Talk:Evolution/falsifiabilitydraft/Archive1

Discussion points

I'm not sure how to do this, so I thought I would just add a section to discuss what was written. Here are a few of my points:

• First of all, this is great. Very well written.
• I think that there should be some discussion of the fact that falsifiability (is this a real word?) is not, in fact, a method that is employed by scientists on a regular basis.
• Once again, I hate making these points more complicated, because the Fundies (love that word, even though it really is not an actual word) will seize on the nuance and start a whole new argument. But, the scientific process is to test theories. But at some point, a theory has been so tested that the probability of falseness must approach zero.
• Each of your points that you make as test that could falsify Evolution are in of themselves almost impossible to falsify. The probability of the earth's age being anything less than 4-6 billion years approaches 0. In other words, you need to falsify one of the tests to falsify Evolution, and that probability again is so small as to define impossible. My point here is that some creationist can say (and trust me they will), "see here, this smart scientist dude says that Evolution is false if the earth is less than a few billion years old. Well we know the Earth is only 7000 years old, so there you go, them Evolutionists prove themselves wrong. We win."
• Is there an example of one Theory somewhere that fell apart due to falsifying? I'm not talking about the Earth being flat, I'm talking something more recent. I'm not much into particle physics, and my brain is made of that material anyways, but maybe some weird physics theory was demolished by experimentation. If there is one, you could describe how it was tested and revised. If there isn't one, it probably doesn't matter.
  • Newton's laws of motion didn't 'fall apart' but where shown to be incomplete and inaccurate (by the factor of $v^{2}/c^{2}$, arguably undetectable under normal (earth-bound) circumstances) when Einstein's theory of special relativity was proven experimentally. (see page 5 of Statics and Dynamics for details). -AndrewDressel 15:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The Bohr model of the atom, though able to explain "the Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen", is now "considered to be an obsolete scientific theory". -AndrewDressel 15:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I would include phlogisten theory and caloric theory and the geocentric theory and alchemy and astrology and many many other obsolete theories that are discarded now.--Filll 16:26, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Those are my points. I couldn't even find a spelling error to correct!!!! OrangeMarlin 20:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Something that I have found confusing in the past, which may play a role in someone's understanding of this, is the difference between "falsifiability" and hypothesis testing in which, rather than proving the hypothesis, you reject or fail to reject the null. I remember in high school being taught something about this, and it was long muddled in my mind with the idea of scientific proof and falsifiability. Even now after having studied, used and even taught this method at a much more advanced level, maybe it's still muddled for me; who knows. Because I'm not sure how the statement that "falsifiability . . . is not, in fact, a method that is employed by scientists on a regular basis" meshes with the traditional practice of testing a hypothesis by testing the null. Surely it must have something to do with the difference between a hypothesis and a theory? But then I'm sure one of you can explain this better than I. I wonder if it would be helpful to add a section clarifying this.

I'll make some stylistic changes later, though maybe not today.--EveRickert 21:21, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I think we need to build in some in-text citations, if possible.--EveRickert 21:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok if this is confusing to you, it is worth putting a section in to discuss it. Hypothesis testing is just a statistical technique used when analyzing data. Falsifiability is a philosophical point. It is just the existence of a willingness to change the theory if it is proved wrong, not the method of proving it wrong. So first you do hypothesis testing. And then if based on the results of the hypothesis test, you can change your theory, then it is falsifiable. If you cannot change your hypothesis or theory because of religious convictions or some other reason, it is not falsifiable. Basically if a theory or hypothesis is not falsifiable, the results of a hypothesis test are irrelevant. One really is not even allowed to make a hypothesis test if the hypothesis or theory is not falsifiable, by definition.--Filll 21:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

This really is the "Philosophy of Science." Very complex, abstract and highly nuanced ideas. I think we need to say the basic point--if you don't believe a hypothesis is falsifiable, it is not really a scientific hypothesis. For example, Creationists, by definition, cannot accept the idea that a supernatural being created the earth and everything on it, therefore they have a hypothesis that, by definition, is not falsefiabile.OrangeMarlin 21:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, I think you meant that Creationists cannot accept the idea that a supernatural being did not create the Earth, etc. Dionyseus 22:03, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I did mean. Of course, we would have a lot less contentious discussions in these various articles if what I wrote WAS accurate! OrangeMarlin 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Strangely enough though many Creationists are happy to accept the idea that a different supernatural being from another religion did not create the Earth ;only theirs did. A form of what I call "asymetrical atheism" (obviously because I invented the term this morning you'll get no google hits but you get the idea that they don't believe in all the others gods except their own). Nice article so far - just needs a snappy page name. Ttiotsw 23:57, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Snappy Page name like "Creation Science is Not Science." OrangeMarlin 00:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am open to all suggestions, but I thought we might do a separate article which compared creation science and evolution more broadly, and this article would just concentrate on this one aspect. I do like a title like "Creation Science is not science", or "evolution is not a religion" or "Differences between Evolution and creation Science" or maybe "Why Creation science is not really science". But anyway, those are all minor details once we get some references and more solid information here.--Filll 04:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

