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
It’s a theory BECAUSE it can’t be falsified or proven and explained completely. Like gravity.
Otherwise it would be a fact
Xavier Cook
>Otherwise it would be a fact
Or a false hypothesis
Learn 2 science
Angel Thompson
>It’s a theory BECAUSE it can’t be falsified or proven and explained completely. Like gravity.
but gravity CAN be falsified
Dylan Garcia
If we evolved how did I see a nigger outside this morning? Checkmate atheists
Daniel Turner
Evolution is a lie. We aliens baby. The grays told me so right after they vacuumed by butthole.
Adam Lopez
t. IQ
Kayden Gomez
but you can see evolution in real time, bacteria forming resistances to anti-biotics. Are you suggesting that this type of trait selection doesn't apply to complex organisms? We breed and evolve dogs all the time, it's just that we select the desired traits instead of mother nature. youtube.com/watch?v=plVk4NVIUh8
Gabriel Anderson
You can argue all about it when you are burning in hell for this heresy. Next you gonna tell me niggers are not inferior.
Aaron Long
Darwinism, Freud, Marx, Hegel are all extreme anti-white ideologies, they also have one epistemiological thing in common - ALL OF THE MENTIONED ARE UNFALSIFIABLE.
Darwinism it's the proof that philosophy can be still good. What you say it's true, it's not a scientific theory, but we call it so because it has to be done in our times.
Landon Sanders
>but you can see evolution in real time, bacteria forming resistances to anti-biotics. >Are you suggesting that this type of trait selection doesn't apply to complex organisms?
that is natural selection, which isnt sufficient proof for evolution. Creationism is entirely compatible with natural selection.
>You can argue all about it when you are burning in hell for this heresy.
Motherfucker do you have any idea how complex and advanced the foot is? You literally cannot walk without your toes jesus christ kill yourself and spare us your retarded posts.
Joseph Gray
intelligent design is apparent every living thing has dna that is made from the exact same building blocks bananas and walnuts...sea slugs and sharks....people and worms we all share dna
Brody Collins
>You literally cannot walk without your toes jesus christ kill yourself and spare us your retarded posts.
did you watched the video you total moron? According to evolution toes are vestigial and useless.
A theory not being able to describe every single detail of something doesn't make it a bad theory, just incomplete or simplified, this is especially true for biology where systems are so much more complex.
MHD is a good theory that can be used to describe most of the plasma physics we see in the universe... but there are some weird things we see in space and in laboratories that appear to contradict the simplified fluid models of plasmas - coronal heating in the sun, magnetic reconnection events in the magnetosphere, turbulence in fusion plasmas, interactions in low temperature laboratory plasmas, etc. It doesn't mean MHD doesn't work, it just means that the *simplified* version where you ignore things like collisions, non-linear effects, etc isn't always enough to describe systems where there's a lot of extra shit going on that can't be neglected.
Same with evolution, the theory is falsifiable - it can make predictions about things that can be observed and studied, and many of those predictions have been confirmed. But it's a simplified model that can't take into account every single conceivable circumstance and mutation.
Your examples are both demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Something surviving doesn't make it superior or inferior, natural selection only argues that an organism which is better adapted to a particular niche has a higher *probability* of passing on its genes than one which is poorly adapted to a particular niche. There are genes which can improve an organism's chances of surviving long enough to reproduce, there are genes which can decrease them, and there are many many many more that do not particularly help or hurt their chances.
>that is natural selection, which isnt sufficient proof for evolution Evolution is just natural selection applied over many, many generations.
John Green
popper is a faggot jew anyway, he isnt that good. I know this is a shit post but Im just saying.
Ethan Gutierrez
>You literally cannot walk without your toes that's quite the claim. would be an awful shame if someone were to test it.
Oh you are one of those religious people. I think if you are a logical person with objectivity that once you see natural selection in action as you put it, that it's a pretty concrete foundation for understanding evolution. I understand where you are coming from but all we have is historical data on fossils, DNA mapping, and even modern day studies vs. the bible or whatever religious book. Everyone has an opinion, I just side with which has more facts to back it.
