Talk:Falsifiability of evolution

Inspiration

This article was inspired by HG’s question:"Please explain how common descent can be disproved? Try not to repeat commonly spewed canards like pre-cambrin rabbits, which, if discovered, would simply cause evolutionists to re-arrange their mythical tree of life." --Bob_M (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I know it's around somewhere, I was just reading it a while ago. but where is HG's original question? --Kels 14:42, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Trying to use a permanent link: http://www.rationalwiki.com/index.php?title=Talk:Online_banking_authentication_recommendations&oldid=15738 that can't be right. Ok it's here: Essay Talk:Online banking authentication recommendations --Bob_M (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

And what a strange place for it to be, indeed! human^{be in} 17:17, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I added a section specifically about disproving common descent. I know HG was attempting to paint the TOE as a conspiracy theory, but he did ask about common descent. human^{be in} 17:17, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I should have included something on that. I'm not sure I agree with your extraterrestrial point though. In one sense it obviously true that it would falsify common descent in a universal sense, but it's usually used to refer to life on earth isn't it?--Bob_M (talk) 05:57, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

I was just covering all the bases. And extraterrrestrial life would not necessarily invalidate CD - if it turned out that we were related. But, yes, it's a stretch. The point is, CD is not required by the TOE (so disproving it is a straw man), it just happens to be an observed fact on earth, so far. human^{be in} 13:10, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, that's a good point. I must admit that I hadn't quite looked at it like that. But now that you mention it I can see that it's obviously true. Thanks. --Bob_M (talk) 13:52, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

---

Test

And what a fantastic test it was.--Bob_M (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

I liked the movie better. --Kels 14:21, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

(I've moved this below "inspiration" sorry for messing up the timing.)--Bob_M (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Hell of a book.--Bob_M (talk) 14:26, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Incredible. Now we can release the beta version! human^{be in} 17:17, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Test?--PalMD^{-yada yada} 18:18, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Falsifiability

I created a page at CP several months ago that I think got wiped. It was a "Falsifiability Challenge" with a Section for EVO and one for ID. The evo one filled up with ideas quickly, the ID one did not. I put out a call for contributions, and PhilR put in a big diatribe about falsifiability, etc, without ever answering the question. I wouldn't mind posting a: ID-Falsifications:____--PalMD^{-yada yada} 18:22, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

You mean a list of things that would be needed to falsify ID? Great companion article I'd say. --Bob_M (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2007 (CDT)

Canard

By the way, based on the original discussion that inspired this article, I created canard. It struck me as odd that pre-cambrian rabbits were discounted as a "canard" without stating why they were considered that way, and by whom. --Kels 18:36, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Yes, I eventually followed most of that circuitous thread. Rabbits aren't ducks. One thing YEC people like to do, and I'm sure you've noticed, is to keep slightly changing the topic, and to throw "hand grenades" into other conversations - where they think their canard will go unargued, since it isn't the topic. I think it was cool that you ran with HG's comment (and did others, too?) and it spawned 3 or 4 articles. "One thing I have noticed is that conservatives love to parade their favorite canards in arguments to distract their opponent" - Ashfly. human^{be in} 19:05, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Nice point. I like that is spawns new articles. It's the whole point. YECs and others with odd beliefs like to say that rational argument supports them, until either they are losing or don't understand; then they change the subject, etc.--PalMD^{-yada yada} 19:25, 16 June 2007 (CDT)

Article naming

There is presently a discussion about the naming of challenge articles in general taking place at Talk:Disproving Creationism. Anybody watching this page may wish to contribute.--Bob_M (talk) 05:27, 2 September 2007 (CDT)

Picture

If there is a way to shrink down the picture, please do so. If not, and it is too encumbering, feel free to remove it. I just thought it was a fitting tribute to the misunderstandings of evolution. Speakerface ^{keep spinning, FOXholes} 21:34, 9 October 2008 (EDT)

Done did fixed, thanks for asking. ħuman 01:22, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

Thanks. I learn as I go. Speakerface ^{keep spinning, FOXholes} 06:50, 10 October 2008 (EDT)

I for one completely agree with that clipping. In no way should that "version" of evolution be taught in science class under any circumstances. Now, praying to help plants grow might be suspect in religion class. I'm not sure how this experiment justifies teaching kids that praying works... On a more serious note, is that a legitimate clipping from a real newspaper? Not that it matters, I've heard people come up with those types of "experiments" before. 69.181.24.252 (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Inheritence violated != evolution disproved?