OrangeMarlin, I am glad you said this: "Very complex, abstract and highly nuanced ideas," because I was starting to feel kind of stupid. Anyway, I think I might have gotten myself confused by misreading some of the comments. So let me make sure I have this straight now. Basically, any concept (hypothesis, theory, etc.) falls into the purview of science if it is possible to conceive of evidence that would contradict it. Not that it would prove the entire concept to be false, but it would force the idea to change. This existence (on a conceptual level) of potential contrary evidence makes something "falsifiable." The simplest example of this is in hypothesis testing, where the null hypothesis is either rejected or not rejected. By definition, for a hypothesis to be scientifically testable, we must be able to conceive of the null, making the hypothesis falsifiable. If I am correct in this sense, then "falsifiability" is something used by scientists on a regular basis, though not under that name, because when we craft hypotheses we must do so in such a way as to be able to test the null. But the idea becomes more complex when dealing with a theory. Because a theory is a model, and not an up-down proposition like a hypothesis, it is possible to modify the theory in the face of certain conflicting evidence, rather than rejecting it outright. In this case, the potential existence of evidence that would force the theory's modification makes the theory falsifiable, even if that evidence wouldn't make the theory "false." However, one can still conceive of evidence that would force the outright rejection of a theory: for example, if genetic information was not passed down from one generation to another, evolution as we know it could not exist. No modification of the theory could accomodate this information. And "falsifiability" is necessary to a scientfic theory or hypothesis, because if something is to be supported by observable evidence, it is necessary to be able to imagine evidence that does not support it, as well as evidence that would outright oppose it. Because if you can use a theory to predict any possible outcome, or explain any possible outcome in light of the theory, then by definition the "theory" is not a theory. Am I on the right track here?--EveRickert 08:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Eve I think that is beautifully stated. At least in my understanding of the concept of falsifiability, you are completely correct. Suppose that one has a deity that appears to solve any possible problems with a given theory or hypothesis, and one is convinced of this and refuses to be dissuaded. Any theory or hypothesis that included this deity as a component would not be falsifiable, since it would be impossible to get a theory or hypothesis without the deity. There is no hypothesis test that includes the null hypothesis of "no deity" possible. Or it does not have to be a deity; it could be magic, or a ghost, or a witch's spell, or an all-powerful extraterrestrial that is intervening invisibly, or the "FORCE" of the Jedi Knights. If something like this is an undeniable component of your hypothesis or your theory that cannot be removed, then the hypothesis or theory is at least partially unfalsifiable. I say partially because there might be pieces that are amenable to change and are falsifiable, but the parts that are absolutely unchangable are unfalsifiable. Suppose I was convinced the sun orbited the earth. Suppose I would accept no other explanation for what I observed. I would be forced to accept all kinds of retrograde motions of planets ("wandering stars") and other convoluted explanations to protect my geocentric theory. I could maintain the theory of course, but the fact that it was not allowed to change, possibly because of bias or scriptural reasons or tradition means that my science based on this geocentric theory is not falsifiable. I have not read Popper myself. I have not read the legal tomes that address this. This is just an amateur's interpretation. I will confess that when I first encountered falsifiability (again when talking to a creationist) I was somewhat confused. I was never taught falsifiability in any class. It did not appear in any textbook of mine. It sounded like a fake word and I doubted that it was in any dictionary. And here I had someone in my face belligerent, and calling me stupid, red faced, screaming, cursing, and threatening and bullying me and using the word "falsifiability". It was a bit disconcerting. Of course, like our vacuous friend, the creationist had memorized all the standard stock creationist arguments in their copious pamphlets and books. If you see them they are sort of simplistic. For example, I have had them give me the following sort of explanation for fossils: "There was a Great Flood. Lots of stuff died and was buried in the mud. The dead animals turned into fossils. Done. And anyone who questions this is stupid and an asshole and working for Satan. And you are not allowed to question me because every word out of my mouth personally is the Word of God. So f-off you s-head. I am holy and speaking for God and you are stupid." Sort of juvenile and really hostile to the idea of free thought. If you dispute them, they turn your words against you and accuse you of being close-minded. "Close-minded" and "unscientific" to a creationist is not being like a sheep and obeying blindly, and not agreeing with what the creationists say. It is almost perfectly predictable, like speaking to a robot.--Filll 14:47, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

---

Problems

This article would be more credible if: a. It wasn't being composed by a mutual adoration clique
b. It wasn't so gong ho to prove that "creation science" is not a science. Nobody takes creation science as a science anyway. "creation science" is a marketing term in an information war. Real science is above this.
c. You focused on showing, without mention of intelligent design or creationists, that the theory of the evolutionary origin of species is in fact a scientific theory, and not just a story that fits the facts. Rather, you might include other examples that are not so inflammatory but still make the point, such as astrology.

You also fail to mention that "Popper is perhaps most [well] known for repudiating classical observationalist-inductivist account of scientific method by advancing empirical falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing scientific theory from non-science".

Now if the evolutionary origin of species is more than an observationalist-inductivist theory, you would do well to show that. Mention your fruit fly experiment, and how many times it has been repeated (zero?). Mention the criteria used for speciation, and how they decided if the fruit flies of one species could not mate with the fruit flies from the other species, or if it could be that they would not mate (e.g., because the mating dance was done poorly). If the mating was done in the dark, explain how scientists ruled out other sexual cues, e.g., smell, size, activity, etc. Be honest about the difficulties in precisly defining a species. Why do you care if creationists seize upon this; you are concerned with truth, not defending against creationists at any cost. Mention how many times speciation in the lab has been observed and/or caused in the lab using mammals. And please don't tell me it is zero.

The evolitionary theory of the origin of species is non-scientific in the Pooper sense. I know believe it, you know it haven't logically shown that it is, and the whole world knows it is scientific in the Pooper sense. But this article will be singing to the choir if you fail to be honest about the scientific problems with regard to speciation.

I have a falsifiable theory of the evolutionary origin of species in mammals. It does not exist, and cannot be done. You can prove me wrong. Cite just one time it occurred in the lab (you probably won't be able to do even this), and just one other time it was independently verified. Or if the generation time for mammals is too long, fine, just cite one study where inter-population breeding of populations sharing a common lab ancestory has been shown to be less viable than intra-population viability, and cite the experiment that has been independantly verified this result. Include this in the article, and you would have something worth reading. I already know that speciation in mammals has been inferred in the field and the fossil record. But let's make this a hard science. 65.73.44.65 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Hey Poet, please check the tone. And I don't appreciate being called part of a "mutual adoration clique" when I have defended you--or at least your question--in the past. But your posts are sounding more and more like rants now, and this one is not helpful.--EveRickert 08:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey EveRickert, sorry to have included you, I was wrong. I know you don't agree with everything or perhaps even most of the things I say, but I appreciate your intellectual honesty and also your willingness to open your mind to differing points of view. I get a little frustrated when a point I made on falsifiability (which is used in other sciences, not just against evolution or creationism) is twisted, distorted, and obfuscated. And the tactics used to silence me...well, nevermind. 65.73.44.65 15:05, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

I don't care if you think I am intellectually dishonest or not. Go ahead. Get frustrated. I hope you are frustrated because we do not want to include pseudoscience claptrap in the article, and in fact we want to defend ourselves against it. And you are helping us do it, so thank you. --Filll 15:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Point by point answer to the vacuous one

This article would be more credible if: a. It wasn't being composed by a mutual adoration clique

I do not really care. You have been advised to go to Creation Wiki after all where the RULES are that only creationists are allowed. That is a perfect mutual adoration clique "Creationist". Don't think I don't know who you are, buddy. But since you are here, we will use your presence to strengthen our defense against your arguments. So thanks.--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

If by a mutual adoration clique you mean the 99.99% of scientists, ALL of the National Academy of Sciences, every Nobel Prize winner, numerous clergy and churches and a few editors here on Wikipedia who believe in Evolution as a science and a fact, then I am honored to be in that clique.OrangeMarlin 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

b. It wasn't so gong ho to prove that "creation science" is not a science. Nobody takes creation science as a science anyway. "creation science" is a marketing term in an information war. Real science is above this.

