Some evidence would be a good start--I mean evidence, not just assertions that "evidence" exists.
Would you mind taking 5 or 6 minutes to link to perhaps 9 or 10 of the most compelling facts that you have based your conclusion on that demonstrate that humans are responsible? That would be awesome!
Thanks.:-)
If it happened just once, who couldn't claim it was a supernatural occurrence? If cats started giving birth to chickens all the time everywhere I maintain that it would tend to falsify Biblical creation as it stands, given the fact that according to creationists if God created animals, He created them specifically to reproduce after their kind.
But... on the other hand, rather than falsifying evolution, wouldn't it merely be an "evolution". Might that even tend to confirm it?!
To be fair to both sides, all those "steps in the sand" equally confirm creation and evolution. The steps don't falsify either philosophy. There may be no straying steps for either creationists or evolutionists.
And to add to your illustration, we have huge gaps, miles in length, where there are no steps. Honestly, some steps so faint you can't tell which direction they are going. We have steps running side-by-side making it difficult to follow a single path.
On one hand, creation is missing an observable God creating things today as we watch. That's a lot of missing steps.
On the other, evolution is entirely missing USELESS partially evolved hearts, eyes, livers, lungs, brains, and other essential organs--that I care a lot about (seeing that I need them to sustain my life). That's a LOT of missing steps.
The clear path only goes back so far, and then we're hunting for the next (previous) step, and making a lot of guesses, in all honesty.
The assertion that evolution "can be falsified" in the void of ways that it actually can be honestly falsified gives me no satisfaction. Most of the anemic ways given could be used to create equally anemic falsifications of creation.
(The ones that occur to me off the top of my head are creation's predictions that 1) animals will reproduce after their kind, 2) that there will be progressive degeneration and decay over time, 3) that there will be traits common throughout creation due to a single Designer--but that their will also be creative variation, 4) that there will be unexplainable mysteries that cannot be explained by humans 5) that there will be lots of fossilized animals in rock layers that were formed rapidly by water, all over the world, 6) that there will be strict laws and order throughout the universe. Having taken 10 minutes to think about this, these poorly worded off-the-top-of-my-head falsifiable statements rationally strike me as equally valid as any of the anemic falsifiable claims for evolution that I've been able to find so far.)
In fact, much of science is this way.
Yes but, very little (I can't think of any) of the science you refer to (the parts that have so little falsifiability) is taught with such assurance.(Pretty universally those parts of science are taught as a tenuous ideas with detailed time given to exposing the flaws and issues--certainly not as "fact" like evolution is).
The stunning lack of actual falsifiability of evolution (apes-to-man type) has blown me away--me in light of evolution's "strictly science" face.
Why give so much time to a single philosophy in a science classroom? That makes no sense to me. Frankly I have a hard time buying that either theory (when it comes to demonstrating where life came from) is scientific in the as-defined sense of the word.
Honestly, I can't see what would be wrong with leaving out the parts that are purely philosophical. If evolutionists want a platform to teach their philosophy, they should create it outside the secular science classroom. If creationists want a platform to teach their philosophy, they should use their churches and church schools. And if the earth-came-from-the-turtle group want their philosophy taught, they can create a place to teach that.
Thanks for a lively discussion. What more can be said?
This presumably easy question has been interesting. Aside from assertions that "evolution is falsifiable" and "creation isn't", I'm truly astonished how difficult this question is to answer.
I was previously unaware of how big a problem this is to evolution. It's not rational to support one unfalsifiable philosophy as scientific, while dissing another because it's unfalsifiable.
I have started to research this question--which was never taught me in school and am finding it interesting.
"Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. . . . Really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." -- Karl Popper, 1976
I have no qualms with evolution (in the wolves to Chihuahuas sense) being taught in science class, but evolution (in the reptiles to birds sense) being so impossible to falsify, apparently belongs in a philosophy class with creation and other philosophies which can then be debated honestly without that requirement.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I will continue to research this elsewhere.
I would feel a lot better if we just taught solidly empirical honestly falsifiable science in science class, and leave the philosophy for elsewhere. That would be a far better solution to the issue in Louisiana and elsewhere than trying to add creation to the science classroom.
Yes because I'm looking for a solid argument in favor of teaching evolution as science.
I'm talking similarities down to the genetic level here. Don't you and your siblings share your parental traits? Does that go against your reason, "statics", logic and observable reality? GENETICALLY and EVOLUTIONARILY you share a common ancestor - Your parents.
