Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and

[Audie]

You are, of course, right. When in doubt I'm prepared to apply Hanlon's razor but my doubts are vanishing.

We all knew there was zero chance he had anything.

 

[Heyo]

We all knew there was zero chance he had anything.

True. The question is if he knows.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Both creationist and intelligent design writers have asserted that evolution is at best a poor scientific theory, because it is not "falsifiable," which in the parlance of scientific philosophy means that the theory is too flexible -- no test could be devised that decisively rejects its key tenets.

This is very flawed. It's already been explained to you that the theory is falsifiable.

The assertions of religious apologists are not relevant to the scientific community. Why would they be? Their values, methods, and agenda are not those of science, and they generally lack the necessary scientific expertise to hold such a discussion. But if you feel like the biological community is picking on the apologists, notice that they also don't care about the opinions of people like me who happen to agree with them. Our agreement doesn't make them more confident, nor does the disagreement of the creationists make them less certain.

Being unfalsifiable does not mean being too flexible. It means that if the idea is wrong, there exists at least a way in principle to demonstrate that. Creationism is unfalsifiable, since it makes a claim that cannot be shown to be false even in principle, such as the claims of creationism.

Unfalsifiable also doesn't mean that there are no tests that can falsify it. We expect correct theories that are falsifiable to never be falsified.

Creationist Ken Ham, for instance, has argued that theories such as evolution and the big bang cannot be tested, because no scientists were present to directly observe whether or not the conjectured events really took place

This is a fine example of why creationists are disregarded. This one doesn't know what observation and repeatability mean in science. We observe what exists now, and we expect those observations to be repeatable, not what happened billions of years ago. How does a homicide detective solve a case? Does he say that since he cannot go back in time and witness the murder, that it cannot be proven? No. He reviews what is present today - the fingerprint there now, the DNA there now, and even when he gets information about the past, it is from mental (eyewitness testimony) or digital records that exist now and can be examined now. Ham apparently doesn't understand that.

ToE is a theory, it is no way you or other scientists can 100% prove or disprove ToE, just as a religious belief is just that, a belief.

The theory is confirmed correct, and the belief that it is correct, unlike a religious belief, is corroborated by evidence. Let's compare these two beliefs:

The theory of biological evolution unifies mountains of data from a multitude of sources, accurately makes predictions about what can and cannot be found in nature, provides a rational mechanism for evolution consistent with the known actions of nature, accounts for both the commonality of all life as well as biodiversity, and has had practical applications that have improved the human condition in areas like medicine and agriculture.

Creationism, can do none of that. It is a useless and sterile idea lacking any supporting evidence, and even were it true, it remains a useless idea.

False equivalence.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I will falsify ToE and replace it.

No, you won't. The theory is correct, which is why neither you nor anybody else will ever falsify it. Some theories are just too well established to be wrong. You also won't topple the heliocentric theory of the solar system, nor the germ theory of contagious disease, nor plate tectonics.

Have you stopped to think what would happen if the theory were falsified? Christian creationism cannot replace it. There is already too much evidence for evolution that shouldn't be there if the Christian creation story is correct, evidence that doesn't just go away, but would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find. This would point to a deceptive intelligent designer that need not be supernatural. Is the Christian deity a deceiver?

If creationism were correct, shouldn't you be able to argue why without referring to evolution? Evolutionary scientists make their case without any reference to creationism. Imagine if their principal argument was that creationism is wrong, with no positive case for an alternative.

That is why ToE is very confusing since ToE supporters are not good in streamlining their theory.

If you are confused by the theory, that's on you. It's very simple. We see genetic variation occurring naturally among living populations between generations, nature selecting for those that leave the most fertile offspring behind, leading to the evolution of those populations.

Oh, I love to be falsified and rebutted, if anyone could do it

I haven't seen any claims from you to falsify or rebut apart from the unsupported claims of your genius and predictions that you will upend evolution. Unsupported claims are rejected automatically without evidence or rebuttal.

There's a somewhat apocryphal story about the Irish poet and playwright Oscar Wilde, who, upon disembarking from the ship that brought him from England to New York, was asked by customs if he had anything to declare. Wilde supposedly answered, “I have nothing to declare except my genius.”

All scientific explanations regarding origins, causes and effects, forensic-like studies, and the differences between two opposites or two extremes, as being used in all fields in science such as Biology, Astronomy, Cosmology, Psychology, etc., and all topics that require a complete scientific explanation - should start from the new Intelligent Design <id>. Period. For if not, science cannot explain reality correctly. Real Science Must Start From The New Intelligent Design <id>, is the main message and claim from the new Intelligent Design <id>. And that is all about in this paper. The claim from the new Intelligent Design <id> was based on the discoveries of intelligence and non-intelligence, and universal boundary line (UBL) between intelligence (or intentional) to non-intelligence (or non-intentional). Naturalistic science, or science in general, needs a universal boundary line (UBL) between created to un-created, intelligent to non-intelligent and intentional to non-intentional, or their synonyms, for universal categorization of all X, to completely explain the whole natural realms scientifically and correctly. Only the new Intelligence Design <id> has this capability. Period, again. The problem-solution approach is the answer to this scientific quest, as derived, for this paper, from the working or function of the human brain in dealing with categorization of all objects in existence. The result is that UBL is applicable to all fields of science such as Biology, Astronomy or Psychology, etc and to all questions that deals with two un-equal objects for categorization..

I don't see an argument there for intelligent design or anything else.

Here's another quote I like from a man called Edward Abbey: "When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense."

 

[gnostic]

"Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement" will be the probable title of my science article to be submitted in science journal early next month.

Hi! On 2017, one of the members here had posted about me, Edgar Alberto Postrado, that I claimed that I discovered the differences between intelligence and non-intelligence and had shared the link when I was invited by Steve Mcrae in his YT channel to discuss my discoveries. I had been sharing these wonderful discoveries in either YouTube or Forums or books. Science is for everyone!

It is so amazing that in our generation, a person like me could discover the real topic of intelligence and the implications to our science and to the world.

In addition with my science articles in Zenodo, I will be submitting a science article falsifying ToE. It is very easy to do it. But I need your help:

Do you know who are those scientists that had attempted to falsify ToE? I need some info or input from you guys/gals who love science too! Just put your answer below. Thank you!

From reading your OP, and from other posts of yours, you want to replace the Theory of Evolution with he pseudoscience Intelligent Design, but basing on what you have written keep asking Evolution for evidence or for it to be tested.

But Evolution have already been repeatedly tested, and evidence for each evolutionary mechanisms (mechanisms, like Genetic Drift, Mutations and Natural Selection) have been quantified, measured, tested and analyzed, more than beyond reasonable doubts.

So in summary, Evolution is falsifiable, is testable and tested, and verified as been probable.

The same cannot be said about Intelligent Design.

Even Michael Behe, the leading expert in Intelligent Design and a senior member of the Discovery Institute, stated in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case (2005), there have never been original experiments and no data for ID, and there have been no books or papers concerning ID never been peer-reviewed:

[Rothschild] Q. Now you have never argued for intelligent design in a peer reviewed scientific journal, correct?

[Behe] A. No, I argued for it in my book.

Q. Not in a peer reviewed scientific journal?

A. That's correct.

Q. And, in fact, there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred, is that correct?

A. That is correct, yes.

Q. And it is, in fact, the case that in Darwin's Black Box, you didn't report any new data or original research?

A. I did not do so, but I did generate an attempt at an explanation.

Q. Now you have written for peer reviewed scientific journals on subjects other than intelligent design, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. And in those articles, you did report original research and data, at least in many of them, correct?

A. Yes.

Q. You would agree that there are some journals that are more difficult than others to get one's research published in?

A. Yes, that's correct.

So, not only failed to be tested, Intelligent Design is still unfalsifiable concept, and it remained untestable and untested.

If Behe cannot make Intelligent Design falsifiable, what make you think you would fare any better.

So unless you are able to present evidence and data that support Intelligent Design, ID is still pseudoscience trash.

 

[Revoltingest]

I just stumbled upon this thread.
Too lazy to read all the posts.
Did the OP finallydisprove the ToE?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

From reading your OP, and from other posts of yours, you want to replace the Theory of Evolution with he pseudoscience Intelligent Design, but basing on what you have written keep asking Evolution for evidence or for it to be tested.

But Evolution have already been repeatedly tested, and evidence for each evolutionary mechanisms (mechanisms, like Genetic Drift, Mutations and Natural Selection) have been quantified, measured, tested and analyzed, more than beyond reasonable doubts.

So in summary, Evolution is falsifiable, is testable and tested, and verified as been probable.

The same cannot be said about Intelligent Design.

Even Michael Behe, the leading expert in Intelligent Design and a senior member of the Discovery Institute, stated in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District case (2005), there have never been original experiments and no data for ID, and there have been no books or papers concerning ID never been peer-reviewed:

​

So, not only failed to be tested, Intelligent Design is still unfalsifiable concept, and it remained untestable and untested.

If Behe cannot make Intelligent Design falsifiable, what make you think you would fare any better.

So unless you are able to present evidence and data that support Intelligent Design, ID is still pseudoscience trash.

