dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/29/85)
[] >> "Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase >> precisely because it cannot be falsified. > > This is not true. If science could observe a transmutation, this would > disprove creation. Since many evolutionists have abandoned gradualism, > this may not be unreasonable! Also, if scientists could produce life > in a laboratory (not just the building blocks of life, but LIFE), > this would also disprove creation. As creation holds that only the > creator can create. > If the fossils can produce a clear cut transitional species, this > may also do the job. I'd say there's another requirement for falsifiability (I'll try not to add any more, I promise). To wit, you have to explain *why* these observations would falsify creationism. For example, I could say "Evolution would be falsified if the Indians won the world series this year." Unless I explain why this would falsify evolution, this prediction has no value. To your credit, you don't give predictions which are as safe as mine (sorry, all you Indian fans). Also, you do give some explanation for the prediction that scientists will be unable to create life in the laboratory. But I still don't see why the events you give would falsify evolution. I am not sure what you mean by a transmutation, so I'll pass on that prediction (further explanation welcome). I don't see why creation holds that only the creator can make life from nonlife. And I also don't see why the creator would not have made a transitional species. In addition, by the discussion on the network so far, it seems that creationists are unwilling to accept a species as transitional just because it is a physical intermediate, but require other evidence for its transitional status. So to these creationists, advancing physically intermediate species as evidence for evolution is circular reasoning. (By the way, I do not totally disagree with this). So, I ask you to explain your predictions based on creationism further, or to give new ones. In case you haven't caught the predictions made by evolution that have been given on the net recently, here are a couple. In light of my comments above, I also give a short explanation of why each prediction would falsify evolution. 1. Fossils belonging to species that are believed to have evolved recently will not be found in old strata. To some degree this is a flexible prediction, since beliefs about when fossils evolved are based largely on the fossil record. But, based on the fossil record that we know about, we now have a reasonably detailed hypothesis about the order in which different species evolved. While it might not be too disturbing to find species slightly out of this order in new strata, it would just not do to find human fossils in PreCambrian strata. This would falsify evolution since the species that have evolved recently should not have been around to be fossilized when the older strata were laid down. 2. Species which are believed to have diverged recently (i.e. based on the fossil record), and which have corresponding proteins, will not be too different in the nonfunctional sections of the protein; species which are believed to have diverged long ago will be very different. This prediction is made by evolution since mutations in the nonfunctional section of proteins would be expected to mount up over time. Isaac Dimitrovsky
dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/29/85)
[] Sorry, in that last note change: But I still don't see why the events you give would falsify evolution. to: But I still don't see why the events you give would falsify creation. All these double negatives get me mixed up. Isaac Dimitrovsky
jtm@syteka.UUCP (Jim McCrae) (05/04/85)
The issue of falsifiability brings up a dead horse begging to be flogged some more. Proving that modern evolutionary paradigms are invalid does nothing to prove the Creationist paradigm is valid. Proving that all species were created simultaneously by a single creator at some point in the past does not prove modern evolutionary paradigms to be invalid. Evolution and Creationism are apples and oranges, folks. Am I wrong in suspecting that teh Creationist's true goal is to establish the Bible as an authority in issues of scientific, philosophical and social importance? The triumph of Creationism being taught along with evolution in schools would be one more precedent for the Bible as final arbitrator in arguments of statewide (nationwide) concern. The ultimate goal, I suspect, is not to prove that a particular God created all species. It is to establish the Bible as the literal guidebook to societal and legal infrastructures of the state (the USofA). Jim McCrae - Sytek, Mountain View CA
ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) (08/01/85)
>> Do you mean that ONLY the `best suited' ones will survive? By that do >> you also mean that the `inferior' ones will perish? And what the >> hell do you mean by `best suited'? [ELLIS] > >Best suited for survival. No, not ONLY the best ones will survive, best those >best ones will most likely dominate the "gene pool" in the subsequent >generations. Right, it's a tautology!!! [RICH] OK, Rich, I have a theory for you: The universe is really composed of one kind of particle -- ousions. They behave in such a way as to account for all known particles, forces, and other phenomena yet to be discovered. [proposed in net.physics] By Occam, this theory ought to be preferable to anything in physics, since I have reduced all entities to one. Of course, the theory is not falsifiable -- it cannot predict other than what is or will be, it cannot lead to contradiction -- and consequently no scientist would bother with it. Scientists have discarded many notions on the same grounds, like ether. When creationists say that God made everything ~6000 years ago in such a way that it appears to be as it is, with present day starlight installed in transit 6000 lightyears away (so we might see distant stars), sane scientists must likewise disregard such a theory as unfalsifiable. It is clearly possible for a totally logical person to believe the above kind of creationist theory and never be dissuaded. Such a creationist theory is close kin to being tautological -- it is unfalsifiable. I would prefer to think of evolution as a non-theory, rather than tautological as you have suggested, Rich -- that evolution proposes nothing beyond the forces acting today creating all present diversity. >Yeah, smash this... :-) I would think a lack of predictivity would be >pleasing to someone out to smash causality. What makes you think I want to do that? SMASH CAUSALITY!!! -michael
csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) (08/03/85)
In article <435@spar.UUCP> ellis@spar.UUCP (Michael Ellis) writes: > OK, Rich, I have a theory for you: > > The universe is really composed of one kind of particle -- ousions. They > behave in such a way as to account for all known particles, forces, and > other phenomena yet to be discovered. [proposed in net.physics] > > By Occam, this theory ought to be preferable to anything in physics, since > I have reduced all entities to one. Actually, you shouldn't call them "ousions". They've already been named "quarks". -- Charles Forsythe CSDF@MIT-VAX "You are a stupid fool." -Wang Zeep "I'm not a fool!" -The Hated One
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/03/85)
>>> Do you mean that ONLY the `best suited' ones will survive? By that do >>> you also mean that the `inferior' ones will perish? And what the >>> hell do you mean by `best suited'? [ELLIS] >>Best suited for survival. No, not ONLY the best ones will survive, best those >>best ones will most likely dominate the "gene pool" in the subsequent >>generations. Right, it's a tautology!!! [RICH] > OK, Rich, I have a theory for you: > The universe is really composed of one kind of particle -- ousions. They > behave in such a way as to account for all known particles, forces, and > other phenomena yet to be discovered. [proposed in net.physics] > > By Occam, this theory ought to be preferable to anything in physics, since > I have reduced all entities to one. Occam says eliminate as many ASSUMPTIONS as possible, not "ignore the evidence". It's bad enough to twist me, why twist poor Occam? >>Yeah, smash this... :-) I would think a lack of predictivity would be >>pleasing to someone out to smash causality. > What makes you think I want to do that? > > SMASH CAUSALITY!!! Oh, gee, I don't know, probably somebody from planet Zupo appending some little two-word ditty to the end of all your articles against your "will"... -- "Do I just cut 'em up like regular chickens?" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr