You realize, you are implying that 'religious' people (ie Christians) in those red states marry their cousins. That is as bad as the stuff google is censoring.
Yes I do realize that. It was my point, in fact. That's why I said it was BS.
If you subtracted certain interest groups from either party and they wouldn't win any national elections.
Of course not, but if one interest group a) consists of a massive portion of your consituency and b) cuts into what would be your opposition, they sure help. Poor people generally are thought to be democrats, but that breaks down when you add in a specific religion. Here in the south, converting someone to Southern Babtist = converting someone to the Republican party.
A non-religious example (on the state level) would be the hispanic population in Florida. Usually Democrats think they have minorities in the bag, but the Cubans Floridans tend to vote Republican.
Of course, they would find new groups to pander to, since that is the nature of a two party beast.
Well, ideally. We Democrats have got to find someone else to pander to. College kids are not reliable voters:P
Hatred because of someone's religion is very bad, but so is loving someone because of his religion.
How about being indifferent to someone's religion, and hating the people that hate someone else because of religion? Defending Islam against unjust attack is not the same as loving Islam. I'd defend Christians too if someone was saying that they are all violent psychos or eat babies or whatever. And on occasion, I do.
If you didn't allow anyone to vote without having a high school diploma, do you think the democrats would win any more national elections?
Hehe.. this is interesting, we say the same thing about conservatives. "If it wasn't for the tobacco-chewing, cousin-marrying, religous red states... we wouldn't be in this mess." Is the kind of thing that's said in liberal circles. Of course, it's BS too. It's all about perspective ^_^
Majority of Liberals = smart and educated
Majority of Slashdot users = smart and educated
You forgot obnoxious, nosey, and opinionated!!! (I'm both liberal and a Slashdotter and I'm proudly all three:P )
Thank you, Permaculture, for that link. It really made my day. I especially liked the part about how the descendents of the Mayans (Chiapas): "This isolated community showed a surprising similarity to the Basque and Berber peoples (most probable descendants of the natives of Atlantis)."
I can't wait to go home and tell my Algerian Berber roommate that she's actually part Atlantean!!!!! I did wonder why she was always levitating and shooting beams from her eyes. I just thought it was a cultural thing.
Checks are just ink on paper. Anyone can print them these days. It's not like having blank checks go missing is any more of a security hole than just knowing your account number.
Yeah! Cause it's not like your account number is written on your check or anything! Or the name, address, and routing number! Nosiree.
First of all.. If this thing stepped on your foot you'd be in some serious pain.
Second.. If this thing tipped over it'd not only hurt the rider, but also whomever was unfortunate enough to be under it.
I'm guessing this will go over like a lead balloon. Of course, that's what I said about the segway. (That website still cracks me up. Our police on campus putt along in these stupid things. It's a fact: The only thing less intimidating than a cop on a bicycle is a cop on a segway.)
Arabic and Hindi are both alphabetic languages. This means that letter represent sounds, which has two advantages: 1) there's only a few of them to learn and 2) if you see a word, you can actually pronounce it.
Compare with Japanese, where the gist of a text is usually composed of Kanjis, i.e. Chinese characters which represent things and ideas - so for each different idea you must learn a new character. You'll be thrilled to learn that there according to the Japanese government, "only" 1900 characters are necessary for everyday usage.
Wrong. Arabic and Hindi (and English) rely on single letters for sounds. Japanese only has syllables. It's literally twice as easy. And it's even more simple when you memorize some kanji, since they're shortcuts to reading and writing. Shortcuts to something that is easy to begin with. Comparing alphabetic languages to japanese is like comparing wood-carving to Lincoln Logs.
There is a school of thought, coming from japanese academia for the most part, that claims that Japanese is so difficult, so unique that only japanese people (with their unique brains) can be fluent in it. This is where your Japanese teacher is coming from.
And it's utter crap. The Japanese program here is similar. The teachers don't really try to teach the students well because they think americans can't learn japanese. The american students don't study or try because they're too busy bitching about how impossible it is. It's all in their heads.
Meanwhile the students of german and spanish, who actually study, are fluent after four years of hard work on much harder languages.
There are some exceptions - two students that I know personally who actually crack books between class, listen to tapes, and speak with japanese students on a regular basis. They are, of course, nearly fluent after 3 years of study.