Actually the point is that intelligent design and creationism and creation science are serious challenges in the public's mind and in school systems to reasoned rational scientific inquiry. And so one has to defend against them, or suffer the consequences. Like being forced to live in a cave and smash rocks together, which is the logical end of the anti-science movement that creationism represents. This proposed article is not about science (since it is about "falsifiability", which is not really part of what is addressed by serious science; it doesnt have to be since it is already incorporated into serious science) but about material to help people defend themselves against pseudoscience like creationism.--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Vacuous you really need to figure out what side you're on. Read what Filll said, except you have shown a distinct inability to read and interpret well-written sentences.OrangeMarlin 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not a creationist, if that is what you mean. I am a skeptic. 65.73.44.65 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Do note that there is such a thing as "excessive skepticism"--Mr Fink 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

c. You focused on showing, without mention of intelligent design or creationists, that the theory of the evolutionary origin of species is in fact a scientific theory, and not just a story that fits the facts. Rather, you might include other examples that are not so inflammatory but still make the point, such as astrology.

NOT JUST A STORY TO FIT THE FACTS???? What do you think a theory is? That is what a theory is!! It is a story constructed to fit the facts. What else is a scientific theory? Good lord. And the rejection of astrology by science is an example of falsifiability in action. The rejection of alchemy. The rejection of Usher's age of the earth. The rejection of the Genesis account of speciation. And on and on. There are many many examples. Literally thousands upon thousands of theories. We cannot list them all. The reason to mention creationism in particular is that no one is trying to push astrology into the schools. No one is trying to push alchemy into the schools. No one is trying to push Aristotle's theory of gravity into the schools.--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

What do you think a theory is? Which kind of theory? It is a story constructed to fit the facts.: Don't take this to mean I am a creationist, but Genesis was also a story to fit the facts. What else is a scientific theory?: In my opinion, good scientific theories are testable at every level they are applied. No one is trying to push Aristotle's theory of gravity into the schools.: It is already there. Of course, the purpose is to refute it and provide a history of the theories of gravity. In any event, the evolutionary origin of species is in the schools. I am not sure M-thoery is, however, possibly because it is far too mathematically complicated for most educators, but possibly becuase it is just a story. 65.73.44.65 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

What kind of theory? A scientific theory. What did you think we were talking about, pray tell? Yes Genesis was a story constructed to fit the facts that they had at that time. It no longer fits the facts that exist, however. By definition, it cannot change like a scientific theory can, because Genesis is not a scientific theory. Duh. Of course scientific theories are testable. Why wouldnt they be? So there is a big well funded campaign to get Einstein's theory of gravity and Newton's theory of gravity and galileo's theory of gravity out of schools and replace them with Aristotle's theory of gravity? That is sure news to me. Pretend I am from Missouri. Show me. I do not believe you. Putting it in history of science is completely different from making it the dominant theory, which is what creationists want to do. Look I would have no problem teaching Genesis in the history of science, as long as you let me demonstrate how it is a huge load of horse**** and how creationists are all a**holes and stupid jerks and uneducated demented cretins. I might even throw in some material about how people who speak in tongues are exhibiting the same symptoms as people with Tourette's syndrome just for good measure. Then I would have no problem with that curriculum, but that is not what they have in mind, now is it? String theory is taught, but only in graduate schools. Or didnt you know that?--Filll 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

A scientific theory is not merely a "story constructed to fit the facts." If that were so, then Rudyard Kipling's "Just So Stories" would also be scientific theories. A scientific theory is an explanation that describes how a particular natural phenomenom, or a suite of related natural phenomena occur. And as such, given as how the Book of Genesis does not actually explain how the Earth, oceans and Heavens were created, the Book of Genesis is not, and never was a "theory."--Mr Fink 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I was being glib. A scientific theory is a story that has to satisfy certain requirements. It has to explain certain kinds of data. Like it cannot use supernatural causes. It has to make predictions that can be tested. It has to be falsifiable. And so on and so forth. But it is basically an expository story. --Filll 06:07, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Astrology = Evolution????? Wow, that should be quoted in the list of Fundamentalists Say the Darndest Things list.OrangeMarlin 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Another ad hominem? 65.73.44.65 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Actually in the Dover PA trial, one of the main creationist witnesses was forced to admit under oath that what they were proposing for the school system would also require the teaching of astrology in science class to give a balanced view of astronomy.--Filll 17:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You also fail to mention that "Popper is perhaps most [well] known for repudiating classical observationalist-inductivist account of scientific method by advancing empirical falsifiability as the criterion for distinguishing scientific theory from non-science".

This is just more philospher's nonsense. If someone is interested in Popper, they can follow the link. Whether the scientific method employs induction or deduction or transduction (in the reasoning sense, not the biological sense) or abduction or anything else is really the province of philosphers. Popper's work was in fact heavily criticized by other philosophers and is at least now viewed as partially obsolete, if you read up about him. The only reason to address it is because it is important in addresing the creationist anti-intellectual bigots.--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This is just more philospher's nonsense.: Say it with me now, "Ph.D." 65.73.44.65 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Having a Ph.D. in Philosophy or Religion, or even Astrophysics does not necessarily allow a person, philosopher or professor, or otherwise, to become an authority on Evolutionary Biology. Actually knowing about Biology and or Paleontology is the prerequisite for being an expert in Evolutionary Biology, not a Ph.D.--Mr Fink 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I was referring to the Philosophiæ Doctor degree, which, in the sciences, might touch on, during the preliminary coursework, the philosophy of science. 65.73.44.65 05:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

The fact that you think that tells me you know nothing about it. Show me a reputable school that requires this.--Filll 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophers are not scientists. They think in the abstract. But I really don't care. OrangeMarlin 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now if the evolutionary origin of species is more than an observationalist-inductivist theory, you would do well to show that.

