Christians are anti-science.

[IBDaMann]

The very nanosecond someone finds chimpanzee fossils in Cambrian rocks, the theory of evolution will be immediately falsified.

Nope. An unfalsifiable theory cannot be shown to be false.

Darwin's theory merely states that life began at some point and immediately began evolving. What the original common species was is not stated. What the intermediate species were and when the occurred is not specified.

[gfm7175]

First of all, it is falsifiable. If you mean that it can't 100% be proven true or false, that's all scientific theories.

Darwin's theory is not falsifiable. It is not possible to falsify speculation about past events.

You could make the same argument about gravity.

Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.

Secondly, it's not just speculation about the past because evolution still occurs today. Some species evolve fast enough that we're able to observe the changes happening.

Here you are conflating Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" with evolution itself. Darwin's theory IS indeed speculation about the past (positing that present day life forms are the result of mutations of more primitive life forms). Evolution itself, on the other hand, has been observed in nature. We just don't know whether Darwin's theory is true or not, as his theory is merely speculation about past events, and we don't have a time machine to see if those past events actually happened or not.

[IBDaMann]

You can say any theory isn't science using this logic.

No. You should learn what falsifiable means. That is the root of all your confusion.

Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Darwin's Evolutions is not falsifiable and does not predict nature.

You could say the Big Bang theory isn't science.

The Big Bang theory is not science. It is speculation about the past. It is not a falsifiable model. It does not predict nature.

You could say it's not science to assume that gravity was around before humans were alive.

Correct. Science does not speculate about the past. Humans speculate about the past. Science does not.

The reason evolution, or any theory, is considered a fact

It's only considered a "fact" when all parties agree to it. If you and I were discussing Darwin's theory then yes, between us, it's a fact-Jack. The moment you let someone else into the conversation who does not accept Darwin's speculation then it ceases to be a fact and becomes an argument. I'm happy to make that argument all day, all week, but at that point it is an argument, not a fact.

... is because there is enough evidence and repeatable experiments to prove that evolution is most likely true.

There is no such thing as a "sufficient quantity" of evidence that requires people to believe a theory. There have been no experiments on Darwin's speculation about the past because we don't have time machines. There have been plenty of observations and tests on genetics and that is science.

As for it being falsifiable, in what context?

You really need to learn what that word means. There is no "context." It's what makes science totally objective and removes it from the subjective world of opinion. Falsifiability is why no one owns science. No one's permission or approval is required to create science. Falsifiability is an absolute requirement for science. No unfalsifiable model can even enter the scientific method.

Don't worry, I won't leave you hanging.

Falsifiability is the inherent quality of a model to specify what will show the model to be false if it is, in fact, false. For example, E = m*c^2 is falsifiable. All anyone has to do to show it to be false is to find just one example in nature whereby that relationship does not hold. It's not a matter of anyone's opinion. If someone were to find such a falsifying example then the model is false. Period. No one gets to say "Awww, you're just cherry-picking" or "That doesn't prove anything."

Nobody gets a say. The model itself must be falsifiable.

Is it possible to prove 100% that evolution didn't happen?

Nope. That's the nature of unfalsifiable theories. They can't be shown to be true and they cannot be shown to be false.

... but the same can be said for any theory.

Nope. Science is that set of falsifiable models that no one has been able to show are false.

My favorite example is the Stefan-Boltzmann law (bear with me): Radiance = Temperature^4 * SB_Constant * Emissivity

It blows Greenhouse Effect out of the water and turns warmizombies into science deniers as they argue in desperation that this particular law doesn't apply to earth. Their problem is that is a falsifiable model that they cannot prove false ... to their chagrin.

[Phantasmal]

Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

Wikipedia › wiki › Gravity

Gravity - Wikipedia

[Cypress]

Nope. An unfalsifiable theory cannot be shown to be false.

Darwin's theory merely states that life began at some point and immediately began evolving. What the original common species was is not stated. What the intermediate species were and when the occurred is not specified.

Elements of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have already been falsified. As I recall, by Gregor Medel's work in genetics.

The Lamarkian theory of evolution has been falsified for more than a century.

If you do not think evolutionary ideas can falsified, I have my doubts you have ever stepped foot on a college campus.

Darwin lived a 150 years ago. His idea of speciation by natural selection was brilliant, but he was also wrong about certain elements of the theory. 20th century Genetics and modem discoveries in the fossil record have been filling in the holes and correcting Darwin's misconceptions.

We are still working on the details of gravitational theory 500 years after Newton. We are still working on the details of evolutionary theory. But the broad outlines of evolution by natural selection is one of the most firmly confirmed theories in the history of science

[IBDaMann]

Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.

