Rachumlakenschlaff wrote:
You forgot the crucial steps of predictions and experimentation.
Condorman wrote:
No I didn't. I short-handed it by saying "then [edited- CM] try to find more observations to confirm or deny their hypothesis."
The theory of evolution rules out whole classes of obervations.
If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science.
Among other things, it describes and explains the observed pattern to the emergence of animal species. Based on that one can predict that a simian fossil will never be found in Jurassic-era rock, for example. An out-of-order fossil will pose serious problems for the theory.
Abiogenesis is separate from evolution. The experiment you describe demonstrates only that organic compounds can arise naturally. It has apparently escaped your notice that the Creation Hypothesis must be supported by more than a list of problems with evolution. This is known as a False Dichotomy, and is a frequent visitor in these-here parts.
Assume, IOW, that theory of evolution has been disproven, debunked, and discarded. Now make your case.
The statement is often made that evolution is flawed but it is the best (only) scientific theory we have. Therefore, we accept it until and unless something better comes along. That is a choice but it is not required by the study of science. It is quite rational to reject an obviously flawed scientific theory, embrace no scientific theory at all, and entertain the possibility that science may not be capable of answering all questions.
However, I have been trying to make the argument from information theory, which was developed quite independently from evolutionary theory. If I propose a theory of perpetual motion and present evidence that, while not proving my theory, prove sub elements of it, would you accept it? I doubt it. It clearly is at odds with another, well-established theory, the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The argument from information theory is not based on simply finding flaws with evolution, but on demonstrating that evolution is inconsistent with information theory.
It is also possible to prove a theory incorrect by contraindicating experimental evidence. In fact, it is generally accepted that this is a requirement of any theory: falsifiability. This is one of the major valid criticisms of evolution. You cannot prove a theory without supporting experimental evidence. It is not sufficient to simply observe.
If you allow a theory to rule out observations then you most certainly are not practicing science.Are you trying to prove yourself incapable to hold a conversation? Because unless I misunderstand you, you have succeeded admirably. Mercury's orbit deviates in a way not allowed by Newton's theory of gravity. This observation proved Newton wrong.
The argument from information theory is not based on simply finding flaws with evolution, but on demonstrating that evolution is inconsistent with information theory.
Perhaps you are misapplying information theory. Please define "information."
It is also possible to prove a theory incorrect by contraindicating experimental evidence. In fact, it is generally accepted that this is a requirement of any theory: falsifiability. This is one of the major valid criticisms of evolution. You cannot prove a theory without supporting experimental evidence. It is not sufficient to simply observe.
Every single fossil is a potential falsification of evolution. I covered this in my last post. I provided a specific observation that would falsify evolution. You even quoted me in your response. Then you forge right ahead with this "evolution is not falsifiable" nonsense. Why is that? While you're at it, what observation would falsify the Intelligent Design hypothesis?