dimitrov@csd2.UUCP (Isaac Dimitrovsky) (04/20/85)
[] > Maybe you should provide your definition of evolution before you say its > disprovable. In particular, what "observations would prove the theory > wrong"? . . . > That's true. Living fossils don't contradict evolution because nothing > does. Not an increase in complexity. Not stasis. Not a decrease in > complexity. Evolution thus reduces to description void of explanatory > value. . . . > Since never, I guess. It [evolution] "predicts" everything, and therefore, > nothing. Evolution could be proved wrong by finding any three species A, B, and C, such that according to evolution A and B diverged much later than A and C, and then finding any protein present in A, B, and C whose nonfunctional part is closer in A and C than in A and B. For example, take A = Human, B = Chimpanzee, C = Bullfrog, protein = hemoglobin. > Now ask yourself how many accepted scientific theories are really > falsifiable according to your criteria. Can you disprove gravity? > What observation would do so? Find a planet which does not have an elliptical orbit. This, in fact, is exactly how Newtonian gravity *was* falsified, to be replaced with general relativity. Unless you don't believe relativity either. > Couldn't I then say that creation is falsifiable by the observation that > it occurred a different way. Which observation is easier to observe. Both > are rather difficult. . . . > So you see that creation can be disproved. It has one discrete observation > that will falsify it, but no one is old enough to remember. Normally, falsifiability involves saying something like: Do experiment X, and you will always get result Y (preferable), or at least Do experiment X, and you will eventually get result Y. (The idea is that the experiments are supposed to be doable by mortal men or women). Isaac Dimitrovsky