Total Posts:20|Showing Posts:1-20
Jump to topic:

Evolution & Scientific Method

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.
2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.
3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

1. Theory of Evolution
2. Theory of Common Descent
3. Theory of Gravity
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:21:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.
2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.
3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

4) What observations would falsify the theory ?


If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

What observations would falsify the following........

1. Theory of Evolution
2. Theory of Common Descent
3. Theory of Gravity

4. Theory of creationism
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:22:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:21:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.
2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.
3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

4) What observations would falsify the theory ?


If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

What observations would falsify the following........

1. Theory of Evolution
2. Theory of Common Descent
3. Theory of Gravity

4. Theory of creationism

Wow. That wasn't helpful at all.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:27:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:22:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:21:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.
2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.
3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

4) What observations would falsify the theory ?


If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

What observations would falsify the following........

1. Theory of Evolution
2. Theory of Common Descent
3. Theory of Gravity

4. Theory of creationism

Wow. That wasn't helpful at all.

It is helpful.

Something which is testable and tested (the more the better) is used to support the theory.

But it can only be testable if it is falsifiable.

"The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world."

So about creationism....................
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:37:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:27:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:22:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:21:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.
2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.
3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

4) What observations would falsify the theory ?


If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

What observations would falsify the following........

1. Theory of Evolution
2. Theory of Common Descent
3. Theory of Gravity

4. Theory of creationism

Wow. That wasn't helpful at all.

It is helpful.

Something which is testable and tested (the more the better) is used to support the theory.

But it can only be testable if it is falsifiable.

"The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world."

So about creationism....................

Yea about creationism................ please leave my thread, I asked an honest question and you mock me and then claim to be helpful.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:37:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.

Must be from observations and be as consistent as possible. I suppose that's what you mean by "not vague".

2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.

Essentially, yes. Testing the hypothesis. This step is simply furthering the observation gathered from above. If an overreaching theory cannot make accurate predictions, then the project has not material value and should probably be defunded.

3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

Falsified, or modified, depending on how broad the observation is.

If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

1. Theory of Evolution

Observation: The similarity between different life forms, micro-evolution, geological separation, fossils, etc.
Guess: All species of organisms today had likely evolved from a common ancestor.
Prediction: [a given animal] can be traced back to a simpler life form/common ancestor through fossils or probably gene mutations.

2. Theory of Common Descent

Similar to above.

3. Theory of Gravity

Observation: objects with mass tend to get closer to each other, following the equation F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2.
Guess: All objects with mass tend to get closer to each other, following the equation F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2.
Prediction: [Massive object 1] and [massive object 2] will get closer to each other, following the equation F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2.
In this case, the effect of gravity was found to not be instantaneous, but travel at the speed of light, so it was modified.
0x5f3759df
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/15/2014 7:42:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:37:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:27:54 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:22:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:21:22 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.
2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.
3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

4) What observations would falsify the theory ?


If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

What observations would falsify the following........

1. Theory of Evolution
2. Theory of Common Descent
3. Theory of Gravity

4. Theory of creationism

Wow. That wasn't helpful at all.

It is helpful.

Something which is testable and tested (the more the better) is used to support the theory.

But it can only be testable if it is falsifiable.

"The phrase not even wrong describes any argument that purports to be scientific but fails at some fundamental level, usually in that it cannot be falsified by experiment (i.e. tested with the possibility of being rejected), or cannot be used to make predictions about the natural world."

So about creationism....................

Yea about creationism................ please leave my thread, I asked an honest question and you mock me and then claim to be helpful.

You made no reference test ability. I filled in that gap. Your welcome.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:08:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/15/2014 7:37:54 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.

Must be from observations and be as consistent as possible. I suppose that's what you mean by "not vague".

By vague, I mean something like "life undergoes gradual change over time." It's hard for me to define vague, but that's an example of what I consider vague.

2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.

Essentially, yes. Testing the hypothesis. This step is simply furthering the observation gathered from above. If an overreaching theory cannot make accurate predictions, then the project has not material value and should probably be defunded.

3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

Falsified, or modified, depending on how broad the observation is.

If a theory must be modified, it's been falsified. You can't change a theory's substance, but leave it with the same name and pretend it's the same theory it was before. Regardless, I won't be considering any unmodified theories "unfalsified."

If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

1. Theory of Evolution

Observation: The similarity between different life forms, micro-evolution, geological separation, fossils, etc.

Thank you.

Guess: All species of organisms today had likely evolved from a common ancestor.

The word "likely" is useless here and only serves as an excuse in case the guess is wrong. So the guess is really:

All organisms alive today had a common ancestor.

I consider the word "species" like you used it to be a pointless distraction.

Prediction: [a given animal] can be traced back to a simpler life form/common ancestor through fossils or probably gene mutations.

I have a problem here.

