Posted on 03/05/2002 9:45:44 PM PST by Southack
This is part two of the famous "Million Monkeys Typing On Keyboards for a Million Years Could Produce The Works of Shakespeare" - Debunked Mathematically.
For the Thread that inadvertently kicked started these mathematical discussions, Click Here
For the Original math thread, Click Here
You see, nonsensical answers like this make the point that there isn't anything that could falsify it.
Why is it nonsensical? Is it nonsensical to propose that an object fall up? That would be a falsification of gravity. So would an abject that did not accelerate in a free fall (assuming it has not reached terminal velocity).
The fact that your first response is "that would never happen" is itself a strong statement of the explanatory power and evidence of the theory.
Yes. Still rather extremist.
Anything descrepancies that might ralistically be observed would cause a modification of theory rather than dumping it.
And were enough discrepancies produced, resulting in enough modifications, the theory as it exists now would become something else entirely. But at that point the new theory would still (presumably) be the best scientific explanation.
Suffice it to say that evolution is falsifiable. Evolution makes predictions that can be tested, and there are DNA results, radiometric datings, fossil records, etc. all of which may result in the theory being tweaked or modified. But nothing, in 150 years, has displaced the fundamental roles of mutation, speciation, and natural selection.
ID cannot make the same claims - it does not predict, and it is not falsifiable.
"Discover and demonstrate a method of natural speciation that does not depend upon natural selection." - Physicist
That wouldn't falsify Evolution to the diehards. I can show you an example in the lab today where speciation is physically occuring and does not depend upon natural selection, yet no Evolutionist would agree that such an example falsifies Darwinism.
1: The sudden (miraculous) appearance of a new creature in significant numbers over a wide territory. this experiment would have to be conducted by God, but it would convince me and a lot of other people.
More seriously, what is it about evolution that you don't believe happens? Variation? Selection? I once saw an article in the magazine "The Plain truth" that denied mutation exists. It was full of technical jargon and written by PHDs.
Or do you simply deny that variation can result in "increased information" -- sort of like denying that quantum tunneling exists -- if it can't happen logically, it can't happen.
My answer while addressing the same point, was, IMHO, slightly less dry than, "A sport showing characteristics not inherited from lineage but also not tracable to a change or mutation in gene, thereby giving lie to the theory that phenotype is directed by the genotype established during the conception of offspring, and that said genotype is transmissible."
Just seems to make for a more interesting thread...
Realistically in terms of experiments that can be done or observations made.
It seems Darwin's predictions have been proven wrong, but that only causes the theory to be reassessed.
Gradual change over timne was not seen, so punctuated equilibrium is proposed etc...
I do not think there is anything that could falsify the theory.
Evolution and ID are really paradigms, not theory.
No. That would only show evolution may occur by means other than known genetic mutation driven natural selection.
Hey I wear work boots but it would seem to me that ID's claims of irreducibility can be falsified. You simply have to show how something they claim to be irreducible can occur naturally, no?
Evolution on the other hand would seem to be tougher to falsify since it just sprouts a new branch.
That can't possibly be science!
First of all, using logic, whatever ID does or doesn't claim/predict has no bearing on whether or not Evolutionary Theory is itself flawed. If one must prove ID in order to falsify ET to you, then you are stepping outside the scientific process into the land of dogma.
Second, Intelligent Design DOES make predictions, and you've been shown at least one of those predictions on an earlier thread. It's a shame that I have to repeat it to you, but Intelligent Design predicts that speciation events will occur rapidly (i.e., a designer introduces a new model).
Third, ID is falsifiable. If we can show that DNA can not be formed by intelligent processes in the lab, then ID is doomed. If we can show that all speciation events happened over extremely long time periods, then ID is doomed.
Evolutionary Theory once made the claim that speciation events occurred over very long time periods. That claim was accepted as a reason to falsify ID.
But the fossil record didn't comply. So many rapid speciation events were uncovered in our fossil records that a new Evoutionary Theory was required to replace Darwinism. That theory is known today as Punctuated Equilibrium, which coincidentally makes the same prediction about speciation speed as does Intelligent Design.
The converse of the Third Point above is fairly interesting. Evolutionary Theory needs to show that DNA for a life form can form naturally (abiogenically) in the lab.
That's never been done.
Uh, we gave you plenty of examples that could falsify the theory. If the theory has to modified in the face of new information, well, that's SCIENCE. Since all of our scientific knowledge is subject to revision upon further discovery, would you suggest that all science is bunk?
IF you've got examples of how ID is falsifiable, or of predictions made by ID, I'd like to know. Heck,if you've even got a nice statement of ID, I'd like to hear it. But don't just assert that evolution and ID are equivalent - they aren't, not by miles.
Evolution is not perfect, but it is the best explanation for the observed evidence. Nothing is as good or better. If you want to disprove it, show that natural selection does not occur, or that it is insufficient to explain the observed evidence, etc. And then offer a superior scientific alternative.
Are you saying that any possibility, even if it has no supporting evidence, is sufficient to destroy any argument?
And the theory of evolution cannot currently accomodate such a mechanism.
You know, my dad gave me an old hatchet last week. He got it from his dad 35 years ago. That hatchet is sort of a family heirloom; it's been in our family for over 70 years. The handle has been replaced 12 times, and it's gotten 7 new heads, but heck! it's still cuts like it was brand new. I guess they just don't make 'em like they used to!
I can show you a physical example, repeatable in any lab in the world and occurring here in the USA on a daily basis, of speciation that occurs non-naturally.
Are you prepared to stand by your claim above that this example will falsify Evolutionary Theory?
We all know that this is all up to the individual interpreting what the fossils mean, and what the 'predictions' are. In other words, those who hinge their philosophy of life on their belief in evolution will find ways to 'interpret' the fossils in an appropriate light. Those who hinge their philosophy of life on ID will do the same.
In the end, it all boils down to what we each chose to believe.
True. Proving ID does not disprove evolution. Neither does it displace it.
1. ID is not science, so it is not a competing theory.
2. ID is not mutually exclusive with evolution. The Creator could have created the world before evolution began.
3. Evolution is the best scientific explanation. It is predictive, descriptive, and falsifiable. It also satisfies Occam's razor wrt ID. It explains MORE than ID, and predicts MORE than ID.
Second, Intelligent Design DOES make predictions, and you've been shown at least one of those predictions on an earlier thread. It's a shame that I have to repeat it to you, but Intelligent Design predicts that speciation events will occur rapidly (i.e., a designer introduces a new model).
1. Please provide a statement of ID. What does your theory SAY? You have never provided this. What specifically was designed, how, and when?
2. How does your prediction flow from the theory? Why must we expect fast transitions and not slow ones - how do we know what the abilities or preferenes of the creator are?
Third, ID is falsifiable. If we can show that DNA can not be formed by intelligent processes in the lab, then ID is doomed.
Since it is impossible to prove a negative, this does not qualify.
If we can show that all speciation events happened over extremely long time periods, then ID is doomed.
Why does this follow? Can the Creator create slowly? If so, why couldn't the creator create everything slowly? You are not being specific enough about your theory to be able to evaluate these claims.
The converse of the Third Point above is fairly interesting. Evolutionary Theory needs to show that DNA for a life form can form naturally (abiogenically) in the lab. That's never been done.
That does not mean that it is impossible. Absence of evidence is not proof.
Actually, no, you didn't.
I am not particulary familiar with ID. Perhaps you could explain it and compare it to evolutionary theory, hoiw they differ, how they correspond, etc...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.