We do not need to show that because it is SCIENCE. This is not philosophy. We do not give a crap what form of reasoning was used. We are not philosophers. I dont care if they used deduction or induction or abduction or transduction or anything else. All i care about is does the theory fit the data. Period. How one classifies this in logic and philosophy is just about irrelevant.--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention your fruit fly experiment, and how many times it has been repeated (zero?).

Many times, but that is irrelevant for this article. All this article needs to show is that conceivable experiments or tests exist--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention the criteria used for speciation, and how they decided if the fruit flies of one species could not mate with the fruit flies from the other species, or if it could be that they would not mate (e.g., because the mating dance was done poorly). If the mating was done in the dark, explain how scientists ruled out other sexual cues, e.g., smell, size, activity, etc.

This is a perfect example of how creationists will stand on their heads to attack evolution. My gosh. Mating dance??? What the heck? This is retarded. ALL THAT ONE HAS TO DO IS SHOW THAT A TEST EXISTS. And it does. So?--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

There have been numerous experiments done involving fruit flies, all of which are relevant to Evolution, directly and indirectly. If you want, I can dig up information concerning the ones I know about, including ones concerning how females of one population prefer to mate with males with a wingbeat of a specific octave, of how a subpopulation of stunted-winged fruit flies will increase as the winged subpopulation gets blown out of the container one by one, of how fruit flies prefer to feed on substrates containing specific amounts of acetic acid, or even various experiments concerning the wing markings of Tephritid fruit flies, and how they are used by their owners to ward off jumping spider predators.--Mr Fink 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

My comment was on the perhaps incorrect assumption that part of what lead researchers to believe that they observed speciation was based on a failure of one population to mate with a different population, with both populations sharing a common ancestory. Maybe this was not the case. If it was the case, I was wondering how they knew the failure was because the could not mate, and not because they did not want to mate. The whole point would be moot, I suppose, if you can artificially inceminate a fruit fly (which might be ludicrous in the case of fruit flys.) Anyway, yeah, thanks, if you have links that discuss these problems (in my mind) I would certainly read them. 65.73.44.65 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Be honest about the difficulties in precisly defining a species. Why do you care if creationists seize upon this; you are concerned with truth, not defending against creationists at any cost.

I for one would like there to be things like the National Institutes of Health and the Centers of Disease Control and double blind studies and allopathic medicine which are able to use science to cure diseases. I do not want to go back to witch craft of laying on of hands or spirit surgery or psychic surgery or praying only for the sick. So yes, I want to defend against pseudoscience. Is that wrong? If you do not like it, I don't care. In fact, if you don't like it, it is a sign I am on the right track. What do you think of that?--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Mention how many times speciation in the lab has been observed and/or caused in the lab using mammals. And please don't tell me it is zero.

Of course it has not been done. BUT IT COULD BE. That is the point. The point is that a test exists, nothing about whether the test has been performed and what the results are. Or didnt your creationist web site tell you that?--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The evolitionary theory of the origin of species is non-scientific in the Pooper sense.

Great grammar and spelling. The evolitionary theory? in the Pooper sense? I think that the creationist theory is more the one that only has meaning in the Pooper sense.--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution is falsifiable. And that is all one needs to satisfy this Popper requirement. After all, the supreme court said it. Other judges said it. You think the Supreme Court Justices, most of whom were approved by republican congressmen and many of whom are appointed by republican presidents are somehow evil liberals and Satan worshippers? Give me a break.--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I know believe it, you know it haven't logically shown that it is, and the whole world knows it is scientific in the Pooper sense. But this article will be singing to the choir if you fail to be honest about the scientific problems with regard to speciation.

You are completely confused. Speciation has been observed in the lab, in the field and in the fossil record. We have put many references to this on the talk page. So what more needs to be done? We will put them i the article and that is that. What is your point?--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a falsifiable theory of the evolutionary origin of species in mammals. It does not exist, and cannot be done.

Wow that makes a lot of sense. Could you be any less clear?--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You can prove me wrong. Cite just one time it occurred in the lab (you probably won't be able to do even this), and just one other time it was independently verified. Or if the generation time for mammals is too long, fine, just cite one study where inter-population breeding of populations sharing a common lab ancestory has been shown to be less viable than intra-population viability, and cite the experiment that has been independantly verified this result. Include this in the article, and you would have something worth reading. I already know that speciation in mammals has been inferred in the field and the fossil record.

It is irrelevant if it has been done in the lab for mammals or not. The point for falsifiability is that it could be if you lived for a few million years and carried on the experiment. That is the point. It is a gedankenexperiment. Ever heard of that? And also, lab experiments are not the only way to get data:

• Astrophysics is an observational science. No lab experiments.
• Geophysics is an observational science. No lab experiments.
• Meteorology is an observational science. No lab experiments.
• Volcanology is an observational science. No lab experiments.
• Oceanography is an observational science. No lab experiments.

And on and on and on. There is no need for empirical evidence to make a science. So this is a ludicrous line of reasoning. --Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But let's make this a hard science. 65.73.44.65 06:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

You never defined what a hard science is. The problem is, you do not know what science is, or what a hard science is, or really much of anything, isnt that correct?--Filll 16:12, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not in charge of definitions. But you might want to look at Hard Science. I concur with the article that electrodynamics is a hard science, as an example. I might even lump in the bilogical study of evolutionary theory of the origins of species if I knew more about the experimentation being done there, and the results that back up the theory. 65.73.44.65 03:30, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet

Can I ask you why you think electrodynamics is a "hard science," whereas the examination of fossil specimens, from trilobites to the bones of brontotheres, is not? Does it have something to do with playing with transisters in the lab versus not playing with transisters in the lab?--Mr Fink 04:04, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

More pooper

---

Examination of fossil specimens sounds more like examination than science. Many people visit museums every year to examine fossil specimens, and most of them are probably not scientists. I suppose classifying life forms into various categories might be science, if you consider librarians scientists. I suppose refining a story to fit observed facts might be science if you consider conspiracy theory science.