My rational mind told me that a few moments in google would prove that there are completely unrelated people who are almost indistinguishable. It turns out that's true, making this example particularly unsatisfying. Physical similarities do not always indicate a shared ancestor, as is seen is many fields.
But wow, certainly with evolution held in the high esteem that it is by scientists, it is must be easily and clearly and obviously falsifiable.... right?
If not, why are we teaching it science classes as if it was a better thing than creation? As far as I can tell creationist scientists accept the same empirical data evolutionists do. They just make different assumptions about that data and come up with a different philosophy.
If there isn't... a significant number of similarities with each other as well as previous organisms, this is evidence to support that they are evolutionarily tied... the theory (that they evolved from each other) is falsified.
That's it? That's just as much proof of a common Designer as it is proof of a common ancestor. And just as falsifiable (not) as the other.
As a rational person, the idea that everything with multiple similarities descended from a common ancestor, goes against reason, statics, logic, and observable reality.
Anyone else want to weigh in with any other ways of how one could honestly and fairly falsify evolution?
But fundamentally, the initial statement (theory) that God created the grand canyon cannot be shown to be false.
With all respect, me looking at this as an issue of science vs philosophy this is exactly the same problem evolution has.
Suppose we see 36 different fossils that look similar, but are obviously from several different classes of organisms. That's the data.
Theory 1: They were Intelligently Designed to be similar.
Theory 2: They Evolved one from another.
Puzzled at how the evolutionary idea is more falsifiable seeing as we didn't observe either happen, and we've never observed--nor can ever observe (according to the theory of evolution due to the massive time scales required)--one class of organism turning into a different class.
I think you're having trouble understanding falsifiability.
Is something is falsifiable, it means that there can be evidence that can be presented so that the theory as it is can be shown to be false.
Nope that's exactly what I'm looking for.
IF for instance, a cat gave birth do a chicken. That proves that the current theory of evolution is false. Thus evolution is falsifiable.
In all fairness, that would disprove Biblical creation too, because the Bible says animals were created to reproduce "after their kind".
1) These changes can be observed in the fossil record.
This is an attempt at "proof" of evolution--not an answer to the question how can its philosophy be falsified.
Interestingly, the fossil record shows that there are many similar life forms, and many different life forms.
But where in the fossil record do we find the requisite organisms in the process of developing lungs (ones that are not yet useful or used)? Or eyes? Or hearts?
With an obviously unobservable millions/billions of years macro-evolution, how is the idea itself falsifiable?
2) Vestigial organs, structures, etc.
How are vestigial organs a falsifiable theory? Even if a purpose was found for every vestigial organ (like the appendix once was), it would not be possible to falsify the idea that these organs were inherited from a lower life form--would it?
To take your example, in what way (with what observable data) could you falsify this claim: "The locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome"?
Evolution is only scientific in the realms where it is falsifiable. Many of its most important ideas are not falsifiable as far as I can tell.
Should we only allow the parts of evolution (or creation) that are actually falsifiable (scientific) to be taught?
Can someone explain to me how the major tenants of evolution are falsifiable?
Certainly bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance, but they are still bacteria in every sense.
Christians may say you could never observe God because He is too far away. Not falsifiable.
Evolutionists may say you could never observe bacteria-to-cat evolution because it takes too long. Also not falsifiable.
Tom: "Creation is observable science."
Bill: "What? How can you say that!?"
Tom: "Scientists create things every day!"
Bill: "That's not the kind of creation I'm talking about. I'm talking about God making something appear from nothing."
Tom: "Yeah, you can't observe that. But it happened--and you can't prove that it didn't!"
Bill: "Evolution is observable science."
Tom: "What? How can you say that!?"
Bill: "Things evolve every day: like birds getting shorter beaks"
Tom: "That's not the kind of evolution I'm talking about. I'm talking about reptiles turning into birds."
Bill: "Yeah, you can't observe that. But it happened--and you can't prove that it didn't!"
Should we only teach the parts of evolution (or creation) that are actually falsifiable?
How can I tell when to use "many" and when to use "much"?
Like the others have said, it has to do with whether something can be counted or not. Conversationally speaking, data is not countable, because no one ever uses the word "datum" in casual conversation. (You are among a very few English speakers that even realize that data is plural and that datum is the singular!)
Many more gigabytes / much more data.
A cool tip! As confusing as the words "many" and "much" are, you can safely just use "a lot" instead as it always works.
A lot more gigabytes / a lot more data.:-)
Saying you are "FireFox compatible with IE tab" is like saying a paddle boat is gas compatible when you duct-tape an outboard motor on it. Ouch! Are you saying FireFox is a paddle boat, while IE is a shiny smooth motor boat?! JK.;-)
Sure I understand--and agree--that this kind of cell phone use can be horribly frustrating. Just like having someone blow cigarette smoke in your face is horribly frustrating--or worse! But think about this: for the government FCC or FAA to outlaw it on those grounds seems wrong. It should be the responsibility of the Airlines to compete to create an environment that is most attractive to their clients. It is not in the interest of freedom for the government to dictate that across the board on every airline and every flight. Should the ban be removed, certain airlines or even certain flights could cater to travelers who wish to use their phones. And other airlines or other flights could cater to those who wish a somewhat quieter (airplanes quiet?!... anyway) environment. It would even be possible to have cell-phone and non-cell-phone cabins. I protest that if this is really mostly a social/annoyance issue the government should not address it in this way. Hey, if I know that on United Airlines I can use my cell phone, I might be more inclined to travel with them. Or on the other hand, if I know that on Northwest they don't allow cell phones, I could be more inclined to travel with them. Especially since there's not a whole lot else to distinguish them.
Sure I understand--and agree--that this kind of cell phone use can be horribly frustrating. Just like having someone blow cigarette smoke in your face is horribly frustrating--or worse!
But think about this: for the government FCC or FAA to outlaw it on those grounds seems wrong. It should be the responsibility of the Airlines to compete to create an environment that is most attractive to their clients. It is not in the interest of freedom for the government to dictate that across the board on every airline and every flight.
Should the ban be removed, certain airlines or even certain flights could cater to travelers who wish to use their phones. And other airlines or other flights could cater to those who wish a somewhat quieter (airplanes quiet?!... anyway) environment.
It would even be possible to have cell-phone and non-cell-phone cabins.
I protest that if this is really mostly a social/annoyance issue the government should not address it in this way.
Hey, if I know that on United Airlines I can use my cell phone, I might be more inclined to travel with them. Or on the other hand, if I know that on Northwest they don't allow cell phones, I could be more inclined to travel with them. Especially since there's not a whole lot else to distinguish them.
Slashdot Mirror
Maybe they're using a Dvorak keyboard. N and R are both 4th finger, right hand. Top vs Home row. Very easy mistake there. :-)
HOW DO WE CONVINCE YOU?
Some evidence would be a good start--I mean evidence, not just assertions that "evidence" exists. Would you mind taking 5 or 6 minutes to link to perhaps 9 or 10 of the most compelling facts that you have based your conclusion on that demonstrate that humans are responsible? That would be awesome! Thanks. :-)
If it happened just once, who couldn't claim it was a supernatural occurrence? If cats started giving birth to chickens all the time everywhere I maintain that it would tend to falsify Biblical creation as it stands, given the fact that according to creationists if God created animals, He created them specifically to reproduce after their kind.
But ... on the other hand, rather than falsifying evolution, wouldn't it merely be an "evolution". Might that even tend to confirm it?!
And to add to your illustration, we have huge gaps, miles in length, where there are no steps. Honestly, some steps so faint you can't tell which direction they are going. We have steps running side-by-side making it difficult to follow a single path.
On one hand, creation is missing an observable God creating things today as we watch. That's a lot of missing steps.
On the other, evolution is entirely missing USELESS partially evolved hearts, eyes, livers, lungs, brains, and other essential organs--that I care a lot about (seeing that I need them to sustain my life). That's a LOT of missing steps.
The clear path only goes back so far, and then we're hunting for the next (previous) step, and making a lot of guesses, in all honesty.
The assertion that evolution "can be falsified" in the void of ways that it actually can be honestly falsified gives me no satisfaction. Most of the anemic ways given could be used to create equally anemic falsifications of creation.
(The ones that occur to me off the top of my head are creation's predictions that 1) animals will reproduce after their kind, 2) that there will be progressive degeneration and decay over time, 3) that there will be traits common throughout creation due to a single Designer--but that their will also be creative variation, 4) that there will be unexplainable mysteries that cannot be explained by humans 5) that there will be lots of fossilized animals in rock layers that were formed rapidly by water, all over the world, 6) that there will be strict laws and order throughout the universe. Having taken 10 minutes to think about this, these poorly worded off-the-top-of-my-head falsifiable statements rationally strike me as equally valid as any of the anemic falsifiable claims for evolution that I've been able to find so far.)