David Baker
>Evolution is just natural selection applied over many, many generations.
...which is a wrong extrapolation. Similar to observing increase in weight and height in puberty and concluding that it will increase until the rest of ones life.
>popper is a faggot jew anyway, he isnt that good.
only his meme politics. His epistemiology/sci philosophy is great
>would be an awful shame if someone were to test it.
you cant test it, it comes down to (((semantics))). Sure you can walk without toes, but it is optimal? How can you define "optimal"? Its all semantics.
If you deny evolution you are as thick as pigshit. It is on the level of flat-earth stupidity. I have more respect for people who say we didn't go to the Moon.
>Same with evolution, the theory is falsifiable What is the particular observation or experiment that would falsify evolution?
Aaron Cruz
example 1 is invalid because evolution makes no claim about any race being a master race example 2 fails to disprove the theory of evolution, it merely shows that one of the non-essential claims/speculations within that field is false.
>In the end theory of evolution doesnt predict anything wrong. for example kin selection theory has been used to quantitatively predict the ratio of sexes of the eggs laid by a parasitic wasp in different circumstances. science.sciencemag.org/content/208/4448/1157 there are many examples like this of scientists testing evolutionary theory and finding it predicts some phenomena correctly.
evolution could be disproven. For example if you found a species where the behavioural norm was that members of that species showed more love and care for creatures that were less related to it than their own offspring, then that would show that evolutionary selection pressures did not act on the behaviour of that species.
Karl Popper made that quote when he was ignorant about evolution like you are and later considered the theory of evolution to be on the same grounding as geological theories like the theory of tectonic plates. Both of which are impractical to fully reproduce in a laboratory but which are best supported by the current evidence.
Samuel James
>Oh you are one of those religious people.
epistemiology therefore religious? You sound like you are obsessed with an evolutionary demon.
>If you deny evolution you are as thick as pigshit.
You sound like you are obsessed with an evolutionary demon.
if this info graphic is true. Then does that mean I beat all the Muslims/LGTB gay shit/ niggers ??? YES, because they are intolerent of western values.
Gavin Martinez
>if this info graphic is true. Then does that mean I beat all the Muslims/LGTB gay shit/ niggers ???
Correct. That is what happens with Catch 22 theories, not even Popper was imune to those fallacies...actually he was deliberately dishonest in his politics.
Dominic Gray
God used evolution through natural selection as the means to which all life on Earth has flourished. It is an incredibly beautiful system which has been working for billions of years. God's creation should be lauded and celebrated, but what you have chosen to do is to waste the brain which God gave you (via evolution) and ignore the mountains and mountains of evidence which has proven evolution. You first post has shown clearly that you don't have a clue how the theory works, or how science works, and you should cease posting to halt any further embarrassment on your part.
It's fucking embarassing that people just swallow this theory wholesale despite the myriad of problems, some of which OP outlined.
I find the ancient alien theory of our time on earth more plausible. Of course, most people throughout history - and we are not smarter or more moral than our ancestors despite the pretension - believed God created the world. If it was good enough for my ancestors, it's good enough for me.
Matthew Green
The purpose of the appendix is to preserve gut bacteria when someone has the shits
Zachary Gomez
This is true, evolution is the foundation of s*tan worship. Don't let them trick you out of eternal salvation by claiming you used to be a monkey once.
>I find the ancient alien theory of our time on earth more plausible.
yes, its more falsifiable also.
>God used evolution through natural selection as the means to which all life on Earth has flourished.
why are you turning an epistemiological conversation into a religious one? You must have an evolutionary demon.
Elijah Jenkins
>popperian croat
"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ... The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that it is far from tautological."
Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind, Dialectica 32:339-355, 1978. See 344-346 for this quote.
and he repeated the recantation three years after that: "... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."
Letter to New Scientist 87:611, 21 August 1980
Nathan Gomez
Except for the entire field of experimental evolution. Retard.
