Kentucky leading the way!

[regexcellent]

MrFun, you are even less intellectual capable than BK; the last thing this forum needs is an argument between the two of you on scientific matters.

[loinburger]

Intelligent Design doesn't make any predictions about geologic strata (or about anything else), so there's no deal/bet you can make along the lines of "if X is true then I'll believe in Intelligent Design."

Young earth creationism makes several predictions on which you can base your deal/bet, but all of these predictions are wrong.

[dannubis]

MrFun, you are even less intellectual capable than BK; the last thing this forum needs is an argument between the two of you on scientific matters.

0 K is an absolute minimum.

BK is the only one who aspires to achieve this level of dumbness.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you demonstrated that the Earth were considerably younger than five billion years old then you would falsify evolution.

Oh. Why then did Kelvin's estimates of 20 million years not kill the theory? There is no empirical measure of evolutionary velocity within the theory at present.

If you demonstrated that all mutations were harmful then you would falsify evolution.

Is it possible to demonstrate all mutations?

You'd need a mathematical theory of mutations, which we don't have to prove the general case. Evolution at present doesn't make that argument.

Also, in theory, this wouldn't falsify evolution. 'Harmful' isn't an empirical measure.

[Ben Kenobi]

I'll stop accepting evolution as scientifically supported by evidence, and will come around to believing in intelligent design when someone finds a humanoid fossil in the same geological-time layer as a dinosaur fossil? Deal?

Ok, deal. That's an acceptable prediction. Evolution predicts that we will not find homonid fossils in the same strata as dinosaurs.

[Ben Kenobi]

Young earth creationism makes several predictions on which you can base your deal/bet, but all of these predictions are wrong.

Good thing I'm not a young earth creationist.

[Felch]

Out of curiosity, how did placental mammals evolve? I'm guessing the original mammals were egg layers, and it's a big jump to go from laying eggs to giving birth to live young. Would it go, monotreme -> marsupial -> placental? Or is that contradicted by the fossil record?

[loinburger]

Oh. Why then did Kelvin's estimates of 20 million years not kill the theory?

This is a dumb question. You might as well ask why we have airplanes despite Kelvin's claim that heavier than air flight is impossible. Just because a respected scientist says something doesn't mean that all other scientists are going to accept it as dogma.

Is it possible to demonstrate all mutations?

I don't know. I'm giving examples of ways to falsify the theory, I never said it would be an easy task.

Also, in theory, this wouldn't falsify evolution. 'Harmful' isn't an empirical measure.

Yes it is. If a mutation prevents an organism from reproducing then the mutation is harmful. There are other definitions you can apply that would also allow for an empirical measure of whether a mutation is harmful.

[Ben Kenobi]

This is a dumb question. You might as well ask why we have airplanes despite Kelvin's claim that heavier than air flight is impossible. Just because a respected scientist says something doesn't mean that all other scientists are going to accept it as dogma.

Kelvin's claim came after the Origin of Species, not before. If it didn't disprove the theory then, why would it disprove the theory now?

I'm giving examples of ways to falsify the theory, I never said it would be an easy task.

If it's impossible to disprove, then it's not falsifiable.

Yes it is. If a mutation prevents an organism from reproducing then the mutation is harmful. There are other definitions you can apply that would also allow for an empirical measure of whether a mutation is harmful

Technically all mutations are harmful in that they confer a negative survival advantage depending on the environment.

[Aeson]

I always read "kentonio" as a hybrid of Kentucky and San Antonio, and that name was chosen to imply staunch conservatism.

[loinburger]

Kelvin's claim came after the Origin of Species, not before. If it didn't disprove the theory then, why would it disprove the theory now?

Why are you focusing on an unproven and ultimately incorrect claim made by a man who is rather famous for making many unproven and ultimately incorrect claims? You might as well be asking "why wasn't a valid theory debunked by an invalid theory," to which the answer is "because this doesn't happen when the scientific method functions correctly."

If it's impossible to disprove, then it's not falsifiable.