Wouldn't the violation of the inheritance in the form of the offspring has nothing in common with the parents as completely different organisms also falsify evolutionas well? (the degenerate case other than no change being passed on)

• There is no way to accumulate any effect since nothing is kept
• The ability to come up with theory to predict stuff is moot since there is no way to tell what characteristics will be there in the offspring, since the offspring is of arbitrary characteristics

Anyone want to enlighten me on this? Thieh 16:21, 2 April 2009 (EDT)

Falsification of TOE

A intermediate fossil , say between birds and mammals would toss a spanner into evolution. It might be explained eventually Hamster (talk) 20:28, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

A precambrian rabbit would be extremely difficult to explain. A single fossil might be discarded as an error, but properly documented and dated it needs to be explained. With no suitable ancestors or descendants it would be bad. Hypothetical time machines might be needed. Hamster (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Whatever the explanation, it would be scientific and based on evidence. It would have to explain both our current observations and why the current theory doesn't explain new observations. ^{d hominem} 04:34, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't we first look at how the fossil got there? Maybe the ground opened up, a rabbit fell in and was fossilized. Like already stated, an explanation would be based on the evidence, but it would be no overnight up-throwage of hands: "Oh well, we found a rabbit. New theory." Of course, the creationists would be all over it even though they have no "faith" whatsoever in the fossil record. Wouldn't it be nice to have a scientific reason to play both sides like that? 69.181.24.252 (talk) 21:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Need to rephrase the section "What would falsify evolution?"

Simply put, in a similar argument as Russell's teapot it is probably improper to show the non-existence of something. Therefore, it would be better if someone can rephrase it to be "find <this>" way. [[User:K61824|]][[User_talk:K61824|]] 22:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

While I see the point, those steps are the core of how natural selection works. They're the basis of all genetic algorithms and evolution just falls out of them almost by definition. So to really falsify the concept you'd have to break the chain that connects inheritable traits to environmental pressures. While on the face of it this does sound like the celestial teapot, it's really just proving non-efficiency of any of the steps in much the same way you'd "prove" that homeopathic dilutions don't work; a lack of evidence favouring the null hypothesis. Perhaps it could be phrased a little more elegantly. ^pathetic 23:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Rename

"Disproving evolution" sounds weird. Can we move the article to "Falsifiability of evolution"? FuzzyCatPotato of the Ugly Guns (talk/stalk) 16:06, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Interesting Observations

I did a Google search for “Is evolutionary theory falsifiable?”. This article, along with almost every other returned, immediately and vehemently attacked “creationism” and “intelligent design”. The implication is therefore that if either of those is false, evolutionary theory must be correct. That is a logical fallacy. They could all be incorrect. Furthermore, the fact that those arguments are the ones returned in response to this query undermines the claims being made. It looks like “whataboutism” aimed at a competing religion. It does not simply address the question in rational, fact based, scientific terms. It aims focus on “those bad, dumb people in the out group” rather than simply answering the question. Which makes the claim more suspect than if the results merely explained why the theories are or are not falsifiable. That information can be found, but usually “below the fold”, after a screed against “creationists”. That suggests that all of these articles were written/edited by militant atheists, not scientists.

But since my comment appears to be the first one in 8 years, I guess I’m talking to air. ^{— Unsigned, by: 2600:1003:b46f:3dff:d464:3020:2c9f:f3b8 / talk / contribs}

You lost me at "militant atheists". —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 20:18, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

He lost me at "That is a logical fallacy." Kauri0.o (talk) 21:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

All scientific theories you can take for granted as having the implicit assumption that they're falsifiable. This isn't even something that anyone gets defensive over, because it's a basic accepted fact of science and is meaningless to anyone (usually) who understands why and does science. The only people concerned with whether something is falsifiable is usually Christians or other cranks, because they think it can be an argument in itself to discredit a theory (it isn't). God for example is an unfalsifiable concept and thus can never be scientific, and I think that says more about that concept than it does about the real world. See Russell's Teapot. BumblingBuffoon (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The article certainly starts off by mentioning those who claim that evolution cannot be falsified, and the questions they claim need to be answered.

The very next section " What would falsify evolution? explicitly answers those questions. The facts of evolution most certainly do not depend on creationism being nonsense.Bob^{"Life is short and (insert adjective)"} 06:45, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

unfalsifiable products of the imagination cause harm when competing with falsifiable ones.

On this page, the following is stated:

Scientific theories cannot be proven outright. They can only fail to be disproven, and this means pointing out what evidence could disprove the theory. If a theory cannot be disproven, it makes no difference whether it is true either way.

That last part is a bit weak. It's worst than 'making no difference'

If a product of the imagination that cannot be dis-proven (ie. desire) tries to replace a product of the imagination that can be dis-proven (ie. theory), that's harmful. This slows down the growth in the body of knowledge. ^{— Unsigned, by: MarcDesm / talk / contribs}

On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. —cosmikdebris ^talk stalk 02:08, 15 April 2023 (UTC)