Isaiah Morales
Let me ask you a question then, do you think this is our final form? do you think that we won't evolve further over the course of many 10's or 100's of thousands of years. There will be selective trait picking throughout this process. Does it boil down to who or what is the one picking these traits? I'm really trying to understand what you are trying to prove. Is it that god is one the who chooses these traits or comes in and divinely created a new species? Evolution doesn't disprove a religious element, the universe was designed to create life and harbor life. Change any # of universal constants by a small margin and life could not exist anywhere.
Hudson Jackson
A belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive. You only believe otherwise because you get your beliefs about the divine from stupid people who call themselves pastors. God created the Earth, he created the conditions for the first cells to form, he created the conditions for those cells to thrive, divide and evolve. God is a genius, far smarter than any of you people, and that you struggle to grasp how evolution works is testament to that. When you fight against Evolution, you are not strengthening your faith, you are being misguided and you are falling short of the rigorous standards that good Christians should set themselves. Do better.
Joseph Cruz
>"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...
natural selection=/=evolution
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.
>Let me ask you a question then, do you think this is our final form?
your trips bro...I dont have a scientific reason to think well change.
>A belief in God and evolution are not mutually exclusive.
its still a Catch 22 therory regardless so what is your point?
Do you see this? As I stated previously, evolution denial is on par with flat-earthism. These people are your allies. You are stupid.
Jaxson Lee
is this the brainlet general?
Jackson Bennett
I hope you realize that evolution works in any way possible. Not forward or backwards, but through anyway that works. If vestigal features offer absolutely no negative pressure on the proliferation of a bloodline then it has 0 reason to stop existing.
Cameron Johnson
>Wisdom teeth? Idk I still have them. you can live with your wisdom teeth but they're generally seen as more trouble than they're worth so you're recommended to get them removed as soon as they give you problems. In the past when medical knowledge wasn't available people could actually die from infections caused by their wisdom teeth.
Gavin Price
>is this the brainlet general?
You only say that because you have evolutionary demon possesion.
>I hope you realize that evolution works in any way possible. Not forward or backwards, but through anyway that works.
Yes, I know that, but isnt that too "convinient"? Can you even *predict* with such a convinient theory?
Camden Green
There is nothing catch-22 about it. If a species dies out it has failed to survive. If a species survives it has survived. When a species survives is continues to pass on its traits and get better and better at surviving.
If a meteor comes and kills all mammals, the mammals died because they had traits that were poorly suited to that new environment (a blazing inferno earth). Any species left in this new paradigm will continue to select for traits that help it to continue to survive.
It's not even difficult. Maybe I have misunderstood your qualms.
Lucas Collins
>In the past when medical knowledge wasn't available people could actually die from infections caused by their wisdom teeth.
true, people also used to die more from lung infections which doesnt make lungs vestigial.
>If a species dies out it has failed to survive. If a species survives it has survived.
and you know that when? At the "end of history"? There wasnt one correct vestigial prediction because the concept of "adapted traits" is not based in scientific method. This is total hegelianism, nothing scientific and theroretical.
Josiah Diaz
>3) CROSS SPECIES mutation/macroevolution - NEVER DEMONSTRATED
Furthermore, evolution doesn't need to be 100% proven in order to be accepted as valid science. It merely needs to fit the available evidence better than other competing theories and make better predictions than them, which it does. As such it is rational for you to have a higher degree of belief in the theory of evolution than in competing theories
>>"I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...
>natural selection=/=evolution popper was talking about the theory of evolution by (primarily) natural selection.
if he wasn't then why would he later more emphatically state ... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."
N.B. >he history of the evolution of life on Earth
Popper doesn't agree with you so stop calling yourself popperian.
>if certain facts or theory come out. maybe I'll copy paste that again so you read your own words >if certain facts or theory come out. Find something that conflicts with modern evolution theory and you will probably win every single award a biologist can.
Julian Smith
I hate British people but you are spot on my good sir.
