Evolution is not falsifiable.

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by Zeno, Jan 25, 2018.

  1. Zeno Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    I guess I should clarify something. I meant writing down a nucleotide base sequence that will create an organism just off the top of your head and by just using your brain. Nobody can do this. Nobody would have any clue as to how to begin. We're suppose to believe that this wasn't produced by intelligence when we have basically no clue as to how to do such a thing?
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,545
    Craig Vetner did. By using his brain. And he had a lot of help.
    Not only did Vetner have a clue, he actually did it.
    We do have a clue, since we did it. It took a lot of hard work, of course - we are trying to replicate in a few years what evolution took over 4 billion years to do.
     
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,998
    There's yer stupid. You have no concept how evolution works.

    The random mutations affect the genome in one of three ways, in degrees. Negative mutations are harmful (to a degree) to the host. Neutral mutations don't have any noticeable effect on the host. Beneficial mutations are ... beneficial (to a degree).

    For those of you who don't know how wrong Zeno is, there are two book I found useful when I was getting into this topic. I've owned dozens of copies of each and keep one pair on my computer table.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Anyone can achieve not-ignorant if they want to. Some folks value their ignorance, so they'll never read them.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    That's a bad example because genomes don't originate in complete form. They started simple then got refined and added to over time. Also if it wasn't intelligence, then it was something else, namely a process that didn't require advanced planning or modeling. We know this can work in principle, since we can program computers to create solutions to problems the same way, and people could not have predicted what they make either.
     
  8. Zeno Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    Apparently, I am being misunderstood. Go into a room by yourself with only a table, a chair, a pen, and a lot of paper. Now write down a nucleotide base sequence that will create an organism. So what exactly are you referring to that Craig Venter did? That he extracted the DNA sequence from various organisms?
     
  9. Zeno Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    215
    The idiotic responses I get is exactly why I don't debate.
     
  10. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,779
    Falsification is a criterion that only applies to theories.

    Evolution is not a theory; it is a fact.

    Any fish breeder, dog breeder and scientist with a petri dish can you show evolution happening in front of your very eyes. It is irrefutable, empirical observation.


    This is a great article/video of evolution happening while we watch.
    https://www.wired.com/2016/09/gorgeous-unsettling-video-evolution-action/



    What you are more likely doubting (and you can be forgiven, because of lots of newbies confuse the two) is the theory of Evolution by Natural Selection.

    It is a theory because it can't literally be observed that natural selection directly leads to evolution of the species as a whole.

    You can certainly make a darned compelling case for it, but - like relativity and other theories - it's a model. It attempts to explain what we see and how it happens. Models are not reality, and a newer model can always come along and explain our observations better.


    I hope that's not too idiotic an answer for you.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2018
  11. Gawdzilla Sama Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,998
    Yeah, who ever is giving you those responses should be ashamed of themselves. I'm quite sure you could do no worse on your own.
     
  12. DaveC426913 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,779
    [dupe]
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2018
  13. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    14,545
    That would take billions of years - provided you had access to the same natural selection process that evolution does. (Oddly enough, evolution took billions of years, too.)
    Nope, he used his brain. He studied what organisms need to do, then created a streamlined genome that only contained the bare minimum of information. His knowledge allowed him to do it in a few years, instead of the billions it would take if you wrote base pairs down at random (and then selected for viability.)
     
  14. spidergoat Venued Serial Membership Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    53,206
    Is that how science is determined?

    I certainly can do no such thing, but that doesn't mean there is no possible mechanism for such a coding sequence to occur. Non-intelligence can do what intelligence can't. I would say evolution has an IQ of 1. But in the long term, that's all it takes to defeat randomness.
     

Share This Page