The whole point of making the prediction is to honestly try to falsify, and prove wrong, the Theory, right?

Then why is that prediction so... unfalsifiable?

I assume "a given animal" means "all organisms", right?

The gene mutations part.... You mean by using stuff like endogenous retro viruses as evidence? So basically, genetic evidence?

Is this an accurate restating of the prediction:

All organisms can be found to have descended from a common, more simple ancestor, by means of the fossil record or genetic evidence.

This prediction can't be falsified!!! If any organism is not found to have been descended from a common, more simple ancestor, then you can just say "we need more time!"

This prediction goes against the spirit of science!


2. Theory of Common Descent

Similar to above.

So it's the same? I always wondered if there was a difference. Of course, it probably depends on what a certain person considers each to be.

3. Theory of Gravity

Observation: objects with mass tend to get closer to each other, following the equation F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2.
Guess: All objects with mass tend to get closer to each other, following the equation F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2.
Prediction: [Massive object 1] and [massive object 2] will get closer to each other, following the equation F = G*(m1*m2)/r^2.
In this case, the effect of gravity was found to not be instantaneous, but travel at the speed of light, so it was modified.

Ah, so it was falsified, and new Theory of Gravity had to take it's place.

You see, the prediction you listed for Gravity was WAY less forgiving than the one you gave for evolution. For gravity, the prediction involved predicting that something WILL happen (objects will move closer following this equation). For Evolution, it predicted that something CAN happen (life can be found to have descended from a common ancestor)... which is simply not falsifiable.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:17:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I saw that you closed your account for a few hours. Was kind of disappointed.

At 1/16/2014 7:08:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
You see, the prediction you listed for Gravity was WAY less forgiving than the one you gave for evolution. For gravity, the prediction involved predicting that something WILL happen (objects will move closer following this equation). For Evolution, it predicted that something CAN happen (life can be found to have descended from a common ancestor)... which is simply not falsifiable.

True, true. I didn't write the two parts at the same time, so for evolution I cited a specific experiment, while for gravity I cited what the experiments should be.
0x5f3759df
theta_pinch
Posts: 496
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:20:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
heres a way to falsify evolution/common descent: find a fossil of an organism that is alive at the same time as its common ancestor. For example; find the fossil of a homo habilis that lived at the same time or before the common ancestor of apes and humans.
Any sufficiently complex phenomenon is indistinguishable from magic--Me

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."
Niel deGrasse Tyson
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:24:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, this is not the scientific method at all. I hesitate to even refer to this as a skeleton of the scientific method.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:24:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:17:28 PM, Bullish wrote:
I saw that you closed your account for a few hours. Was kind of disappointed.

I made it a few hours before I couldn't resist logging back in, lol.

At 1/16/2014 7:20:09 PM, theta_pinch wrote:
heres a way to falsify evolution/common descent: find a fossil of an organism that is alive at the same time as its common ancestor. For example; find the fossil of a homo habilis that lived at the same time or before the common ancestor of apes and humans.

Please post your idea of the Theory Of Evolution according to the format I presented. What you posted has little interest to me. If you asked me to define the Theory of Creationism in true, scientific way, and I replied with

"well show me an amoeba grow into a person before my eyes and thats how you falsify Creationissm"

...then you wouldn't find that helpful, would you?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:26:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:24:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
No, this is not the scientific method at all. I hesitate to even refer to this as a skeleton of the scientific method.

I tried to copy what I found here:

(Richard Feynman's lecture on the Scientific Method)

I don't think I paraphrased it as poorly as you make it out to be.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:31:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:26:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:24:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
No, this is not the scientific method at all. I hesitate to even refer to this as a skeleton of the scientific method.

I tried to copy what I found here:



(Richard Feynman's lecture on the Scientific Method)

I don't think I paraphrased it as poorly as you make it out to be.

I will look this up and try my best to figure out what you mean here.

For clarification, when you mention creationism, do you mean young earth creationism?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bullish
Posts: 3,527
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:33:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:08:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:37:54 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.

Must be from observations and be as consistent as possible. I suppose that's what you mean by "not vague".

By vague, I mean something like "life undergoes gradual change over time." It's hard for me to define vague, but that's an example of what I consider vague.

All theories should start vague, then gradually solidify (or be falsified) as more observations are made.

2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.

Essentially, yes. Testing the hypothesis. This step is simply furthering the observation gathered from above. If an overreaching theory cannot make accurate predictions, then the project has not material value and should probably be defunded.

3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

Falsified, or modified, depending on how broad the observation is.

If a theory must be modified, it's been falsified. You can't change a theory's substance, but leave it with the same name and pretend it's the same theory it was before. Regardless, I won't be considering any unmodified theories "unfalsified."

The old theory of evolution was based on adaption, while the more modern is based on natural selection. Depends on one's definition of "falsified".

