genetic material of bacterial strains change when exposed to for example antibiotics?
I dont deny that, but that isnt SUFFICIENT PROOF . why do you keep repeating the same fallacy that natural selection proves evolution? this is very intellectually dishonest.
>Because then by extension you don't believe in gravity or photons either since you don't believe the experiments prove anything outside the controlled environment they where done in.
YOU DISHNOEST FAGGOT. for EXTRAPOLATION of results you need precise methodology, gravity has it, 4.5 billion years of MEME do not.
Noah Perez
Evolution is an axiom, not a theory.
Nathaniel Baker
>Instantly devolves into insults
And its that easy to disprove evolutionary deniers folks, remember that manlets who don't understand what genes are nor can understand that most living things survive better / or worse due to their genetic makeup compared to the environment often will spew stuff like this.
Just remember, they are almost always, short, balding, incels who for some reason are angry that they won't to contribute to evolution.
Brayden Barnes
Nigger you started on the insults, I tried to explain the confusion. The survival and DNA part are not in question, but neither are their predictions scientific int he general sense. You don't get from lab bacteria to sharks.
Jonathan Gonzalez
>Hurr you don't get bacteria evolving into multi cellular creatures! >What do you mean that was done in the 60's ??!?!
Thanks for making it even easier to make fun of you shorty.
Jayden Ramirez
That only proves that it can happen, but it reduces to the claim about survival and mutation. We can still only observe sharks not predict what will exist. Stay mad though
Adrian Cook
>REEEE IF THERE'S VARIABLES WE CAN'T UNDERSTAND OR THAT ARE NOT PREDICTABLE ITS NOT SCIENTIFIC UR MAD
So you don't believe in radioactivity then since it is per definition unpredictable?
I'm sorry if the shorty comment got to you, it was about your stature and not your dick-size (which is implied however) if that helps calm you down, if not maybe its time for you to call your mommy for the second time today?
Noah Jones
so cringe
Carson Sullivan
> Appendix > gut bacteria How do I jump start my Appendix ? I have severe IBS, and I have gone to great lengths to reset my gut bacteria, including two underground fecal matter transplants, but nothing is working.
Not as cringe as you not believing in radioactivity shorty.
Justin Barnes
It's not the random part that's the problem, it's predicting what will survive.
Logan Robinson
But it is predicted every day, ever heard the term "Antibiotic resistant bacteria" And how it was predicted to rise, and has done so like clockwork? Are you saying thats fake?
Answer the question straight up and don't move the goalposts.
Nolan Perez
A simple falsification test for evolutionary theory:
Find a species where the normal behaviour is for members of that species to show greater care for individuals who are not blood-relatives than individuals who are blood-relatives.
Evolution predicts that there should be no such species.
Robert Adams
I don't really understand why you keep exaggerating and coming up with things I don't believe in. Antibiotic resistance and viral research is great and accurate. Anyway hope you come up with some more playground insults.
Luis Richardson
>Yeah evolution is a thing here but there is no case for evolution except for that case and yeah sure its proven there but there is no proof anywhere.
You're going in circles shorty. Its fine to be wrong but its too fun seeing you getting mad about me guessing your height correctly.
David Morris
jesus christ
Joshua Sullivan
>IM NOT MAD BUT I WILL KEEP REPLYING
Honestly shorty calm down, you lost the argument and then got mad at a silly insult.
Caleb Lewis
This is the best answer here
Michael Martin
>where do you get 4.5billion or whatevers years of from amebas to humans from
Lots and lots of favorable mutations
Jack Barnes
This actually would be the retarded result of Darwinism and Natural selection. Run any computer program based on it, and after a few generations all lifeforms are identical. Which means that if Darwinism were true, the starting condition of a very diverse population is unreachable.
Jacob Cox
>I do not understand basics of evolution theory so i create another shitthread on Jow Forums in Jow Forums about it You are utterly stupid, i got it. Now go read origin of species.
WHAT NEW SPECIES? liars observed natural selection and call it it evolution to manipulate the public. noting new under the sun. scientists are lying fags.
Isaiah Richardson
Convergent evolution. If the conditions are very similar, you similar creatures appearing to explore them. Vultures in the New World and the Old World... same basic design features and habits, but one is related to herons and the other birds of prey. Or yourself and a Pakistani.
No, idiot. This is not what evolution is. The dna mutates every cell division but not for the better. Evolution is about more than just random mutations in the dna.
Logan Lopez
SCIENCE LOVE ME THIS I KNOW CAUSE BLACK SCIENCE MAN TELLS ME SO
> evolution not falsifiable Of course it's falsifiable, brainlet!
If God was observed creating a new animal, that would falsify evolution. If a worm was observed turning into a monkey, without any intermediate forms, that would falsify evolution. If a new animal suddenly materialised out of nothing, that would falsify evolution.
Levi White
>hurr me no read information that contradict my worldview
ok, if you want to admit that you lost then that's fine.
Christian Reed
listen limey, I wrote a wall of text you can attack and I did it myself, now stop being a passive agressive cuck and tell me what new species did they observed being created by evolution in that article?
>If God was observed creating a new animal, that would falsify evolution. >If a worm was observed turning into a monkey, without any intermediate forms, that would falsify evolution. >If a new animal suddenly materialised out of nothing, that would falsify evolution.
true. but why would you have an evolutionary hypothesis in the first place if you havent observed ONE new species evolving, not even after 60k gens (esch coli exp)?
Kevin Jenkins
Creationism has the same problem. If anyone could ever prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that evolution is real, creationists would simply exclaim that that was our creator's intention. Unfalsifiable.
Noah Taylor
Itt: Croatia can't into science.
Jeremiah Foster
>If anyone could ever prove beyond a shadow of any doubt that evolution is real, creationists would simply exclaim that that was our creator's intention. Unfalsifiable.
wrong. Creationism is set up to date, unlike slippery evolution that retroactively seeks for proof.
Prove that Earth is older than 6 k and you falsified creationism and proved it wrong (they already did that by uranium emission dating).
Ayden Hill
You must believe Popper's metaphysics to be anything other than behaviorally dictated movements through design space.
It's exactly within the range of scientific theories, and he supported it immensely.
Isaac Cooper
Please stop posting Popper. You do not know what you're talking about.
Nathan Morgan
what did you hoped to achieve by such a numale antiintelectual comment?
>It's exactly within the range of scientific theories, and he supported it immensely.
he cucked out to the establishment in the end yes. didnt argue for the change in his perspective also.
You just claim he supported evolution because you have an evolutionary demon.
