Quote:


And I responded to your response. There is no point repeating it and having the same discussion over and over again. A debate consists of responses to what the other person says, not repeating your position over and over again.

Quote:


That doesn't make any theory scientific.

Quote:


How have I misrepresented your argument?

Quote:


How about instead of focussing on what you think I am saying, you respond to what I actually say?

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 11:52am:


That's true too, but it appears to be an attempt to confuse the argument. Your point was that evolutionary theory was not scientific implicitly because it could not be falsified. The inability to falsify was the crux of your argument. In fact it was your argument.

Are you suggesting that evolutionary biology is not scientific for another reason? I have already provided examples of how it can be falsified.

In fact it has already been falsified as being the only means of acquiring inheritable characteristics.

When a theory is falsified, we can do one of two things - either reject it totally, or restate it with certain modifications.

Evolutionary science hangs together quite well, despite some minor exceptions.  As with any theory, it can and will be modified in future as a result of any new findings.

Your argument has basically evaporated.

Do you have any other arguments?

What other references besides your own can you provide that show it is not falsifiable? Who else supports your position that it is not a scientific theory?

I have been at a loss to find them other than the religious lobby.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 12:13pm:



FD,

Right O,

You're talking as if Evolutionary biology is monolithic - has only one aspect. Clearly it does not. We can certainly falsify certain aspects of the original theory of Evolution as per Charles Darwin. Not only can we- we already have done so.

The first example was, as you yourself have pointed out in the discrepancies found between genetics and DNA and the original  Theory of evolution. The specific experiments in genetics falsified individual aspects of Charles Darwin's original theory.

The knowledge base was therefore amended to reflect the new findings.

To say that evolutionary biology is not falsifiable and is therefore not scientific is akin to saying that the theory of phamacology is not falsifiable. You can certainly falsify aspects of it, just as you can falsify aspects of evolutionary biology.

Can you falisify astronomy? no?
Can you falsify Chemistry? again no, because it is not one single scientific theory.

Can you falsify dentistry? (well I've seen some false teeth, but no)

Can you falsify evolutionary biology? Again no. The argument is basically not applicable to a branch of science, unless you're trying to say that a branch of science is not falsifiable, and therefore not scientific?  In fact none of the known branches of science are falsifiable. Is that what you're saying? (I'll give you time to consult your creationist source material)

OK - Here is an example of an experiment that can be used to falsify the concept that acquired immunity can not be transferred to the progeny. This is actually very controversial, but the soma to germline theory has been tested using markers to identify the genotypes transferred.

This experiments potentially falsifies the premise that the only means of transferring individual characteristics is via the inherited DNA, and challenges one but not all aspects of evolutionary mechanisms.

While the work is highly controversial, there is no doubt that many biologists are rethinking the details of evolutionary biology on that basis.

You'll have to come up with a better argument. Give me some examples of aspects of evolutionary biology that can not be falsified.

(An invalid response is something like - It's the vibe - It's mabo - I read it on a creationist website so it must be true)

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 2:15pm:


In what way? Please explain why Pharmacology is scientific whereas evolution is not.

By the way, natural selection is one of the primary mechanisms of evolution, but I'll read your article when I get the chance. I might be pleasantly surprised. (edit : I wasn't) Do you have qualifications in evolutionary biology by the way? (edit: disregard that question - the answer is obvious to me) I'd be interested in how your theory developed.

(edit: Nowhere could I find your definition of evolution on that page. What do you say about how organisms modify their environment?)

Here is one example of an experiment that was used to test some aspects of evolutionary biology:

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/klu/jsfg/2003/00000003/F0040001/05103048?c...

I edited my original response.

I found it difficult to concentrate on your article. It was certainly falsifiable (easily) but that doesn't mean that it was scientific. I must have missed your definition of evolution.

freediver wrote on Dec 11^th, 2008 at 2:45pm:


All that is required is a simple test of the hypothesis. Maybe it doesn't fit into your definition of an experiment, but it certainly tests the hypothesis that the Wessman barrier can not be penetrated.