But I agree on one point - don't bother if you're only interested in understanding anime. That's just so fanboi it's obnoxious, and you're not likely to be motivated enough to actually study. The two kids who actually try and are fluent are also the only two non-otaku in the program. Coincidence?
... the fact that Japanese is not an easy language, being classified as very difficult by most standards
This is such a myth. Japanese is just about the easiest language out there to learn. The kanji is only challenging if you don't like memorization, or if you're not really trying. The rest is cake, since the pronunciation is simple and static - and there are few exceptions to grammar rules (unlike romantic and germanic languages that are like 30% exceptions to the rules). There are no genders and fewer tenses. There are honorifics but they are fairly easy (and gaijin can usually get away with not using them).
Seriously, the only thing you need to learn japanese is a little effort, time, and immersion. Same as any other.
Hehe.. no such thing, right? Since evolution is non-directional, there is no zenith or superior. We are pretty lame compared to cockroaches and crocodiles, evolutionarily speaking.
And Isaac, god bless him, never thought that it might have something to do with the fact that he was poking himself in the eye. Personally, I find that when I try to listen to my iPod, it sounds clear. But, when I poke myself in the ear with a toothpick.....
Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, the latter having interpreted the evidence quite solidly for hundreds of years.
Well, Relativity didn't really replace Newtonian physics - they dealt with different levels of phenomena. A better example is how Newtonian physics replaced Aristotelian physics (which was around for thousands of years).
Why this happened would be a long post and pointless in this particular topic. I'll go right to the problem: Why is evolution valid, and ID is not. Evolution begins with observations, and goes from there. ID begins with assertians, and tries to wiggle into holes in the evolutionary model. In fact it actually invents holes to wiggle into. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, and no evidence to suggest that there is. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution and no evidence to suggest that there is. But damn, they sound scientific.
The classic tactic, is to present ID in it's unabashed form - which is as arbitrary as it is unprovable (and undisprovable). I think I just made that word up. I just didn't want to say "falsifiable" again I feel like we've already beaten that one to death.
A good (although admittingly rude) analogy would be to state that the dark side of the moon is made of solid gold and is home to an enlightened alien city. The aliens have a cloaking device that makes it undetectable by our "3-dimensional instruments" (I've read this one.. you can find anything on the internet I swear). Unless you build yourself a rocket and go look with some 4th dimensional binoculars, you cannot prove that this isn't true. So, should we teach this in astronomy? It is, by some standards, equally valid to the "it's dark, cold, and be-cratered" concept.
Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator?
Absolutely. Most scientists are not atheists (and I know that you know this, just reiterating) even if they are naturalists. True believers of a Creator don't need to see evidence in it, and don't need to be threatened by observations of the natural world. Further, they don't need to use their Creator to fill in (what are most likely temporary) gaps in knowledge. If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it. No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way. But that's just my take on it, maybe I'm being flippant (again lol)
the origin of ID is irrelevant
Well said, I stand corrected.
It is the position itself that should be evaluated on its own merit
Again, well said. It does not have any scientifit merit, however, and that's the crux of the problem.
Because of the naturalistic requirement of science by its very definition...
Exactly. Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.
Without PR movies, there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability.
These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind. Sorry I was trying to find a link for those - they're hilarious. The only difference is that the producers of the ID movies were sincere in their beliefs (I hope) and the Global Warming movies were just blatently BS ^_^
Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed. But instead of going through the channels of science, the technique seems to be either 1)trying to poke holes in evolution (which is irrelevent) or 2)convince the general public that it's true on its own faith-based merit.
How about this verse that can be understood as a basis for dark matter? How do you explain that? Is that worth rolling your eyes at?
Hebrews 11:3
By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what IS SEEN (present tense) was not made out of what WAS VISIBLE. (past tense)
Heh.. wow... I'm sorry, I was only teasing you before - I... didn't realize that you were actually mentally unstable. I'm going to back away slowly, now. Goodbye, good luck.
I apologize. I didn't actually answer your question ^.^;;
Now one question I have is are you going to raise your kids to believe in only what you believe in? That's an impressively vain and short-sighted goal.