You never get it and you have no clue!

I will falsify ToE by new ID and replace it with another theory.. I don't care about Behe. He was wrong anyway because he used Darwin's original idea.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I just stumbled upon this thread.
Too lazy to read all the posts.
Did the OP finallydisprove the ToE?

Yes, I did that is why I will submit it to science journal.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

No, you won't. The theory is correct, which is why neither you nor anybody else will ever falsify it. Some theories are just too well established to be wrong. You also won't topple the heliocentric theory of the solar system, nor the germ theory of contagious disease, nor plate tectonics.

Have you stopped to think what would happen if the theory were falsified? Christian creationism cannot replace it. There is already too much evidence for evolution that shouldn't be there if the Christian creation story is correct, evidence that doesn't just go away, but would need to be reinterpreted in the light of the falsifying find. This would point to a deceptive intelligent designer that need not be supernatural. Is the Christian deity a deceiver?

If creationism were correct, shouldn't you be able to argue why without referring to evolution? Evolutionary scientists make their case without any reference to creationism. Imagine if their principal argument was that creationism is wrong, with no positive case for an alternative.



If you are confused by the theory, that's on you. It's very simple. We see genetic variation occurring naturally among living populations between generations, nature selecting for those that leave the most fertile offspring behind, leading to the evolution of those populations.



I haven't seen any claims from you to falsify or rebut apart from the unsupported claims of your genius and predictions that you will upend evolution. Unsupported claims are rejected automatically without evidence or rebuttal.

There's a somewhat apocryphal story about the Irish poet and playwright Oscar Wilde, who, upon disembarking from the ship that brought him from England to New York, was asked by customs if he had anything to declare. Wilde supposedly answered, “I have nothing to declare except my genius.”



I don't see an argument there for intelligent design or anything else.

Here's another quote I like from a man called Edward Abbey: "When the philosopher's argument becomes tedious, complicated, and opaque, it is usually a sign that he is attempting to prove as true to the intellect what is plainly false to common sense."

I will falsify ToE since I know how to do it.
I will replace with another theory, that is very simple.
I am not confused on ToE. YOU ARE probably, that is why you cannot falsify and replace ToE.
You still did not know me well and what I had discovered, that is why you are skeptical.
I am hoping that all the science journals will be fair, and not religious, if they do, ToE will change.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Sorry, that is wrong.
The ToE can and has predicted which fossils will be found and where.
It can also be disproven by finding fossils in the wrong strata.

The ToE is more than a belief

REMEMBER that not all invented predictions are scientific. TAKE THE HINT.

 

[Left Coast]

"Scientific Falsification of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) and Introducing ToE's Replacement" will be the probable title of my science article to be submitted in science journal early next month.

Hi! On 2017, one of the members here had posted about me, Edgar Alberto Postrado, that I claimed that I discovered the differences between intelligence and non-intelligence and had shared the link when I was invited by Steve Mcrae in his YT channel to discuss my discoveries. I had been sharing these wonderful discoveries in either YouTube or Forums or books. Science is for everyone!

It is so amazing that in our generation, a person like me could discover the real topic of intelligence and the implications to our science and to the world.

In addition with my science articles in Zenodo, I will be submitting a science article falsifying ToE. It is very easy to do it. But I need your help:

Do you know who are those scientists that had attempted to falsify ToE? I need some info or input from you guys/gals who love science too! Just put your answer below. Thank you!

What are your academic qualifications? What degrees or formal education do you have, and in what fields specifically?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, I did that is why I will submit it to science journal.

I eagerly await peer review.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

What are your academic qualifications? What degrees or formal education do you have, and in what fields specifically?

WHY do you ask? Is that matter?

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I eagerly await peer review.

But the peer-reviewers are probably more stupid than you, that is why I will be rejected..

 

[Revoltingest]

But the peer-reviewers are probably more stupid than you, that is why I will be rejected..

Even stupider than I am?
Uh oh.
It must be quite a burden dealing
with people so far less intelligent.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

We all knew there was zero chance he had anything.

If the supporters of ToE will fight fair and square in science, I will surely win...

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

Even stupider than I am?
Uh oh.
It must be quite a burden dealing
with people so far less intelligent.

That is why, you are moron if you think that the peer-reviewers are better than you.

 

[Revoltingest]

That is why, you are moron if you think that the peer-reviewers are better than you.

I expect that they're more
familiar with the material.

 

[MrIntelligentDesign]

I expect that they're more
familiar with the material.

I don't think so. They do not have any clue on reality.

 

[Revoltingest]

I don't think so. They do not have any clue on reality.

OK then.