What aspect of evolution (or common descent of species) do you think is unfalsifiable?
I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.
What is absolutely falsifiable is the Creationist position that there will be no change at all (i.e. no evolution) or that any mutation will be maladaptive and lead to the degradation of the species, or that the changes were selected from variations that ‘pre - existed’ within the population.
Look into ERV sequences and then try to tell me with a straight face that common descent of species is also not falsifiable.
The pace at which we are gaining biological information keeps increasing, and every bit of data further confirms the pattern expected if one assumes common descent of species.
Besides, unless you think EVERY species that currently existed fit on an Ark of known dimensions - then you accept speciation - the arising of new species from a common ancestor. Those that accept a literal account of the Bible actually accept the common descent of species and evolution at a rate far beyond any proposed by evolutionary biology - they just don't accept evolution between “kinds” whatever the current and individual meaning of that is.
So what mechanism would you use to explain the arising of every modern species from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions?
What mechanism would you use to explain the arising of antibiotic resistance?
What mechanism would you use to explain the environmental adaptations of different human populations?
Do you have a mechanism? Do you think you don't need one?
I don’t believe I have ever heard the idea that creationism denies micro-evolution. The issue is macro-evolution, by which I mean the change of one form of life into another, including the leap from one phylum to another.
Selecting the survival of arganisms by the introduction of stimuli hasn’t been disputed for some time, to my knowledge. Heck, even Pavlov proved the adaptability of living beings (although not on a genetic level).
“Evolution is testable and reproducible and falsifiable. So is the common descent of species.”
How is it reproductible? Can we take a monkey in a lab and change a monkey into a person? Have we ever directly observed a monkey becoming a man?
No, it’s not falsifiable. Evolution makes no testable claims.
“What aspect of evolution (or common descent of species) do you think is unfalsifiable?”
The part which concerns speciation. Differentiation has been observed and was recorded by Darwin. Genetics, as Mendel found is also falsifiable and is based on science.
Evolution? Not so.
“I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.”
Indeed. This is differentiation as observed by Darwin. Can you make the bacteria spontaneously form?
“What is absolutely falsifiable is the Creationist position that there will be no change at all (i.e. no evolution) or that any mutation will be maladaptive and lead to the degradation of the species, or that the changes were selected from variations that ‘pre - existed’ within the population.”
True, but all scientific theories are falsifiable.
The argument that species are themselves immutable, is at present a conjecture. Plus there’s Lamarck. Darwin’s not the only game in town.
“Look into ERV sequences and then try to tell me with a straight face that common descent of species is also not falsifiable.”
Similarities in composition does not necessarily imply similarities in origin. There are other explanations.
“The pace at which we are gaining biological information keeps increasing, and every bit of data further confirms the pattern expected if one assumes common descent of species.”
Unfortunately, direct proof of such is not to be had. Circumstantial evidence, yes. Proof on the level of say general relativity? No. All scientific theories make falsifiable claims. Darwinism does not.
“Besides, unless you think EVERY species that currently existed fit on an Ark of known dimensions - then you accept speciation - the arising of new species from a common ancestor. Those that accept a literal account of the Bible actually accept the common descent of species and evolution at a rate far beyond any proposed by evolutionary biology - they just don’t accept evolution between “kinds” whatever the current and individual meaning of that is.”
Again, there are more theories then just this one.
“So what mechanism would you use to explain the arising of every modern species from those that could fit on a boat of known dimensions?”
Different from the theory that argues that every species that needed preservation from the flood is the same as every species in existence?
“What mechanism would you use to explain the arising of antibiotic resistance?”
The same that is used by cattle breeders. Differentiation.
What mechanism would you use to explain the environmental adaptations of different human populations?
Do you have a mechanism? Do you think you don’t need one?
I can take ten colonies of bacteria, subject them to ten different stresses, and derive populations that can survive the stress (through genetic changes) that previously they could not. This is reproducible.
Yes, that’s 100% true. But, your bacteria is going to be just that - bacteria. It’s not going to get up off the slide, open the lab door and walk down the street. It starts off as bacteria, and ends up as bacteria.
I believe that yes, there are changes based on influences such as environmental changes, infections, genetic mutations and abnormalities. These changes do not beget speciation. I do not believe these influences can change a dinosaur into a bird, or a cat into a dog, or monkey into man.