My children can believe anything they want. But starting them off with 2+2=5 isn't going to help them later in life. So yes, I'd like my children to have a good education, preferably free of the muddying effect that the ID debate brings forth (as opposed to actual scientific skepticism, which I heartily encourage).
Basically you are saying you don't want them to learn any more than you do.
This makes absolutely zero sense.
Yes, secular means short sighted. *rollin my eyes*.
It's funny, in world geography the Bible is the oldest most accurate book Really? The world is flat and has four corners? I'm assuming, then, that you were home-schooled in a broom closet. I'm sorry for that.
It's amazing to me how arrogant man is to think he can understand everything.
It's pointless to make the teaching of bad science in science class some kind of moral issue. If they were eliminating music from the curriculum because it's 'sinful', you'd be singing a different tone. Only difference is, you just happen to agree with this particular absurdity.
I would much rather teach my kids to tell the difference between right and wrong And teaching bad science is right and teaching actual science is wrong? If you say so.
No matter what is said hardly anyone will change thier mind off a conversation on slashdot. This, I humbly agree with.
"I would love it if someone who specializes in language could draw up a map, showing the various degrees of freedom within a language, and how different languages compare both within any given degree of freedom and overall."
Probably, before you finished drawing it it'd be invalid. Language is in constant flux (mod down for the cliché use or the word 'flux').
The degrees of lexical freedom are only limited to mutual intelligibility within a community. So right now you may have internet slang comprised of pigeon words and phrases being developed out of French, Arabic, and Behr Behr that can only be found in a Morrocan's blogspace. So long as his/her readers understand (or can figure out) what they are reading, the vocabulary is valid. Good luck tracking and mapping all of that. ^_^
I'm a student of linguistic anthropology, in case you were wondering where I'm getting this crap.
these people don't have the resources they need to investigate this fully to the point where they can finally see if they are right or wrong.
Is there some huge cache of grants available to pro-evolutionary scientists that I'm unaware of? Have you seen the budget of your typical research biologist's budget? Exactly what resources are required to test these hypotheses? The cost of testtubes? A plane ticket to the Galapagos Islands? A thermonuclear partical-accelerating atom-smashing ID detector? Maybe if they'd spend less money on PR movies and more on research, they can try to get somewhere. (I doubt they would get anywhere, but I'd respect the effort).
make sure you don't just assume things about their character just because others are able to use the material to advance a religious aganda!
Others? Wait, what? Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator? That'd be like an astronomer who doesn't believe in stars. And what material? The primary problem with ID is that there is no supporting material. Maybe if they had the paved-with-gold rich life like an actual biologist has (apparently), they could come up with some? ^_^
It's not as if someone came up with some amazing evidence that can only be explained with ID, and the religious people are exploiting it. The people who came up with ID are the religious folks, and the amazing evidence doesn't exist yet. Don't mean to jump all over my favorite slashdotter, but dang man... call a spade a spade.
Afterall, there is no natural alternative to evolution. True by default.
... That we know of ^_~ But yes, naturalism must be what science is based on. If something is not systematically observable and/or testable in the natural world, it is not a part of science. It's right there in the definition. But to answer the question How is evolution falsifiable?:
What could be found that could undo the Everest-like heaps of supporting evidence for evolution? In the early days of research, it could have been that populations did not observably change genetic configurations over generations. That would've falsified it. But they did.
I was thinking of another one.. hypothetically any scientific theory is falsifiable.. so how could the theory of gravity be falsifiable. I'm sure there is some conceivable experiment or experience that could put a hole it, but I can't think of one at the moment. I think this should be mandatory excercise in higher-level science classes! Present a scenario that, if it happened, would falsify the foundation theories like evolution (or gravity for physics, or uniformitism for geology).
And btw David! It's so nice to run into you again, how've you been?!
Slashdot Mirror
Nonsense! Formaldehyde is perfectly edible. It's called Aspartame, I drink it all the time.
You realize, you are implying that 'religious' people (ie Christians) in those red states marry their cousins. That is as bad as the stuff google is censoring.
:P
Yes I do realize that. It was my point, in fact. That's why I said it was BS.
If you subtracted certain interest groups from either party and they wouldn't win any national elections.
