This is a pretty simple question, aimed solely at those who believe that the theory of evolution accounts for the origins and/or development of life. I want you to outline what sort of proof would disprove the theory, what would falsify it for you?
Scientific theories have to be falsifiable lest they be nothing more than speculation and linguistic fundamentalism yet I’ve heard dozens of pro-evolutionists claim that it is an indisputable fact. If this were so then it wouldn’t be a scientific theory.
what would disprove it… if it turned out genetic information was transferred in totally different ways than we think
or if experiments showed us DNA doesn’t mutate
the basic idea of evolution theory is really sturdy
what might be easier to doubt is if it’s responsible for the origin of species
that would be… a better theory, lol
As Will stated, an absence of a mechanism for natural selection and/or disproving natural selection
An appearance by the Intelligent Designer, with blueprints. Well, this technically doesn’t disprove evolution, but it does make the case for ID more valid.
An absence of a plurality of species on Earth.
Genetically static populations. This one is fairly weak, since inbreeding can accomplish it, but it could be used as a support.
Widespread scientific support for an alternative theory that better models the origin of the species. ID is trying to go this route, and failing.
Read some counter-arguments against Woese in the early 80s, I think you’d like them. Much of the modern, scientific view of evolution/phylogeny is heavily influenced by Woese from that time period. The arguments levied against him could be spun to be anti-evolution. Of course, we all accept Woese nowadays, but following the debate might be instructive.
An abscence of homogeny, and convergent evolution… the total reversal of all the empirical evidence found to date… in short… the universe entering the twilight zone.
I really don’t think the theory of evolution can be disproved barring some extremely unlikely scenarios as already mentioned. The weight of evidence is just too heavy to even begin a credible arguement. Only the literal creationists disbelieve and they are in the tiniest minority. Even the mainstream fundamentalists have tried to reconcile the differences between biblical explanation and scientific investigation with the back-door ID crapola.
The specifics inside species development may be questioned because of the paucity of enough material to say much with certainty, but the theory still holds. Until our alien masters come and explain how it really works, evolution will be our explanation…
Evolution does not need to be falsified to become obsolete. All that is needed is a better/more plausible theory that explains and fits the bountiful amount of evidence we have to work with. So far only evolution comes close. Were something else to arise that better fits the facts(just like any other scientific theory), that’s all it would take. Of course, I won’t hold my breath on this one.
Most likely any theory of such would be an adaptation though, Such as einstien adapting Newtons theory of gravity. It would most likely be an improvement, but the foundation would still be intact.
Right now scientists are looking at cpt violations to find problems with relativity, so they understand how to handle the problems of the incompatibility of the standard model. Yet I highly doubt anyone here would argue for the idea that Relativity would be completely overthrown, we would just modify it. We still use Newtons laws.
There are several good points made by several others in this thread. Perhaps I could improve on them by adding more, but I would rather do this a different way.
I ask you, what would clear up your doubts about this theory?
Also, are you seriously stating that evolutionary theory is a pseudoscience and/or a religion?
That the majority of scientists (and I mean the vast majority) take evolutionary theory to be the best account we have of speciation isn’t something I dispute. I’m just well aware that the scientific community is a historicised and historicising body of knowledge just like any other.
As to the logic of the scientific method and the logic of religious/theological fatih - I think that I’ve made my feelings pretty clear on this…
I don’t believe that anyone here has answered the original question. None of the examples given Prove evolution. Therefore their reverse certainly doesn’t disprove it either. Come on guys sharpen up.
I shouldn’t have thrown the religion part into the question. What I’m wondering is if you are making the statement that evolutionary science is pseudoscience. This sounds like an innoccuous question, but this is the kind of accusation that brings fistfights among scientist.
If it could be shown that a contemporary species had more than one ancestral line, that would pose problematic for evolution as we know it. Evolution would provide for a species branching out into child species, but not merging into one.
No, evolution isn’t pseudoscience, it is accepted by the vast majority of the scientific community. By definition that makes it science (and this is partly my point)…
I’ll cook you up an outline for falsification if you answer me these questions:
What would falsify other theories? What would falsify Germ Theory of Disease; the Theory of Relativity; or Quantum Theory?
Why does the theory of evolution continually get singled out for this type of scrutiny?
For the same reason that capitalism is the most heavily criticised political philosophy, and in making this analogy I hope that you understand a little more quite how I see the theory of evolution…
Okay… here goes, Since science has shown that the life on earth today can arize by a mindless algorithmic process, it is on you to show that somewhere a MIRACLE occurs… such magic that could not be explained by a mindless process, would be proof enough to disprove natural selection. Happy miracle hunting…
