One more, just can't resist this one.

Freediver: I noticed you stated earlier on that Evolution is not falsifiable. On this you have either been misled, or you are intentionally lying. I’m inclined to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.

Evolution is entirely falsifiable. That’s why it’s a valid and scientifically sound theory. You need to understand that the scientific community has accepted Evolution as the only falsifiable explanation for existing life on this planet for over 100 years.

Let’s call Evolution ‘A’, and the fossil record (or any other tangible evidence that fits with A and A only) we'll call ‘B’. A scientist says, ok, so for A to be true, B must exist out there somewhere. Let’s go find it. And they do. And are still discovering B to this day. And there is no other falsifiable reason for B to exist.

Another way to look at it would be to say that C = evidence, ANY kind of evidence, that exists in the world, that is NOT compatible with A. If C ever shows up, A is in trouble. In over 100 years of solid, continuous research, this has never happened.

This is how a theory becomes falsifiable. Evidence of this nature is built upon, and built upon for such a long time that there is no longer any logical or sensible reason to consider A untrue. We accept other conclusions using the exact same process as fact (such as…say, gravity for example), why then can we not accept Evolution as fact?

The answer, of course, is that we do Evolution as fact, and rightly so. The teeny minority who do not accept it are either seriously misguided, uneducated on the topic, or knowingly acting in a misguiding manner on account of a completely unrelated agenda (unfortunately for them, there is a mistaken belief that Evolution is in contradiction to their faith. It isn't).

Hope that clears everything up. We can all move on now, yeah?

Yeah.

Congats friends, a great and edfying debate. More please.
fluff4

good one Oligarch, I agree!

Quote, "In order for a net evolutionary gain to occur, you need incredible amounts of new specified information to be added to the genetic code. Yet, there is no proven natural mechanism that actually generates new specified genetic information. Natural selection alone does not add new genetic information and is limited to information already resident in the gene pool e.g. the variation in the beaks of Darwin's finches, which incidentally reverted back after the drought. ...However, such random beneficial mutations (an oxymoron as mutations are either neutral or deleterious) require a huge leap of faith."

Could someone here please demonstrate how new genetic information is added to create a more complex species from a basic gene structure of - say an omeba to form a human. Where did the new genes originate? how did the new genes enter the lower species to form a totally different species. All current demonstrations and observations show mutations (loss of genes) are the most predominant occurrence.

Freediver, in response to your Ozpolitic post…

“It [evolution] is not scientific. That is all I am arguing.”

Well, I don’t get it. The history of humanity’s awareness and development of the understanding of evolution is about as scientific as anything can be….surely.

The paragraph in the Ozpolitic article to which you referred me reads;

“Natural selection is a scientific theory. Evolution differs from natural selection by including the ideas of common ancestry and beneficial mutation. Just because a theory is not scientific does not mean that it has no merit. However, claiming that a theory is scientific lends it undeserved authority and diminishes the authority of science.”

Natural selection is about as well entrenched in the realm of fact and removed from the realm of theory as anything can be. Claiming that something such as this is still in the realm of theory greatly diminishes the integrity of science, which surely holds up the same principle as our legal system; something is considered fact when proven or shown to be the case beyond a reasonable doubt.

“Some people refer to them as macro and micro evolution.”

Yes, but that simply means that they are evolution on different scales, that’s all. The essence of evolution is natural selection. Natural selection is evolution in action, or is the mechanism of evolution if you like.

“If all you ended up with was pages of data, your research would be of little value.”

No I disagree. Data of the sort that I collect, in a good collated format, is invaluable without any further analysis, research or theorization. The sort of baseline science that I am most strongly involved with is the gathering of records of plant species so that we can better understand their distributional patterns, overall extent and with respect to officially rare or threatened species, their true rareness and threats.

This is science in its most pure form – simple, straightforward and 100% real. What I see, collect, photograph and record is what gets published, end of story.

Continued

“It is the conclusions (theories) you draw from those observations that have the value.”

Freediver, there seems to be a fundamental contradiction in this statement; theories are not conclusions! Theories are ideas about possible conclusions.

Again, the conclusions I reach are theory-free, being based entirely on hard data.

My science is a theory-free zone!

“But they are only valuable from a scientific perspective if they can be tested somehow.”

No, because others have faith in the data that I collect. No one has any reason to doubt its integrity. Therefore the data, and conclusions, are scientifically valuable without any need to test them.

However, it is all eminently testable for anyone who wishes to retrace the meanderings of the modern Ludwig Leichhardt through the wilds of north Queensland and see what they find (:>)

OK I will try to keep this brief. Those post limits are giving me the shlits. So Apologies if I appear abrupt.

Spendocrat, your first post is one big straw man, if it was directed at me.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

I didn't suggest it was wrong.

You also argue that it is widely accepted, yet even those evolutionsists who still call it science (rather than natural history) call it a theory not a law, which is what it would be if it had the accpetance you imply. It doesn't. Of course, bringing scientific terms into natural history takes away a lot of their meaning.

So, your next post, starts with an ad hominem.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/logical-fallacies.html#ad%20hominem

Then you start on about falsifiability, but you miss the point. In the scientific method, falsifiability implies experimentation.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/what-is-experiment.html

This is designed to stop group think, and the circular reasoning you displayed. For example, you claim that if you make an observation, then interpret that observation from an evolutionary perspective, you can use that interpretation as evidence for the theory of evolution. That is no more scientific than proclaiming the wonders of nature, then insisting that because it is wonderful it shows the hand of God at work.