Of course not, but if one interest group a) consists of a massive portion of your consituency and b) cuts into what would be your opposition, they sure help. Poor people generally are thought to be democrats, but that breaks down when you add in a specific religion. Here in the south, converting someone to Southern Babtist = converting someone to the Republican party.
A non-religious example (on the state level) would be the hispanic population in Florida. Usually Democrats think they have minorities in the bag, but the Cubans Floridans tend to vote Republican.
Of course, they would find new groups to pander to, since that is the nature of a two party beast.
Well, ideally. We Democrats have got to find someone else to pander to. College kids are not reliable voters
Hatred because of someone's religion is very bad, but so is loving someone because of his religion.
How about being indifferent to someone's religion, and hating the people that hate someone else because of religion? Defending Islam against unjust attack is not the same as loving Islam. I'd defend Christians too if someone was saying that they are all violent psychos or eat babies or whatever. And on occasion, I do.
If you didn't allow anyone to vote without having a high school diploma, do you think the democrats would win any more national elections?
Hehe.. this is interesting, we say the same thing about conservatives. "If it wasn't for the tobacco-chewing, cousin-marrying, religous red states... we wouldn't be in this mess." Is the kind of thing that's said in liberal circles. Of course, it's BS too. It's all about perspective ^_^
Majority of Liberals = smart and educated :P )
Majority of Slashdot users = smart and educated
You forgot obnoxious, nosey, and opinionated!!! (I'm both liberal and a Slashdotter and I'm proudly all three
Thank you, Permaculture, for that link. It really made my day. I especially liked the part about how the descendents of the Mayans (Chiapas): "This isolated community showed a surprising similarity to the Basque and Berber peoples (most probable descendants of the natives of Atlantis)."
I can't wait to go home and tell my Algerian Berber roommate that she's actually part Atlantean!!!!! I did wonder why she was always levitating and shooting beams from her eyes. I just thought it was a cultural thing.
What nobody seems to have realized...
is when someone is joking, apparently.
Checks are just ink on paper. Anyone can print them these days. It's not like having blank checks go missing is any more of a security hole than just knowing your account number.
Yeah! Cause it's not like your account number is written on your check or anything! Or the name, address, and routing number! Nosiree.
First of all.. If this thing stepped on your foot you'd be in some serious pain.
Second.. If this thing tipped over it'd not only hurt the rider, but also whomever was unfortunate enough to be under it.
I'm guessing this will go over like a lead balloon. Of course, that's what I said about the segway. (That website still cracks me up. Our police on campus putt along in these stupid things. It's a fact: The only thing less intimidating than a cop on a bicycle is a cop on a segway.)
Arabic and Hindi are both alphabetic languages. This means that letter represent sounds, which has two advantages: 1) there's only a few of them to learn and 2) if you see a word, you can actually pronounce it. Compare with Japanese, where the gist of a text is usually composed of Kanjis, i.e. Chinese characters which represent things and ideas - so for each different idea you must learn a new character. You'll be thrilled to learn that there according to the Japanese government, "only" 1900 characters are necessary for everyday usage.
Wrong. Arabic and Hindi (and English) rely on single letters for sounds. Japanese only has syllables. It's literally twice as easy. And it's even more simple when you memorize some kanji, since they're shortcuts to reading and writing. Shortcuts to something that is easy to begin with. Comparing alphabetic languages to japanese is like comparing wood-carving to Lincoln Logs.
There is a school of thought, coming from japanese academia for the most part, that claims that Japanese is so difficult, so unique that only japanese people (with their unique brains) can be fluent in it. This is where your Japanese teacher is coming from.
And it's utter crap. The Japanese program here is similar. The teachers don't really try to teach the students well because they think americans can't learn japanese. The american students don't study or try because they're too busy bitching about how impossible it is. It's all in their heads.
Meanwhile the students of german and spanish, who actually study, are fluent after four years of hard work on much harder languages.
There are some exceptions - two students that I know personally who actually crack books between class, listen to tapes, and speak with japanese students on a regular basis. They are, of course, nearly fluent after 3 years of study.
But I agree on one point - don't bother if you're only interested in understanding anime. That's just so fanboi it's obnoxious, and you're not likely to be motivated enough to actually study. The two kids who actually try and are fluent are also the only two non-otaku in the program. Coincidence?