Electrodynamics, on the other hand, is quantifiable, mathematical, testable, and falsifiable.

If biology were a hard science, you would see theories like:

It takes between M and N generations of a species S to turn into a species T in an environment E.

With M, N firmly or statistically bound, S, T, and E all precisely defined. Such a theory would be reproducible, testable, and falsifiable.

What do you think makes a science a hard science? Are the library sciences science? How about a search for the ruins of Noah's Ark using the scientific method? How about observing that little Johnny has his father’s lips and his mother’s eyes? Is that a hard science? Is political science science? Is computer science science? How about digital signal processing, is that a science? Information theory? If any of these are science, are they hard science? 06:20, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

---

Obviously, you don't understand that not all sciences are completely mathematical in nature. On the other hand, you also don't care to understand, or even bother to comprehend that biology, and paleontology, are sciences JUST AS VALID as electrodynamics, even though large portions of them are not mathematical in nature. Your idea that if biology was a "hard science," we'd be able to formulate how many generations a particular species would be able to speciate in a particular environment is bunk especially since the fact that it's currently impossible to predict how all of the millions of known species of organisms would speciate in given environments, given as how there are millions of different kinds of environments.

Furthermore, What in the hell makes you think that examination is not science? HOW ON EARTH DO YOU THINK SCIENTISTS DO SCIENCE IN THE FIRST PLACE IF THEY DON'T DO EXAMINATIONS? Do you think the mathematical formulas magically pop in to their dome-like heads? So, do you think that, since we are unable to tell exactly how many generations it took Eotitanops to become Brontotherium, paleontologists are a bunch of bunkum peddlers? And what the hell do you mean by "library science"? Why do you think that cataloguing the various anatomical and genetic features of organisms so people can compare and contrast species in order to create the understanding of the interrelatedness of all life, extinct and still living, is not real science? Or are you just making up these stupid neologisms just to sound smart?--Mr Fink 07:02, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Fink, you are just getting your chain yanked by someone with no degrees no publications and no knowledge. He obviously refuses to answer the question and just pushes your hot button. The quantitative prediction question he asks actually can be answered quantitatively I understand from genetics. We can know how many generations approximately it takes to go from genome 1 to genome 2 in a given environment. But that is irrelevant. He is not interested. The question is, and remains for this "gentleman":

What is a hard science?

Back it up with a good 5 citations and references when you answer.--Filll 14:55, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I got bored with replying to the vacuous poet. I'm glad you did OrangeMarlin 17:19, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The term "hard science" is another sort of nonsense term, even worse than "falsifiability". But I do notice that we are now dealing with the "Pooper" criteria for the "bilogical" sciences. I have no idea why evolution is less hard than String Theory. He wants equations maybe? I do not know. It is tedious to go around and around in circles with someone who does not seem to know anything at all about science or evolution but claims to be a scientist, with no degrees or publications mind you and certainly no knowledge that is evident.--Filll 05:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good addition

I don't think this is a worthwhile addition to the article. Is this a major issue? Maybe. However, a lot of this seems more related to either the scientific method or the United States' courts' defintion of science than it does evolution, and I'm pretty sure this is elsewhere in Wikipedia. It might belong in, say, creation vs evolution controversy or something, but not in the main Evolution article. Titanium Dragon 09:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I do not propose adding it to the article. I think the evolution article is too long as it is. We might have one sentence in the evolution article about this someplace, with a link. Period. I am more thinking of a suite of articles that address the controversy more carefully than that one sad "evolution creationism controversy article" which is sort of a mess. These issues can not be adequately developed in one article. And frankly, as we discussed, "falsifiability" is not really part of the standard science of evolution and the evolution article should be about evolution, not about creationism or defending ones self from creationism or about philosophy of science. I think there is too much already about defending ones self from creationism. I would advocate a much more abbreviated section with links in the evolution article about the controversy. So I do not think it should go in the evolution article. The evolution article should be for real science, not this kind of stuff.--Filll 14:57, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Titanium Dragon, I somewhat disagree with you mostly because the arguments against Evolution include that Creationism is a science rather than a myth. But Filll is right, the Evolution article has evolved (couldn't help myself) into a rather unwieldy article. But it should reference the fact that Evolution is falsifiable, and supernatural myths like Genesis are not. But you're right that maybe the reference on the Evolution page to the Creation vs Evolution article. OrangeMarlin 17:23, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

"falsifiability" is not really part of the standard science of evolution: But other scientific disciplines do employ falsifiability to critique proposed theories. For example [falsifiability in physics], [falsifiability in chemistry], etc. 65.73.44.65 15:14, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Just because you can type some phrase into google does not mean it is a prominent part of science. No professional physics text or reference includes it. No graduate classes in physics include it. You can get a bachelors masters and phd in physics and teach and do research in physics for 50 years and never encounter "falsifiability." Philosophy is basically horse**** and philosophers of science have essentially zero influence on science itself. Once in a while a phrase like "paradigm shift" will leak out of philosophy into the general culture, and influence people's speech, but otherwise, they are irrelevant.--Filll 15:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Philosophy is basically horse**** and philosophers of science have essentially zero influence on science itself.: Okay fill. 65.73.44.65 15:25, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

If you do not know this and do not recognize this as true, you are not a scientist. You are a dilettante, an outsider. If you want to get a Phd in a scientific field from Cambridge or Oxford or MIT or Harvard do you need a course in philosophy of science? Nope. So how important is it then? --Filll 16:20, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Issues with the list

There are of course many other potential tests of evolution. For example:

This is terrible, mostly because it is wrong.

• A fossil record that does not change or show species turnover over time.

This isn't really correct. A lot of evolution research is done via DNA comparisons, not the fossil record; as such, this isn't really true. It is somewhat true, but even without a fossil record we'd know evolution occured and the trees of organisms.

• Discovery of a true chimera, made from widely differing lineages, which could not have been created by lateral gene transfer (like a hippogriff or sphinx).

This isn't true either; widely unrelated species may be able to breed, though it is highly unlikely. There's nothing saying it is impossible though, and it wouldn't disprove evolution. And a chimera like this is easily produced by humans via grafting, and more recently DNA manipulation.

• Discovery of some limitation on the accumulation of mutations.

This is poorly worded. Maybe "Discovery of a limitation on the accumulation of mutations which makes evolution impossible." Even still, ugly.

• The creation of a new organism (i.e. observation of direct creation, or spontaneous generation).

This has absolutely NOTHING to do with evolution. Evolution describes what happens to extant organisms, not how they came to be in the first place. As such, this should be removed as it is simply wrong.

• Incontrovertible evidence that the earth is too young to have allowed evolution to occur (e.g. thousands or millions of years old, rather than billions).

This is fine, though I'd remove the parenthetical statement.

• Discovery that genetic information could not be passed down from generation to generation.

This is fine.

• Discovery that a subset of organisms within a clade (for example, a group of vertebrates) have a genetic code that is entirely different from the one currently observed to be universal

This isn't true; it'd have to be entirely random. I'd just remove this as it is too ugly to explain and I doubt we'd be able to source it, as this is OR as far as I know.

• Discovery that many places on earth, widely separated from one another, have a nearly identical flora and fauna

Again, not true; it wouldn't disprove evolution. Moreover, it isn't even a meaningful statement.

• Discovery of modern human fossils dating back to 65 million years ago.

This is redundant and not even necessarily true, as what if we found ancestors to them? This wouldn't disprove evolution either, and occurs periodically - some species shows up way earlier than expected, but it turns out it just evolved earlier than we thought.

This whole list is ugly and seems to be riddled with OR. I don't think it is really necessary. Maybe some mention of the age of the Earth thing would be appropriate, because it is relatively common to see, but the rest...

Titanium Dragon 10:11, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

That is the reason I put it out here for comment and discussion. What other fasifiability tests could you imagine, besides the famous precambrian bunny example? And bear in mind, this is a draft. We have no references yet for example. This is just for discussion. So put your thinking caps on and lets get some more falsifiability tests here!--Filll 15:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

When I came up with my list on the Talk:Evolution page, I was mostly just giving it as something to think about and discuss, but the ideas came from other web sites discussing the matter--some more credible than others, for sure. So not exactly OR, but probably most of them don't meet the verifiability criteria, either. But maybe they could provide a start. Here are some places where you can see these ideas in other contexts:

• http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html (Maybe someone could take a look at the original (Bowler) text cited here to see what it has to say; it might be a source we could use. Also, a Science Citation Index search of the Morris book might turn up something useful in the way of published responses).
• http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/08/26/falsifiable-evolution-not-just-precambrian-rabbits/ (Just someone's blog; no citations unfortunately)
• http://www.skeptictank.org/hs/factfaq.htm (Again, who is this guy? Is he an "expert" we can cite? Has this been published elsewhere (judging by the informal tone, probably not, but perhaps he has written something else that has been.)
• http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm (Creationist web site and article, but there is a long list of references at the bottom that may contain something useful).

--EveRickert 00:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolution describes what happens to extant organisms, not how they came to be in the first place. As such, this should be removed as it is simply wrong.: For the record, I did not say this today, but I did ask the question on another discussion page. If this is correct, thanks. My reading was that evolutionary origin of species was silent on the common parents (or, even if there were only one pair). 65.73.44.65 15:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

I believe that this point is correct. Abiogenesis is not part of evolution, at least for biologists. This statement should be rephrased to emphasize Genesis-style creation processes.--Filll 15:03, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

The issue is that the genesis of organisms in the first place is not part of the modern synthesis; it only effects organisms which already exist. As such, I think the point is misplaced, though depending on the article mention of the whole abiogenesis thing (which, while likely, may not have even happened on Earth) might be appropriate. However, the genesis of life is not a part of evolution, and as such, it cannot be a way of falsifying it. Even genesis style creation wouldn't violate the modern synthesis; it would violate a lot of other things, though. Unless you mean a literal reading of Genesis, as in all current creatures were created simultaneously and made to look like they had evolved from one another, but that's just silly. If creationists believe it, then it might be worth of inclusion somewhere, but I don't think it is notable as a means of falsification - I think other examples would be better and clearer, as it has to be explained/clarified too much to be a useful example. But even if a dragon suddenly emerged fully-formed from rock, evolution would work on its decendants assuming it has an analogical particulate means of inheritance of traits. Titanium Dragon 22:28, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

This wouldn't disprove evolution either, and occurs periodically - some species shows up way earlier than expected, but it turns out it just evolved earlier than we thought.: Which was one of my main points that lead to this proposed article. Discovering evidence of a species before we thought simply causes trees to get rearranged, not the theory to be falsified. I do want to make it clear that this is not bad; that is, changing a theory to adapt to the facts is not bad. It is done in the scientific method. However, the question is falsifiability. Titanium Dragon--thanks for intellectually honest answers. 65.73.44.65 15:00, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet

Modifying the trees, or incorporating other new data I believe is falsifying the theory. The theory has to be replaced with a new theory that includes the new tree. Just as the anamolous transit of mercury or the Michelson Morley experiments forced the change of Newtonian dynamics. Newtonian dynamics was not thrown out the door completely, but it had to be changed. It was falsifiable. Now of course one can imagine tests that would force Newtonian dynamics to be completely thrown out, such as information about gravitational and inertial mass equivalency. (Which is a huge mystery in physics I might add). But the fact that the theory has to be modified and can be modified is EVIDENCE of falsifiability. Now some tests are so substantial that they would force the whole theory to be chucked out, as has happened to caloric and phlogisten theories in thermodynamics, for example. Other tests only force the modification of part of the theory. The modification of Darwinism to NeoDarwinism was an example of modifying the theory to accommodate new results, new data that had come in and had to be incorporated. If Darwinism had some other mechanism for how generational information was passed on and it could not be changed by fiat (say it was written in a holy book or something) then this part of Darwinism would not be falsifiable, since the new Mendelian information could not replace the old part of the theory. So I am arguing that the modification of the trees, which is essentially a small change to the theory, or a new theory that is only slightly different than the old theory, is evidence of falsifiability, particularly when the entire theory can be tested and discarded if the correct evidence appears.--Filll 15:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I am wrong, but there is more than one tree. There is no single agreed upon tree of life in biology, right? This doesn't proove or disprove the evolutionary theory of the origin of species. The trees are catalogs that show that the evidence is consistent with the theory, and are sparsely supported, and holes and rearrangments are the status quo. They are not identical to the theory. And controversy regarding some tree doesn't proove or disprove the theory. In fact, the theory does not change, just the trees.. 65.73.44.65 15:39, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