Correct, and the theory of gravity is a theory.

Here you are conflating Darwin's "Theory of Evolution" with evolution itself.

This is correctly specifying Darwin's theory of evolution as opposed to other theories of evolution.

[gfm7175]

Do you and your church friends fall down and throw up with all this circular reasoning?

What "circular reasoning" are you referring to? What is your point about whatever "circular reasoning" you are referring to?

[Phantasmal]

Correct, and the theory of gravity is a theory.


This is correctly specifying Darwin's theory of evolution as opposed to other theories of evolution.

I deleted that post because it incorrectly attributed those quotes to me, they are not mine.

[IBDaMann]

Elements of Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection have already been falsified.

Incorrect.

Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified the existence of a species that didn't evolve from a parent species?
Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified that life never began at any point?

If not, Darwin's very simple and straightforward theory has not been falsified. You'll probably notice that the time travel requirement renders the theory unfalsifiable. You'll probably notice that the word "unfalsifiable" means that it cannot be falsified. When you think about it, it all kind of comes together.

The Lamarkian theory of evolution has been falsified for more than a century.

Nope. The Lamarckian theory of inheritance has been falsified and replaced by genetics models.

If you do not think evolutionary ideas can falsified, I have my doubts you have ever stepped foot on a college campus.

... says the guy who thinks unfalsifiable theories are nonetheless falsifiable.

Darwin lived a 150 years ago. His idea of speciation by natural selection was brilliant, but he was also wrong about certain elements of the theory.

Don't stop there. Tell everyone what those certain elements are.

20th century Genetics and modem discoveries in the fossil record have been filling in the holes and correcting Darwin's misconceptions.

Again, what specific elements of Darwin's theory do you believe have been shown to be false?

[Phantasmal]

Incorrect.

Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified the existence of a species that didn't evolve from a parent species?
Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified that life never began at any point?

If not, Darwin's very simple and straightforward theory has not been falsified. You'll probably notice that the time travel requirement renders the theory unfalsifiable. You'll probably notice that the word "unfalsifiable" means that it cannot be falsified. When you think about it, it all kind of comes together.



Nope. The Lamarckian theory of inheritance has been falsified and replaced by genetics models.


... says the guy who thinks unfalsifiable theories are nonetheless falsifiable.


Don't stop there. Tell everyone what those certain elements are.


Again, what specific elements of Darwin's theory do you believe have been shown to be false?

Again, those quotes are not mine, I deleted the post because the quote feature went haywire and attributed quotes to me that were not mine!

[StoneByStone]

Darwin's theory is not falsifiable. It is not possible to falsify speculation about past events.

It's falsifiable in that you could potentially disprove the evidence which shows humans most likely share a common ancestor with apes.

Gravity is not a theory; it is a force.

Holy shit.

[StoneByStone]

Darwin's theory is not science...


Evolution itself, however, is science and does occur.

Are you Christian?

[IBDaMann]

[COLOR=#3C4043][FONT=Roboto]Gravity is most accurately described by the general theory of relativity (proposed by Albert Einstein in 1915), which describes gravity not as a force, but as a consequence of the curvature of spacetime caused by the uneven distribution of mass.

... but gravity is far more usefully described as a force calculated as: Grav_Const * [mass1 * mass2] / Distance^2

[gfm7175]

It's falsifiable in that you could potentially disprove the evidence which shows humans most likely share a common ancestor with apes.

You cannot falsify speculation about past unobserved events, dude. This is cut and dry straight forward plain and simple stuff that we're talking about here... I don't know how else to say it.

Holy shit.

What? Did you see something?

[Cypress]

Incorrect.

Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified the existence of a species that didn't evolve from a parent species?
Has anyone successfully travelled back in time and verified that life never began at any point?

If not, Darwin's very simple and straightforward theory has not been falsified. You'll probably notice that the time travel requirement renders the theory unfalsifiable. You'll probably notice that the word "unfalsifiable" means that it cannot be falsified. When you think about it, it all kind of comes together.



Nope. The Lamarckian theory of inheritance has been falsified and replaced by genetics models.


... says the guy who thinks unfalsifiable theories are nonetheless falsifiable.


Don't stop there. Tell everyone what those certain elements are.


Again, what specific elements of Darwin's theory do you believe have been shown to be false?

Good boy, you can frantically google for Lamarkian ideas of evolution two nanoseconds after I mentioned it

Those are not Phantasmal quotes, you screwed up.

Darwin's theory of pangenesis in his evolutionary scheme was falsified by work in genetics. I think Gregor Mendel's pea plants played a role.