In fact, much of science is this way.
Yes but, very little (I can't think of any) of the science you refer to (the parts that have so little falsifiability) is taught with such assurance.(Pretty universally those parts of science are taught as a tenuous ideas with detailed time given to exposing the flaws and issues--certainly not as "fact" like evolution is).
The stunning lack of actual falsifiability of evolution (apes-to-man type) has blown me away--me in light of evolution's "strictly science" face.
Why give so much time to a single philosophy in a science classroom? That makes no sense to me. Frankly I have a hard time buying that either theory (when it comes to demonstrating where life came from) is scientific in the as-defined sense of the word.
Honestly, I can't see what would be wrong with leaving out the parts that are purely philosophical. If evolutionists want a platform to teach their philosophy, they should create it outside the secular science classroom. If creationists want a platform to teach their philosophy, they should use their churches and church schools. And if the earth-came-from-the-turtle group want their philosophy taught, they can create a place to teach that.
Thanks for a lively discussion. What more can be said?
I was previously unaware of how big a problem this is to evolution. It's not rational to support one unfalsifiable philosophy as scientific, while dissing another because it's unfalsifiable.
I have started to research this question--which was never taught me in school and am finding it interesting.
"Darwin's own most important contribution to the theory of evolution, his theory of natural selection, is difficult to test. . . . Really severe tests of the theory of natural selection are hard to come by, much more so than tests of otherwise comparable theories in physics or chemistry." -- Karl Popper, 1976
I have no qualms with evolution (in the wolves to Chihuahuas sense) being taught in science class, but evolution (in the reptiles to birds sense) being so impossible to falsify, apparently belongs in a philosophy class with creation and other philosophies which can then be debated honestly without that requirement.
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion. I will continue to research this elsewhere.
I would feel a lot better if we just taught solidly empirical honestly falsifiable science in science class, and leave the philosophy for elsewhere. That would be a far better solution to the issue in Louisiana and elsewhere than trying to add creation to the science classroom.
I'm talking similarities down to the genetic level here. Don't you and your siblings share your parental traits? Does that go against your reason, "statics", logic and observable reality? GENETICALLY and EVOLUTIONARILY you share a common ancestor - Your parents.
My rational mind told me that a few moments in google would prove that there are completely unrelated people who are almost indistinguishable. It turns out that's true, making this example particularly unsatisfying. Physical similarities do not always indicate a shared ancestor, as is seen is many fields.
But wow, certainly with evolution held in the high esteem that it is by scientists, it is must be easily and clearly and obviously falsifiable.... right?
If not, why are we teaching it science classes as if it was a better thing than creation? As far as I can tell creationist scientists accept the same empirical data evolutionists do. They just make different assumptions about that data and come up with a different philosophy.
Why teach the philosophy parts at all?.
If there isn't ... a significant number of similarities with each other as well as previous organisms, this is evidence to support that they are evolutionarily tied ... the theory (that they evolved from each other) is falsified.
That's it? That's just as much proof of a common Designer as it is proof of a common ancestor. And just as falsifiable (not) as the other.
As a rational person, the idea that everything with multiple similarities descended from a common ancestor, goes against reason, statics, logic, and observable reality.
Anyone else want to weigh in with any other ways of how one could honestly and fairly falsify evolution?
But fundamentally, the initial statement (theory) that God created the grand canyon cannot be shown to be false.
With all respect, me looking at this as an issue of science vs philosophy this is exactly the same problem evolution has.
Suppose we see 36 different fossils that look similar, but are obviously from several different classes of organisms. That's the data.
Theory 1: They were Intelligently Designed to be similar.
Theory 2: They Evolved one from another.
Puzzled at how the evolutionary idea is more falsifiable seeing as we didn't observe either happen, and we've never observed--nor can ever observe (according to the theory of evolution due to the massive time scales required)--one class of organism turning into a different class.
I think you're having trouble understanding falsifiability. Is something is falsifiable, it means that there can be evidence that can be presented so that the theory as it is can be shown to be false.
Nope that's exactly what I'm looking for.
IF for instance, a cat gave birth do a chicken. That proves that the current theory of evolution is false. Thus evolution is falsifiable.
In all fairness, that would disprove Biblical creation too, because the Bible says animals were created to reproduce "after their kind".
1) These changes can be observed in the fossil record.
This is an attempt at "proof" of evolution--not an answer to the question how can its philosophy be falsified.
Interestingly, the fossil record shows that there are many similar life forms, and many different life forms.
But where in the fossil record do we find the requisite organisms in the process of developing lungs (ones that are not yet useful or used)? Or eyes? Or hearts?
With an obviously unobservable millions/billions of years macro-evolution, how is the idea itself falsifiable?
2) Vestigial organs, structures, etc.
How are vestigial organs a falsifiable theory? Even if a purpose was found for every vestigial organ (like the appendix once was), it would not be possible to falsify the idea that these organs were inherited from a lower life form--would it?
I find the most interesting are genetic histories. My personal favorite is the vestigial centromere in human chromosome #2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)#Evolution
To take your example, in what way (with what observable data) could you falsify this claim: "The locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome"?
Evolution is only scientific in the realms where it is falsifiable. Many of its most important ideas are not falsifiable as far as I can tell.
Should we only allow the parts of evolution (or creation) that are actually falsifiable (scientific) to be taught?
Certainly bacteria can gain antibiotic resistance, but they are still bacteria in every sense.
Christians may say you could never observe God because He is too far away. Not falsifiable.
Evolutionists may say you could never observe bacteria-to-cat evolution because it takes too long. Also not falsifiable.
Tom: "Creation is observable science."
Bill: "What? How can you say that!?"
Tom: "Scientists create things every day!"
Bill: "That's not the kind of creation I'm talking about. I'm talking about God making something appear from nothing."
Tom: "Yeah, you can't observe that. But it happened--and you can't prove that it didn't!"
Bill: "Evolution is observable science."
Tom: "What? How can you say that!?"
Bill: "Things evolve every day: like birds getting shorter beaks"
Tom: "That's not the kind of evolution I'm talking about. I'm talking about reptiles turning into birds."
Bill: "Yeah, you can't observe that. But it happened--and you can't prove that it didn't!"
Should we only teach the parts of evolution (or creation) that are actually falsifiable?
How can I tell when to use "many" and when to use "much"?
Like the others have said, it has to do with whether something can be counted or not. Conversationally speaking, data is not countable, because no one ever uses the word "datum" in casual conversation. (You are among a very few English speakers that even realize that data is plural and that datum is the singular!)
Many more gigabytes / much more data.
A cool tip! As confusing as the words "many" and "much" are, you can safely just use "a lot" instead as it always works. A lot more gigabytes / a lot more data. :-)
Oops. I guess it's my second post. Any way for me to delete the dup?
Sure I understand--and agree--that this kind of cell phone use can be horribly frustrating. Just like having someone blow cigarette smoke in your face is horribly frustrating--or worse! But think about this: for the government FCC or FAA to outlaw it on those grounds seems wrong. It should be the responsibility of the Airlines to compete to create an environment that is most attractive to their clients. It is not in the interest of freedom for the government to dictate that across the board on every airline and every flight. Should the ban be removed, certain airlines or even certain flights could cater to travelers who wish to use their phones. And other airlines or other flights could cater to those who wish a somewhat quieter (airplanes quiet?! ... anyway) environment. It would even be possible to have cell-phone and non-cell-phone cabins. I protest that if this is really mostly a social/annoyance issue the government should not address it in this way. Hey, if I know that on United Airlines I can use my cell phone, I might be more inclined to travel with them. Or on the other hand, if I know that on Northwest they don't allow cell phones, I could be more inclined to travel with them. Especially since there's not a whole lot else to distinguish them.
:-o
By the way, this is my first post on Slashdot.
Sure I understand--and agree--that this kind of cell phone use can be horribly frustrating. Just like having someone blow cigarette smoke in your face is horribly frustrating--or worse! But think about this: for the government FCC or FAA to outlaw it on those grounds seems wrong. It should be the responsibility of the Airlines to compete to create an environment that is most attractive to their clients. It is not in the interest of freedom for the government to dictate that across the board on every airline and every flight. Should the ban be removed, certain airlines or even certain flights could cater to travelers who wish to use their phones. And other airlines or other flights could cater to those who wish a somewhat quieter (airplanes quiet?! ... anyway) environment.
It would even be possible to have cell-phone and non-cell-phone cabins.
I protest that if this is really mostly a social/annoyance issue the government should not address it in this way.
Hey, if I know that on United Airlines I can use my cell phone, I might be more inclined to travel with them. Or on the other hand, if I know that on Northwest they don't allow cell phones, I could be more inclined to travel with them. Especially since there's not a whole lot else to distinguish them.