If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

1. Theory of Evolution

Observation: The similarity between different life forms, micro-evolution, geological separation, fossils, etc.

Thank you.

Guess: All species of organisms today had likely evolved from a common ancestor.

The word "likely" is useless here and only serves as an excuse in case the guess is wrong. So the guess is really:

All organisms alive today had a common ancestor.

I consider the word "species" like you used it to be a pointless distraction.

Prediction: [a given animal] can be traced back to a simpler life form/common ancestor through fossils or probably gene mutations.

I have a problem here.

The whole point of making the prediction is to honestly try to falsify, and prove wrong, the Theory, right?

Then why is that prediction so... unfalsifiable?

I assume "a given animal" means "all organisms", right?

The gene mutations part.... You mean by using stuff like endogenous retro viruses as evidence? So basically, genetic evidence?

Is this an accurate restating of the prediction:

All organisms can be found to have descended from a common, more simple ancestor, by means of the fossil record or genetic evidence.

This prediction can't be falsified!!! If any organism is not found to have been descended from a common, more simple ancestor, then you can just say "we need more time!"

This prediction goes against the spirit of science!

There are theories that are more probabilistic than materialistic. Certain theories go that given a certain circumstance, event A has a 37% chance of being true while event B has a 63% chance. Observing either cannot determine the truthfulness of the claim. Observing the theory 1000 times and finding that event A in fact occurred 483 times could not be considered supporting or falsifying evidence.

Statistics come in, and gives the confidence interval of the theory. Some times, it is the human that defines what falsifiability is, not the nature of the theory.

...
0x5f3759df
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:37:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:31:05 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:26:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:24:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
No, this is not the scientific method at all. I hesitate to even refer to this as a skeleton of the scientific method.

I tried to copy what I found here:



(Richard Feynman's lecture on the Scientific Method)

I don't think I paraphrased it as poorly as you make it out to be.

I will look this up and try my best to figure out what you mean here.

For clarification, when you mention creationism, do you mean young earth creationism?

I never mentioned creationism in this thread.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:43:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:33:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:08:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:37:54 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.

Must be from observations and be as consistent as possible. I suppose that's what you mean by "not vague".

By vague, I mean something like "life undergoes gradual change over time." It's hard for me to define vague, but that's an example of what I consider vague.

All theories should start vague, then gradually solidify (or be falsified) as more observations are made.

2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.

Essentially, yes. Testing the hypothesis. This step is simply furthering the observation gathered from above. If an overreaching theory cannot make accurate predictions, then the project has not material value and should probably be defunded.

3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

Falsified, or modified, depending on how broad the observation is.

If a theory must be modified, it's been falsified. You can't change a theory's substance, but leave it with the same name and pretend it's the same theory it was before. Regardless, I won't be considering any unmodified theories "unfalsified."

The old theory of evolution was based on adaption, while the more modern is based on natural selection. Depends on one's definition of "falsified".

I made it clear what I meant by falsified. I said the prediction MUST be true if the guess is correct.
I also said that if the prediction is not true, the theory is falsified.

If there is a problem with how I defined Scientific Theory, please provide the true framework for a scientific theory.

If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

1. Theory of Evolution

Observation: The similarity between different life forms, micro-evolution, geological separation, fossils, etc.

Thank you.

Guess: All species of organisms today had likely evolved from a common ancestor.

The word "likely" is useless here and only serves as an excuse in case the guess is wrong. So the guess is really:

All organisms alive today had a common ancestor.

I consider the word "species" like you used it to be a pointless distraction.

Prediction: [a given animal] can be traced back to a simpler life form/common ancestor through fossils or probably gene mutations.

I have a problem here.

The whole point of making the prediction is to honestly try to falsify, and prove wrong, the Theory, right?

Then why is that prediction so... unfalsifiable?

I assume "a given animal" means "all organisms", right?

The gene mutations part.... You mean by using stuff like endogenous retro viruses as evidence? So basically, genetic evidence?

Is this an accurate restating of the prediction:

All organisms can be found to have descended from a common, more simple ancestor, by means of the fossil record or genetic evidence.

This prediction can't be falsified!!! If any organism is not found to have been descended from a common, more simple ancestor, then you can just say "we need more time!"

This prediction goes against the spirit of science!

There are theories that are more probabilistic than materialistic. Certain theories go that given a certain circumstance, event A has a 37% chance of being true while event B has a 63% chance. Observing either cannot determine the truthfulness of the claim. Observing the theory 1000 times and finding that event A in fact occurred 483 times could not be considered supporting or falsifying evidence.

Statistics come in, and gives the confidence interval of the theory. Some times, it is the human that defines what falsifiability is, not the nature of the theory.

...