Correct. I provided only two ways to falsify the theory - you can easily find more via Google. You're dismissing the first method of disproving the theory by saying that this method has already disproved the theory based on the debunked claims of a dead scientist, and this doesn't make any sense. You're dismissing the second method by saying that it would be difficult to implement. Look, if you want to say "I believe that the theory of evolution is unfalsifiable, and that's that," then go right ahead and we'll stop discussing the subject. If on the other hand you want to have a rational discussion then you need to stop being so lazy.

Technically all mutations are harmful in that they confer a negative survival advantage depending on the environment.

Technically this definition would be useless for purposes of falsifying the theory of evolution.

In computer science you can informally ask the question "is algorithm A faster than algorithm B," e.g., Mergesort and Bubblesort. Formally, "faster" can take on several different meanings, some of which are more useful than others. For example, if I used "wall clock time for a random workload" as the definition then I couldn't really say anything meaningful in comparing Mergesort and Bubblesort, so this isn't a very useful definition. If instead I used "asymptotic time complexity" as the definition then I could prove that Mergesort is faster than Bubblesort - in general, "asymptotic time complexity" is more useful than "wall clock time" when comparing two algorithms. It's fair to say "I think that this different definition is more useful/more accurate in this case," but it's dumb to say "I've found a useless definition, therefore the question is meaningless in general."

[Ben Kenobi]

I always read "kentonio" as a hybrid of Kentucky and San Antonio, and that name was chosen to imply staunch conservatism.

Don't forget 'rugged'.

[Ben Kenobi]

Why are you focusing on an unproven and ultimately incorrect claim made by a man who is rather famous for making many unproven and ultimately incorrect claims? You might as well be asking "why wasn't a valid theory debunked by an invalid theory," to which the answer is "because this doesn't happen when the scientific method functions correctly."

If it were in fact true that the world was 2 million or 200 million years old - the theory was able to accommodate that timeframe for changes. Why does evolution have to take 5 billion years? Evolution takes 5 billion years to fit radioactive carbon dating. This is what we saw all through the early 19th and early 20th centuries. Evolution has no theoretical reason why it must take 5 billion years, other than that is what is needed to fit external evidence.

Ergo, your argument that a timeframe shorter than 5 billion years would disprove evolution has no bearing. It worked equally well with less.

You're dismissing the second method by saying that it would be difficult to implement.

The theoretical framework to prove the model would require a mathematical model of evolution that does not at present exist. Evolution would have to develop this. Arguing that evolution itself would have to change in order to prove itself wrong is a tautology. The present theory is not falsifiable.

"I've found a useless definition, therefore the question is meaningless in general."

Well, this is the problem with evolution. It's not a closed system. Do I need to quote Darwin or Wallace here? Both were very concerned with the preponderance of traits they perceived to be negative and detrimental to the human race. Ergo, they were not working off your definition that negative traits are only those which do not get passed on.

So who am I to believe is correct? Your definition or Darwins?

[loinburger]

I don't think that there's any point in continuing this discussion with somebody who doesn't know what "falsifiable" means

Your argument amounts to "the theory is robust, therefore it isn't falsifiable." Most theories are robust (otherwise they wouldn't be theories - they'd be hypotheses or conjectures), and even many disproved theories (like Newtonian mechanics) are still "mostly correct," so this is a rubbish argument. Poking holes in (let alone falsifying) an established theory is difficult, and typically the task falls to eminent scientists, not to scientifically illiterate history teachers.

[Ben Kenobi]

Your argument amounts to "the theory is robust, therefore it isn't falsifiable." Most theories are robust (otherwise they wouldn't be theories - they'd be hypotheses or conjectures), and even many disproved theories (like Newtonian mechanics) are still "mostly correct," so this is a rubbish argument. Poking holes in (let alone falsifying) an established theory is difficult, and typically the task falls to eminent scientists, not to scientifically illiterate history teachers.

Only one person in this thread has actually supplied a falsifiable prediction. Is it sad that said person is not an 'eminent scientist.'

BTW - Mr. Mendel wasn't an 'eminent scientist' either.