... the fact that Japanese is not an easy language, being classified as very difficult by most standards
This is such a myth. Japanese is just about the easiest language out there to learn. The kanji is only challenging if you don't like memorization, or if you're not really trying. The rest is cake, since the pronunciation is simple and static - and there are few exceptions to grammar rules (unlike romantic and germanic languages that are like 30% exceptions to the rules). There are no genders and fewer tenses. There are honorifics but they are fairly easy (and gaijin can usually get away with not using them).
Seriously, the only thing you need to learn japanese is a little effort, time, and immersion. Same as any other.
...to be supplanted by the homo-superior....
Hehe.. no such thing, right? Since evolution is non-directional, there is no zenith or superior. We are pretty lame compared to cockroaches and crocodiles, evolutionarily speaking.
the 50-cent vending machine coffee is crap, the $3.50 starbucks latte is crap.
.... THANK YOU!!
and it looked blurred and out of focus
And Isaac, god bless him, never thought that it might have something to do with the fact that he was poking himself in the eye. Personally, I find that when I try to listen to my iPod, it sounds clear. But, when I poke myself in the ear with a toothpick.....
Einsteinian physics replaced Newtonian physics, the latter having interpreted the evidence quite solidly for hundreds of years.
Well, Relativity didn't really replace Newtonian physics - they dealt with different levels of phenomena. A better example is how Newtonian physics replaced Aristotelian physics (which was around for thousands of years).
Why this happened would be a long post and pointless in this particular topic. I'll go right to the problem: Why is evolution valid, and ID is not. Evolution begins with observations, and goes from there. ID begins with assertians, and tries to wiggle into holes in the evolutionary model. In fact it actually invents holes to wiggle into. There is no such thing as irreducible complexity, and no evidence to suggest that there is. There is no distinction between micro and macro evolution and no evidence to suggest that there is. But damn, they sound scientific.
The classic tactic, is to present ID in it's unabashed form - which is as arbitrary as it is unprovable (and undisprovable). I think I just made that word up. I just didn't want to say "falsifiable" again I feel like we've already beaten that one to death.
A good (although admittingly rude) analogy would be to state that the dark side of the moon is made of solid gold and is home to an enlightened alien city. The aliens have a cloaking device that makes it undetectable by our "3-dimensional instruments" (I've read this one.. you can find anything on the internet I swear). Unless you build yourself a rocket and go look with some 4th dimensional binoculars, you cannot prove that this isn't true. So, should we teach this in astronomy? It is, by some standards, equally valid to the "it's dark, cold, and be-cratered" concept.
Have you ever met a philosophical naturalist who did believe in a supernatural creator?
Absolutely. Most scientists are not atheists (and I know that you know this, just reiterating) even if they are naturalists. True believers of a Creator don't need to see evidence in it, and don't need to be threatened by observations of the natural world. Further, they don't need to use their Creator to fill in (what are most likely temporary) gaps in knowledge. If there was some sort of evidence that pointed to a Creator, then cheers! But there isn't (at the moment) so don't worry about it. No need to dress it up like science and try to compete with an actual theory if you're going to beleive it either way. But that's just my take on it, maybe I'm being flippant (again lol)
the origin of ID is irrelevant
Well said, I stand corrected.
It is the position itself that should be evaluated on its own merit
Again, well said. It does not have any scientifit merit, however, and that's the crux of the problem.
Because of the naturalistic requirement of science by its very definition...
Exactly. Funding into ID research by religious instutions, theologicals schools, the University of Islam, or whatever would be perfectly acceptable. But you wouldn't expect an ID researcher to get a grant from a scientific program any more than you'd expect to have an English Lit program fund missionary work.
Without PR movies, there would be even less interest and less support, therefore less research ability.
These PR movies are designed to sway popular opinion for religious/political reasons in much the same way that those "Global Warming is Good For You" movies were designed with the interests of oil companies in mind. Sorry I was trying to find a link for those - they're hilarious. The only difference is that the producers of the ID movies were sincere in their beliefs (I hope) and the Global Warming movies were just blatently BS ^_^
Honestly, if someone had any evidence at all for the ID hypothesis that could bring it out of the supernatural and into the realm of science, I could be happily swayed. But instead of going through the channels of science, the technique seems to be either 1)trying to poke holes in evolution (which is irrelevent) or 2)convince the general public that it's true on its own faith-based merit.