Connor Walker
>... some people think that I have denied scientific character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or the history of the evolution of life on Earth; or to say, the history of literature, or of technology, or of science. >This is a mistake, and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in many cases be tested."
he was an academic that cucked out later in life when science bugman pressured him, he didnt want to side with Feyerabend etc. but to keep a comfy Cambridge position. I see him using no epistemiological arguments for the change of heart...
Elijah Davis
If you don't have your appendix, you're a subhuman in my opinion. I steadfastly believe it is why I can regularly consume raw eggs, meat and fish without becoming sick.
Xavier Johnson
>Find something that conflicts with modern evolution theory
appendix...infact all vestigial predictions.
>and you will probably win every single award a biologist can.
Yes the truth is convenient are you dumb? We've literally observed the effect that I'm talking about with domestication.
Jonathan Jenkins
Popper's falsifiability principle is not falsifiable. Additionally, it's an extraordinary claim and a meaningless statement because it can't be verified.
Samuel Ortiz
For example, the majority of the idiots who believe in evolution think that ‘survival of the fittest’ means the strongest or best evolved survive and that evolution will one day develop so super immortal organism. But they don’t understand that survival of the fittest just means that organisms that happen to be suited for whatever current conditions are present are the ones that survive, not organisms that are suited for some ideal harsh conditions. A breed of furry weaklings may be the only members of a species that survives a very cold and prolonged winter, and then be wiped out once they have to compete with stronger animals when the ice thaws.
These same evolutionists will accept the ‘progressive’ arguments against belief in races by claiming that there is more diversity among a race than between the races, and then turn around and say we need racial diversity because diversity is our strength.
Jaxson King
straw mans can be articulated in paragraphs to user, like your whole post
Mason King
chegd you talking about magnets, son?
Luis Morgan
the serbs should've genocided you
Leo Sanders
>trying to bump your own thread t. tourist
Justin Bennett
Has Dawkins said anything about the hominid fossils recently found in Europe that are older than anything found in Africa thus far?
Kevin Taylor
shut up, cuck. >hurr me like popper, popper right >uh oh popper realise he was wrong, take back mistake >me no like later popper who knew more about evolution >me only like early popper who not know much about evolution
Also you have no response to the fact that speciation has been repeatedly observed.
both your claims that speciation has not been observed and that the theory of evolution does not predict anything are wrong
Alexander Reyes
Evolution is observable in the micro scale and takes a lot longer in the macro scale
Ryan Bell
Pretty much Science-religious retards always forget "Oh shit, this can be proven wrong at any moment, better say it's closer to a fact to make it one!"
Ayden Sullivan
>In the past when medical knowledge wasn't available people could actually die from infections caused by their wisdom teeth. In the past. Today pay thousands of dollars to have them removed rather than risk spending a hundred to treat an infection. That is called a racket son
Cameron Clark
Fittest doesn't mean Superior "Superior" adaptations can wane off due to pure chance
Dylan Cook
>t. IQ
John Campbell
You lose when you result to insults.
You know what really, really bothers me about evolution? I mean there are so many problems with the theory, but the one that really gets me? Where are all the other intelligent species?
Bentley Phillips
>survival of the fittest just means that organisms that happen to be suited for whatever current conditions are present are the ones that survive
exactly, it basically means nothing. Just mindless semantics. Scientific theory should PREDICT.
>you talking about magnets, son?
with gravity? I guess, but you can compare gravitational forces of other planets to falsify it.
>>uh oh popper realise he was wrong, take back mistake
he cucked on philosophy of science, his politics were done in entirely bad faith, his argument for falsifiability are as good as they come. I see no problem.
Sebastian King
I think you're inferring more about my beliefs than is evident in what I wrote. I think natural selection works on the margins, but cannot explain anything about origins. I think the r/K selection theory (which is underpinned to some extent by natural selection, or the environment playing a role in propagation of species) is a fundamental requirement for understanding how the world works. But the theory of evolution is basically a religious belief where nothingness is the ultimate Good. It's a cult of death, basically.