Modifying the trees, or incorporating other new data I believe is falsifying the theory.: I'll have to think about it. It sounds more like a living breathing alternative to Genesis. Or new theories that replace problematic theories. My intial reaction is that simply because a theory has been modified is not sufficient to say that the first or subsequent theory was/is falsifiable. Falsifiabilty, in my understanding, is applied to a theory to see if it meets a philosophical/scientific threshold. I'll keep thinking. 65.73.44.65 03:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

The issue here is that this article is about evolution, but evolution (as in the modern synthesis) doesn't actually state what familial trees look like, simply that they exist. As such, finding ancient mammals doesn't invalidate the modern synthesis or evolution; it invalidates that particular phylum's theory of descent, but it doesn't impact the theory of evolution - that they evolved. As we're trying to falsify the theory of evolution, rather than any particular phylum's tree, it isn't a great example. Finding something which clearly could not have evolved from other organisms would be an issue, which is why finding a bunny rabbit in the precambrian would be very strange; conversely, finding a bunny rabbit in the late Cretaceous would simply mess up that phylum's theory of descent. Titanium Dragon 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Well my understanding is that there is no one "theory of evolution". There is one dominant accepted theory, and then lots of proposed changes to it, and different details, like different proposed trees. It is a theory in flux, since it is exciting and dynamic. It is science that is active, not complete and inactive like Newton's theory of gravity. So of course there are multiple proposed trees. These are not big enough changes to the theory to mean the whole theory is thrown out. Just has to change some part of it. Like Einstein's theory did to Newton's theory. The whole thing was not thrown out like caloric theory or phlogisten theory or Ptolemy's theory.--Filll 16:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

You're right and wrong. "Theory of evolution", when used by the professionals I've met, almost always refers to something quite specific - the modern synthesis. A lot of people refer to evolution as everything from abiogenesis to the modern synthesis to goodness knows what. Nonbiological uses of evolution, such as evolution of computer programs or political agendas make things even murkier. Particular trees are often referred to under the broad umbrella of evolution. It is a very active field, though. The theory itself - the modern synthesis - is very well accepted, and though the power of the various parts of that are not entirely nailed down, that they are the major causes of evolution is undisputed. There may be other things we're not aware of or haven't thought of yet (genetic drift, for instance, seems obvious but took a while to work out), so it may be added to, but it is doubtful anything in the modern synthesis will ever be removed, mostly because it has been so well confirmed and has allowed for observations and predictions of the behavior of other things, such as memes and commputer programs. Titanium Dragon 22:40, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Eves list

This article:

• http://www.grisda.org/origins/04004.htm

is provocative and apparently a creationist article, but it has a lot of references. I would like to hear other opinions about it. What I find irritating is that it seems to be written by someone who has very limited knowledge of evolution or science, so it misrepresents the situation. I would not be surprised if the references do not support completely the position the author is trying to take. I notice the author completely ignores the well-known principles of co-evolution. I also notice that the author either is ignorant of or ignores laboratory and field observations of evolution occuring. The author also tries to imply that any observational science such as seismology, astrophysics, geomagnetism, oceanography, meteorology etc is not falsifiable since observations are not repeatable, etc. All that the author has stumbled on is that some sciences are observational and some are experimental and some are both. Evolution happens to be both. And now with DNA evidence, it is far more well-established than many sciences. Just because something happened a long time in the past does not mean that the evidence of the event is not scientific evidence. He also gets all wound up about the phrase "survival of the fittest" which he claims is part of evolution and completely mischaracterizes. This sort of nonsense is deadly to science, because it looks well written and well researched and well cited. It makes it look like there is a huge controversy and that lots of scientists and scholars disagree in substantial measure with evolution. It selectively presents the facts and misrepresents the facts it does present. Very dishonest and dangerous. Too bad scientists do not have burning at the stake, like rival religious faiths do. This author might be a candidate for immolation based on blasphemy, dishonesty and general stupidity.--Filll 13:19, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

since the vacuous one is so interested in the Pooper

I wonder if he is not associated with Ted Haggard or Fred Phelps?--Filll 16:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

No, but I assume you're trying more guilt by association. Without even know who the two people are (I have not looked at them) let me guess, they are creationists or belong to some other despised group. 65.73.44.65 17:50, 25 December 2006 (UTC)Vacuous Poets

Yep, just checked. Please just stick to the conversation at hand, and quit trying to impugn me with association. I never heard of either of those guys, but even if I did, it doesn't invalidate ideas I share. 65.73.44.65 17:52, 25 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet

You are the one who wants to talk about the Pooper so much.--Filll 18:48, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to ask why we keep responding to the sock puppet, vacuous puppet, errrrrrr poet. His IP address and user name has been banned so many times, I think he's on his 5th version. Maybe if we do not respond to his drivel, we can proceed with healthy discussions of this topic. I'm really tired of his pedantic discourses, which only serve to get us in an uproar over essentially nothing. He has repeated himself, pretends to be a "scientist" when in fact he is a creationist lackey, brings up references that have been debated and found lacking, and takes up significant time for absolutely nothing. If there were an ignore feature on Wiki, I'd use it. I personally would ignore him, but then innocent bystanders get involved, and I feel as though I need to help out. I have filed so many complaints against his sock puppetry, I'm truly bored with that effort. I suggest Filll that you quit responding to him, and keep filing complaints with WP:SOCK and maybe he'll go away.OrangeMarlin 22:58, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Filll, are you sure you haven't been hitting the egg nog? I don't think this is appropriate here. Anyone mind if I delete it?--EveRickert 23:21, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I mind. I've filed complaints against him, and if you go to User Talk:VacuousPoet, you'll note that an administrator has banned him. I have taken the time to list out his several IP addresses. I believe others should do the same. I hate egg nog. OrangeMarlin 23:24, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't actually referring to your post, but the preceding "dialog." Anyway, I'll revise my request: I think it would be a good idea, and beneficial for the tone of this page, if Filll and Poet voluntarily deleted their hasty and heated remarks. (Try grappa-soaked chesnuts sometime.)--EveRickert 23:42, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that sounds interesting. Is it a store-bought item, or, do I just take a load of shelled, roasted chestnuts (over an open fire, of course) and soak them in grappa? OrangeMarlin 00:45, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if my wisecracks about Haggard and Phelps and the Pooper offended anyone. I was just making a joke. A bad one admittedly.--Filll 05:41, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Umn, it seems easier to understand how I would type pooper instead of popper, as opposed to you typing mute instead of moot. The difference is typos and mis-spellings, as opposed to just selecting the wrong word (but I am sure I due that two from time too time). This section on pooper could go, but I won't delete it (I've learned that lesson). 65.73.44.65 06:18, 26 December 2006 (UTC) Vacous Poet

If this page gets too long, we can archive the discussion. I think there is clearly enough interest that it is worth continuing it however. We really need to clean up our list of tests and get some references in the text.--Filll 06:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

So what are we doing?

Have I missed something, or did we just give up? I think this section is well written, and should be added to the Evolution article (or maybe it's own article). OrangeMarlin 19:56, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we're planning to ruminate on it, and then prepare the final version when we're ready to have it proofread?--Mr Fink 23:03, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Well at the moment I am waiting for:

• more references and citations for these tests
• eve to get back to us after the Holidays
• a rewrite of a few points, as suggested in the comments above and on the main talk page
• maybe a few more tests
• a good title

Then I think I will attempt to launch it as one of several new articles expanding on areas of interest in the creationist-evolution controversy area.--Filll 00:18, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I didn't realize anyone was waiting for me! Sorry. I have a project due on January 2, plus family commitments, house-hunting, and a party to host on the 1st. So I will be pretty useless for awhile. I think the article is good, with the exception of needing references. I could probably improve some of the wording, but that's not reason to hold off on posting it. We would post it with a cite needed tag, or wait to post until we get more citations. Either one is fine with me.--EveRickert 18:08, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I am in no rush to post it. I have this and several other articles addressing aspects of the creationist complaints that I am working on, in rough draft form. I think a more concerted effort to produce an accessible, well referenced set of anti-creationist, pro-science articles is called for, and this can be one of them.--Filll 18:40, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

You guys don't get it, do you. Wikipedia articles are not allowed to be "anti-, pro-" anything. That's not what wikipedia is for. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 18:46, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

This is to summarize the arguments that exist that evolution is falsifiable. Those arguments exist. So a summary of published arguments should not present a problem. They are just a statement of the facts. Period. If it is pro science, so be it. I think an article in Wikipeida on physics or chemistry is pro science, and why shouldnt it be? Should an article on astronomy include a long diatribe about astrology? Should chemistry have a huge long section on alchemy? That is pure nonsense. Your reasoning will destroy wikipedia, which appears to be your goal.--Filll 18:58, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

"Why shouldn't it be?" Because the Wikimedia foundation has a clear written policy that is more inviolable than all others, that articles are not to be pro- or anti- anything, but are to be what we like to call "Neu-tral". An article on physics, chemistry or astronomy can certainly be neutral. This is the closest to an open admission to a POV-pushing agenda as anything I have ever seen on Wikipedia. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 19:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Should an article on the bible or Jesus or creationism include huge sections stating that the material is all clearly nonsense? Articles about science have to describe the science. Part of the science is that it is falsifiable. So this article WILL (eventually when it is made an article) describe the ways in which evolution is falsifiable. What is wrong with that? Do you have evidence that demonstrates evolution is NOT falsifiable? Do you have evidence that creationism IS falsifiable? I would dearly love to see your documented evidence that:

• evolution is NOT falsifiable
• creationism IS falsifiable

Please include solid references and citations only from peer-reviewed scientific journals. If you are unable to do so, then I know how to classify your objections. Thanks so much. --Filll 20:09, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• Codex Sinaiticus, or ???, the intent of this article is only anti-creationist in the way of properly explaining falsifiability and the reasons behind why evolution is science and creationism isn't. It's not merely a point of view, it's an explanation of particulars often misunderstood in the Evolution-Creationism controversy. Compare the concept of this article with creating an article explaining why Anthropology is a social science and Geology isn't, if this was a subject of major misunderstanding. Delta Tango • Talk 20:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Science blogs as sources

(It's important to note here that Darwin proposed evolutionary theory long before DNA was identified. That’s called the “predictive” power of a scientific theory.)-- From http://www.acepilots.com/mt/2005/08/26/falsifiable-evolution-not-just-precambrian-rabbits/

As though people before Darwin did not recognize that little Johnny had his mother's eyes and father's lips. This constitutes predictive power of Darwin's theory?

When Darwin wrote Origin of Species in 1859, there were no pre-human fossil remains. If none had ever been found, that would have falsified evolution (or human evolution, at least). --From same source

Wow. If none had never been found. Give me a break. This would not falsify, it would only look bad.

combinations from different lineages -- From same source

Like fertile whale/dolphin hybrids?

In fact, all the geological evidence indicates a 4 billion year age of the earth. -- From same source

Which is not inconsistent with a literal reading of Genesis.

Evidence of whales and humans and kangaroos and horseshoe crabs coming into existence at the same time. -- From same source

I hardly think that this would disprove evolution. This would falsify a dating technique, perhaps.

I am surprised he didn't throw in an experiment that required a time machine, e.g., traveling back in time and filming creation.

Now I know where you are getting your ideas from. 05:57, 29 December 2006 (UTC) Vacuous Poet

This sort of contribution should be deleted on sight. I have had enough of disjointed incoherent ramblings.--Filll 14:59, 29 December 2006 (UTC)