Cold Fusion is real
HAHA yeah I read that too last night! Boy, is my face red.
How about this verse that can be understood as a basis for dark matter? How do you explain that? Is that worth rolling your eyes at? Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what IS SEEN (present tense) was not made out of what WAS VISIBLE. (past tense)
Heh.. wow... I'm sorry, I was only teasing you before - I... didn't realize that you were actually mentally unstable. I'm going to back away slowly, now.
Goodbye, good luck.
I apologize. I didn't actually answer your question ^.^;;
Now one question I have is are you going to raise your kids to believe in only what you believe in? That's an impressively vain and short-sighted goal.
My children can believe anything they want. But starting them off with 2+2=5 isn't going to help them later in life. So yes, I'd like my children to have a good education, preferably free of the muddying effect that the ID debate brings forth (as opposed to actual scientific skepticism, which I heartily encourage).
Basically you are saying you don't want them to learn any more than you do.
This makes absolutely zero sense.
Yes, secular means short sighted. *rollin my eyes*.
It's funny, in world geography the Bible is the oldest most accurate book
Really? The world is flat and has four corners? I'm assuming, then, that you were home-schooled in a broom closet. I'm sorry for that.
It's amazing to me how arrogant man is to think he can understand everything.
It's pointless to make the teaching of bad science in science class some kind of moral issue. If they were eliminating music from the curriculum because it's 'sinful', you'd be singing a different tone. Only difference is, you just happen to agree with this particular absurdity.
I would much rather teach my kids to tell the difference between right and wrong
And teaching bad science is right and teaching actual science is wrong? If you say so.
No matter what is said hardly anyone will change thier mind off a conversation on slashdot.
This, I humbly agree with.
Probably, before you finished drawing it it'd be invalid. Language is in constant flux (mod down for the cliché use or the word 'flux').
The degrees of lexical freedom are only limited to mutual intelligibility within a community. So right now you may have internet slang comprised of pigeon words and phrases being developed out of French, Arabic, and Behr Behr that can only be found in a Morrocan's blogspace. So long as his/her readers understand (or can figure out) what they are reading, the vocabulary is valid. Good luck tracking and mapping all of that. ^_^
I'm a student of linguistic anthropology, in case you were wondering where I'm getting this crap.
Is there some huge cache of grants available to pro-evolutionary scientists that I'm unaware of? Have you seen the budget of your typical research biologist's budget? Exactly what resources are required to test these hypotheses? The cost of testtubes? A plane ticket to the Galapagos Islands? A thermonuclear partical-accelerating atom-smashing ID detector?
Maybe if they'd spend less money on PR movies and more on research, they can try to get somewhere. (I doubt they would get anywhere, but I'd respect the effort).
Others? Wait, what? Have you ever met a proponent of ID who didn't believe in a supernatural creator? That'd be like an astronomer who doesn't believe in stars. And what material? The primary problem with ID is that there is no supporting material. Maybe if they had the paved-with-gold rich life like an actual biologist has (apparently), they could come up with some? ^_^
It's not as if someone came up with some amazing evidence that can only be explained with ID, and the religious people are exploiting it. The people who came up with ID are the religious folks, and the amazing evidence doesn't exist yet. Don't mean to jump all over my favorite slashdotter, but dang man... call a spade a spade.
But yes, naturalism must be what science is based on. If something is not systematically observable and/or testable in the natural world, it is not a part of science. It's right there in the definition.
But to answer the question How is evolution falsifiable?:
What could be found that could undo the Everest-like heaps of supporting evidence for evolution? In the early days of research, it could have been that populations did not observably change genetic configurations over generations. That would've falsified it. But they did.
I was thinking of another one.. hypothetically any scientific theory is falsifiable.. so how could the theory of gravity be falsifiable. I'm sure there is some conceivable experiment or experience that could put a hole it, but I can't think of one at the moment. I think this should be mandatory excercise in higher-level science classes! Present a scenario that, if it happened, would falsify the foundation theories like evolution (or gravity for physics, or uniformitism for geology).
And btw David! It's so nice to run into you again, how've you been?!