Logan Brown
There are exceptions to the laws of gravity which is why there are no unified theory in physics.
Logan Ward
Jesus christ. Imagine the combination of low IQ, schizophrenia and secret homosexual desires that would compel a person to make that image
Anthony Lee
>We can live without our eyes even though it's obviously horrible, but that's just semantics so let's just blind ourselves to show 'muh evolution' guiz!!!!111! Retarded Croat faggot
Christopher Campbell
>people also used to die more from lung infections which doesnt make lungs vestigial. guess what, I'll fill you in on a little secret. You need your lungs to live. Don't tell too many people, I don't want the suits catching on to us.
Gabriel Diaz
ahaha what country charges thousands for teeth pulling?
Jace Sanchez
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.
>There are exceptions to the laws of gravity which is why there are no unified theory in physics.
that is my point, it is a scientific theory based on empirical observations unlike evolution
we should be able to find fossils like that based on evolution theory, infact there should be more those retarded human fossils than modern human fossils.
Correct, the theory of evolution is not scientific, and that's being generous. It's also metaphysically impossible for the form of a being to change into another form. It's also tautological: a being is more fit because it survives, and a being survives because it is more fit. The idea of evolution is just another modern fetish that has taken the place of any real intellectuallity.
>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
>It's also tautological: a being is more fit because it survives, and a being survives because it is more fit.
its just neo-hegelian hystoriosophy bs to do a ted talk, nothing more.
Verificationism isn't self defeating if you're adopting a position that only applies the philosophy as a method of distinguishing between science, and not-science. IE: you recognize there are valuable methods of interpretation/understanding that are themselves not scientific.
In this sense Verificationism is fine. It's 'just' a philosophy, but one that only says something about what are sciences and what are not. If you accept it, then as you point out, you either must accept it is self defeating, or that it simply is not a scientific statement, and that philosophies are also valuable.
Oliver Martin
Real life Science, not Mathematics or Philosophy is actually far more malleable than your pseudobabble of absolution. As long as it works predictably well, anything is science. Of course, discovering the exact how's and why's is the end goal no doubt. But we dont need to reinvent the wheel every time we make experiments
David Smith
"Jesus is coming back soon"
this theory already predicted >globalization of culture >advent of wordlwide political organizations >spread of christianity to the biggest religion in the world
>"It appears as if some people would think that the historical sciences are untestable because they describe unique events. However the description of unique events can very often be tested by deriving from them testable predictions and retrodictions.
So not only are you wrong about Popper, you're also wrong about your claim that speciation not having been observed and your claim that the theory of evolution does not predict anything. (You) (You)
Josiah Moore
I'm pretty sure most religions predict their own success, it's a pretty pessimistic theology otherwise.
Tyler Green
yeah well he lived his life in a wheelchair.
William Butler
Love when evolutionists try to explain homosexuality. It's obviously just a birth defect, because evolution isn't predictive. Our genes don't predict that there will be overpopulation and therefore mutate themselves, evolution is a reactionary process.
Parker Ortiz
> Evolution bad, you can’t falsify it! > creationism is obviously the answer :DDD > no I don’t know where Cain’s wife came from, stop oppressing my dogma
You can’t falsify the existence of god, or the existence of a god that created evolution
Jordan Lewis
my theory is that god created evolution to trick people into thinking he doesn't exist so he can punish us further.
Michael Moore
The best explanation is that there is a favoritism toward the X chromosome. More expressive X chromosomes being passed down can make daughters more successful based on reproduction. The negative is that it increases the feminization and homosexual tendencies of male offspring. Overall, the benefit is stronger to the better X so it ends up being slightly more favored.
Caleb Hernandez
APPENDIX IS A RESERVOIR OF GUT BACTERIA FOR YOUR INTESTINES TO USE AFTER ILLNESS OR ANTIBIOTICS
Joshua Flores
why is it i see western countries debating/denying this crap?
