• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is the theory of evolution actually falsifiable?

Krok

Active Member
Easy. The christian god or allah or thor or zeus or fsm or whatever else is available appearing in the sky on a cloud and every single person on earth can see and hear him/she/it.:p
 
Last edited:

fantome profane

Anti-Woke = Anti-Justice
Premium Member
I think Atheism is falsifiable.
What do you mean by “falsifiable”? Take care here. Do you mean that you can imagine evidence that could prove atheism false? Or do you mean that you can actually provide evidence and prove atheism false.

In the scientific context a theory must be falsifiable in order to be considered a scientific theory. What this means is that it is possible to imagine evidence that would show the theory to be false. The theory of evolution is a falsifiable theory (precambrian rabbits etc). This is very different than being actually able to produce evidence to prove evolution false (I can’t find any precambrian bunnies).

If you mean that you could conceivably imagine evidence that would prove atheism false then I agree, atheism is falsifiable. If you mean that you actually have evidence that shows atheism to be false, then by all means lets hear it. (probably should start a new thread however).
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Looks like Christian doc has quit the thread.
 

Tristesse

Well-Known Member
If you say so . .

Reality says so. Evolution is just the change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms through successive generations. The god question is irrelevant when discussing evolution, unless you can somehow demonstrate that a god is required for evolution to work. Or else it's just your personal belief. Which is fine, but like I said, irrelevant when discussing evolution.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
Atheism doesn't posit a belief, it's a rejection of a belief. So, in what sense can it be falsifiable?

If atheism is an argument against theism, then it is falsifiable.

It seems to me that if something is falsifiable and withstands testing (or whatever review), that is much stronger than claiming infalliability.

Neitzsche's atheism, for example, is based on his rejection of all theism on the basis of the nature of humanity and religions, and he proved it by his own mystic journey through an almost omnipotenent compilation of human knowledge. His atheism is certainly falsifiable because it has a concrete basis in thought.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
I dunno, it seemed from the story like Christian Doc assumed that because his instructor only gave one quick example that there must be NO examples and things just kinda snowballed from there.

I don't buy that whole set-up. Was that the ONLY class where the subject of mutations (beneficial or not) was even touched on, or what? The question by the "muslim" student is a stock creationist question, too. If I recall correctly it was presented as "stumping" Dawkins in a heavily edited and misleading creationist video.
 

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
I have read with interest that people here dismiss Intelligent Design as unscientific because it can not predict anything, therefore it is not falsifiable, therefore it is not scientific.


But, is evolution falsifiable?

What does it predict?


My understanding was that it initially was thought to give rise to millions of intermediate species, which should be found in the fossil record. So Darwin died in the hope that the fossil record would show that there are millions of intermediates. Species would take millions of years to develop.

What do we find?

There are few if not no intermediate species in the fossil record.
The Cambrian explosion.

So, is evolution shown to be false?

Nope, the theory just evolves! Evolution now happens very quickly when it needs to.


So - what evidence would need to be uncovered to disprove/falsify evolution?

So easy. Here are just a few things that would falsify ToE:


  • A new organism that does not reproduce via DNA.
  • A mammal in an older layer of rock than a species that ToE says went extinct before mammals came into existence, such as a dinosaur.
  • Had the earth turned out to be only millions, instead of billions of years old.
  • Were the fossil record such that all sorts of fossils are evenly distributed throughout it.
  • If creatures from similar but widely separated environments, such as the north and south poles, or islands in the middle of the Atlantic and Pacific oceans, were more alike than creatures from different environments closer together, such as the Marshall Islands and New Zealand.
  • If it turned out that genes do not produce mutations when they are copied.
  • Or, of course, if we ever saw a new species magically poofed out of thin air.
  • And many, many more.
 

Willamena

Just me
Premium Member
Yes, it`s easily falsifiable.
All you have to do is find a single mammal fossil in the pre-Cambrian and "POOF" evolution is history.(Never gonna happen though)
Um, no, that wouldn't do it (make it go "POOF"). That would only necessitate a revisiting of prior evidence, and further investigation.
 
Last edited:

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Hi All,

Think about my journey through education. I had basic biology teaching at A level suggesting that mutations resulting in small variations over time can lead to speciation and can explain the diversity of life around us. At that time I thought this was entirely plausible.

Then I go to medical school. We had lectures on genetics, with particular attention to mutations - particularly relevant to medicine of course.

At the end of one of the lectures (I forget which one) a question was asked by one of the students, I think he was a Muslim guy. "You have just taught us about many mutations resulting in disease that are currently taking place. Can you name any that are resulting in an improvement?"

The answer (admittedly off the cuff but I am pretty sure he gets this asked a lot) was examples such as sickle cell trait. He then had to go to the world of viruses.


However, the overwhelming impression that I was left with was that mutations that we see in the human population are almost without exception result in early death (miscarriage, neonatal, early childhood) or severe impairment or mild impairment. None that I am aware of in humans result in an improvement.

1. Why restrict your inquiry to humans?
2. You wouldn't consider the ability to digest milk to be an improvement?

Actually, the overwhelming majority of mutations are nuetral. Did you pass your genetics course? That's pretty basic stuff. A few are negative in the current environment, and a very few beneficial.
 
Top