Call me biased, but this sounds like just making a bunch of excuses for the Theory of Evolution. I showed how the definition of Evolution provided cannot be considered a Scientific Theory because it can't be falsified, so now you're saying (basically) that not all Scientific Theories CAN be falsified, and implying that Evolution fits into this category...

Either my definition of what constitutes a Scientific Theory is wrong, or the definition of The Theory of Evolution I was given in this thread is wrong. There isn't a way out of this.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:44:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:37:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:31:05 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:26:10 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:24:31 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
No, this is not the scientific method at all. I hesitate to even refer to this as a skeleton of the scientific method.

I tried to copy what I found here:



(Richard Feynman's lecture on the Scientific Method)

I don't think I paraphrased it as poorly as you make it out to be.

I will look this up and try my best to figure out what you mean here.

For clarification, when you mention creationism, do you mean young earth creationism?

I never mentioned creationism in this thread.

A: you did.

B: looking at you other threads, you are trying to work through the creationism vs evolution contradiction, are you not?
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:46:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:43:07 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:33:40 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:08:53 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 1/15/2014 7:37:54 PM, Bullish wrote:
At 1/15/2014 6:50:21 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
Is this the Scientific Method?

1. Make a guess which is not vague.

Must be from observations and be as consistent as possible. I suppose that's what you mean by "not vague".

By vague, I mean something like "life undergoes gradual change over time." It's hard for me to define vague, but that's an example of what I consider vague.

All theories should start vague, then gradually solidify (or be falsified) as more observations are made.

2. Make a prediction that must be true if the guess is correct.

Essentially, yes. Testing the hypothesis. This step is simply furthering the observation gathered from above. If an overreaching theory cannot make accurate predictions, then the project has not material value and should probably be defunded.

3. If the prediction is true, the Theory survives. If not, it is falsified.

Falsified, or modified, depending on how broad the observation is.

If a theory must be modified, it's been falsified. You can't change a theory's substance, but leave it with the same name and pretend it's the same theory it was before. Regardless, I won't be considering any unmodified theories "unfalsified."

The old theory of evolution was based on adaption, while the more modern is based on natural selection. Depends on one's definition of "falsified".

I made it clear what I meant by falsified. I said the prediction MUST be true if the guess is correct.
I also said that if the prediction is not true, the theory is falsified.

If there is a problem with how I defined Scientific Theory, please provide the true framework for a scientific theory.

If I am right, then what is the "guess", and what is the "prediction", of the following:

1. Theory of Evolution

Observation: The similarity between different life forms, micro-evolution, geological separation, fossils, etc.

Thank you.

Guess: All species of organisms today had likely evolved from a common ancestor.

The word "likely" is useless here and only serves as an excuse in case the guess is wrong. So the guess is really:

All organisms alive today had a common ancestor.

I consider the word "species" like you used it to be a pointless distraction.

Prediction: [a given animal] can be traced back to a simpler life form/common ancestor through fossils or probably gene mutations.

I have a problem here.

The whole point of making the prediction is to honestly try to falsify, and prove wrong, the Theory, right?

Then why is that prediction so... unfalsifiable?

I assume "a given animal" means "all organisms", right?

The gene mutations part.... You mean by using stuff like endogenous retro viruses as evidence? So basically, genetic evidence?

Is this an accurate restating of the prediction:

All organisms can be found to have descended from a common, more simple ancestor, by means of the fossil record or genetic evidence.

This prediction can't be falsified!!! If any organism is not found to have been descended from a common, more simple ancestor, then you can just say "we need more time!"

This prediction goes against the spirit of science!

There are theories that are more probabilistic than materialistic. Certain theories go that given a certain circumstance, event A has a 37% chance of being true while event B has a 63% chance. Observing either cannot determine the truthfulness of the claim. Observing the theory 1000 times and finding that event A in fact occurred 483 times could not be considered supporting or falsifying evidence.

Statistics come in, and gives the confidence interval of the theory. Some times, it is the human that defines what falsifiability is, not the nature of the theory.

...

Call me biased, but this sounds like just making a bunch of excuses for the Theory of Evolution. I showed how the definition of Evolution provided cannot be considered a Scientific Theory because it can't be falsified, so now you're saying (basically) that not all Scientific Theories CAN be falsified, and implying that Evolution fits into this category...

Either my definition of what constitutes a Scientific Theory is wrong, or the definition of The Theory of Evolution I was given in this thread is wrong. There isn't a way out of this.

They are both wrong.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 7:50:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 7:44:54 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 1/16/2014 7:37:30 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
I never mentioned creationism in this thread.

A: you did.

Wow, well I technically typed out the word creationism one time, but it was only to make a sarcastic remark.

B: looking at you other threads, you are trying to work through the creationism vs evolution contradiction, are you not?

For all intents and purposes of this thread, no. I'm trying to work through the contradiction between Evolution and Devolution (the idea that bacteria devolved from humans).
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...