Yng – You misunderstand the definition of falsifiable. I’ll do my best to explain it. Here we go.

A falsifiable theory is one that can be properly tested.

That’s the most basic definition. Now, let’s take evolution, and say: ‘Ok, if evolution is true, then the earliest fossils of man would have to be found in Africa, because according to evolutionary theory, that’s where man’s closest ape relative resides.’ If these fossils were found elsewhere, there’d be a huge problem for evolution. Lo, there they are in Africa!

Another example would be if we were to say: ‘Ok, if evolution were true, modern species would not be found throughout the fossil record from top to bottom (which they should be if all species were formed at one time at the very beginning of life on this planet). Instead, what we would discover is less and less evidence of modern species as we go deeper and deeper into the fossil and geological record.’ Guess what? We do! This is pattern both predicted by evolutionary theory and completely consistent with evolutionary theory. In fact, this is the only pattern evolutionary theory allows for. And there it is.

There are countless tests just like this (albeit more complicated) on evolution, and it always comes up trumps. The chances of this being a coincidence are astronomically small.

See, being falsifiable is about making predictions based on the theory and then testing those predictions on the real world. If the theory is false, the real world comparison would demonstrate that (hence ‘falsifiable’). But if the test does not contradict the prediction, then you’ve got yourself a strong theory. The more verified tests, the stronger the theory. Only one strong contradiction is needed to debunk the theory. Yet this has never happened to evolution, despite countless tests for over a century.

One can be compelled to believe a theory (like ID) simply because it can’t be proven false. This is not enough for science. One must be able to test the theory against existing data, which will either verify or contradict said theory. Make sense?

Yes but the same thing could be said for the Resurrection of Christ- many things you would expect to find to verify that story check out (even if it does remain doubtful in many minds). The biggest thing is that we currently don't see resurrections of the dead and therefore find it hard to believe- well, I don't see animals progressively evolving either (timing issue, you see) and so I equally find evolution hard to believe.

Finding "early human fossils in north Africa" doesn't mean humans evolved from primates in north Africa. Are you serious? Sure, it checks out, but its certainly not a test to "falsify" evolution.

Secondly, as far as I hear, there are many dramas with the accurate testing of fossils, the dates keep changing. Also, as you've said yourself, the fossil record is sadly incomplete (I know, I used that against evolutionary theory before and am now using it for an opposing theory, which is probably wrong, but I guess if it can be used for/against one, it can be used for/against another).

Spendocrat, I graduated from high school last year, with a pretty high enter, and am studying biomedical science next year (I'm currently on a gap year). You sound as though you are already tertiary-educated. May I ask what you have studied? I don't mean to be nosy, but I am curious.

"By this you seem to imply that I entered this forum wanting to prove something (a reasonable alternative explanation)."
Not going to answer my question then?

I make no assumptions about your presence here. You responded to my request for an alternative with a query about the evidence, and I wanted to know whether your silence on the issue was because you have no such explanation. I still want to know that. It's an open question for those that are trying to poke holes in evolution, via science or otherwise. Evolution explains and is verified by that large body of evidence, and any competing theory would need to provide a better explanation for it. In so far as scientific theories can be proven, the general structure of evolution has been. That is a fact, and even though the evolutionary descendency of species on this planet is only a scientific fact, the evidence for and credibility of the theory is so extensive that it would be absurd not to include it in general science classes.

Frankly, I'm glad the fossil record is incomplete. Can you imagine the mess that there would be if every single creature fossilised when it died and those fossils were indestructible?

I would give you the point about the human fossils, (it would disprove evolution in general) but that doesn't cover the other things spendocrat listed. "I've heard there are some problems with X" doesn't cut it.

And I would love to see how to test whether Jesus was resurrected against existing data. Can't see exactly what possible carry on effects could only have occurred from his being resurrected though...

Deuc - what could be a better carry on effect than a giant bunny rabbit that delivers chocolate easter eggs in the night?!

Yng - the Afica test on it's own means little, but couple it with the vast body of other evidence and it gets hard to ignore. I used that particular example because it was simple and I only have 350 words. talkorigins.org has plenty more.

The debates among scientists in regards to fossils are mostly about smaller details, the kind which have no effect on the overall principles of evolution. For example, they may be about the date but no one would disagree on the era. Scientists are always debating the finer points on HOW evolution works, but none dispute evolution itself (and yes I know SOME do, but like I said, the amount of them is negligible and really not worth considering).

Creationists capitalise on this disputes and say: "See! They can't agree themselves!" Views are taken out of context with the intent of making evolution look much more questionable than it actually is. It's an old story.

Finally, just because there are some fossils missing from the fossil record doesn't mean the OTHER fossils don't exist. How do you explain the ones that do exist? We've explained why some are missing. Now you explain Lucy, with her obvious human and ape features. Pointing to what doesn't exist and ignoring what does is a pretty silly way to try and make a point.

And in answer to your question, I only just made it through high school (don't laugh, Einstein was a dropout). I pretty much just learn in my spare time. 'Armchair Physicist' I believe is the term :)

It is interesting to note that survival of species by evolution only seems to have happened by genes being added to create a more complex form, or new species. That is: there is an upward spiral culminating in man at the top of the evolutionary tree all by the accidental addition of mutating genes.

If mutations were the energy that drives evolution then there should be equal evidence of dropping off genes to create lesser complex species or reversions of a species. This is not the case we observe today, where dropping of genes by mutations causes deformations that cannot support a holistic survival of a species. A worm can survive as well as a chicken, one less complex than the other, so why not a reversal of the evolution of species?

From the evidence presented here by atheistic evolutionists implies that the mental desire to achieve something evolved a new gene, similarly if the desire is not there the gene could be lost. E.g. the power of an eagle’s eye developed because she had to search from heights for her food. Therefore if food was close at hand the eyesight would deteriorate. Are well feed eagles kept in cages loosing their keen eyesight?

If survival can occur by addition of genes; then survival can occur by dropping of genes. Therefore these lesser species should be evident. This does not seem to be the case. Therefore can we conclude there is design driven by direction latent within the original DNA? That it is not accidental, but design on a Predetermined template of what is a stable species?

"From the evidence presented here by atheistic evolutionists implies that the mental desire to achieve something evolved a new gene, similarly if the desire is not there the gene could be lost."
Alright, screw this. No more responding to Philo's points, he clearly has no idea what he is talking about and is not willing to learn. There is nothing in posts from anyone here that suggests evolution is a result of desire on the part of a species, and I have already tried to correct Philo on this matter in my post dated 6 September 2005 11:23:47 PM.

But I will reply to some things raised: firstly that we are by no means the culmination of evolution. What worked for us didn't work for others, that doesn't make them any less evolved. Next, it is not possible to "reverse evolution", something may evolve back into a previous form but that is still a "forward" process. It is simply not true that the loss of a gene will always cause deformations. (But note that Philo both claims that dropping of genes causes serious problems, and asks why it doesn't happen more often.) The loss of a trait does not equate with less genetic complexity and the lower degree of complexity would normally need to be beneficial to the survival of the species.