"Falsifiability--
Is a basic fault with evolution--presented as science, it cannot be proven true or false--all the proof is based on unnecessary inference and speculation from skewed and scanty evidence.
That is not science but rather religion. The world is full of religion--most of it false.
Falsifiability is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Evolution does not hold up under the scrutiny of real scientific methodology."
I think you are confused. Biology, as good science, is falsifiable. Your assertions about YE are the ones that are not falsifiable. You will not pin yourself down specifically enough to any particular mechanism that can be falsified because you know that if you do it will be falsified. Look above for a prime example.
Some of the classic example of potential falsification for evolution would be things like finding undeniable mammal fossils in undeniable pre-Cambrian deposits. Or finding a dinosaur eating a human. But we can do better.
For instance, one evidence for evolution is that phylogenetic trees can be constructed for extant and fossil organisms from morphology. With the advent of molecular and genetic testing, these trees can be produced from lines of evidence completely independent of morphology. If we regularly found that trees from different lines of evidence were statistically dissimilar, this would be a falsification of evolution. Do you have any such data?
There are many examples of transitional creatures in the fossil record. But these invariably follow the rules of the nested heirarchy and phylogenetic trees. For instance, you expect to find, and do find, fossils intermediate between reptiles and birds. A falsification would be to instead find, say, a half mammal / half bird fossil. This would not fit the rules. Do you have any such evidence?
Another consequence of evlution is atavisms. This occurs when a trait from an anestor makes a reappearance in an individual. Some example are atavistic legs on whales and atavistic tails on some humans. Evolution would not be able to explain atavisms that did not match the scientific history. For example, mammal-like nipples on a reptile or feathers on a mammal would not be able to be explained. Do you have any such evidence?
A related example comes from embryology and developmental biology. Ontogeny can reveal details about phylogeny. For example, two bones in a developing reptile for its jaw. The same two bones in a mammal fetus form the bones of the ear. (There happens to be a series of intermediate fossils that show the reptile jaw turning into the mammal ear.) Human embryos have tails which are reabsorbed. Whales and snakes form limbs which are reabsorbed by birth. Falsification would come from finding ontogeny that did not match phylogeny. For instance, finding legs which are reabsorbed on a developing fish. Do you have any such evidence?
So see, evolution is falsifiable.
Is a basic fault with evolution--presented as science, it cannot be proven true or false--all the proof is based on unnecessary inference and speculation from skewed and scanty evidence.
That is not science but rather religion. The world is full of religion--most of it false.
Falsifiability is a basic tenet of the scientific method. Evolution does not hold up under the scrutiny of real scientific methodology."
I think you are confused. Biology, as good science, is falsifiable. Your assertions about YE are the ones that are not falsifiable. You will not pin yourself down specifically enough to any particular mechanism that can be falsified because you know that if you do it will be falsified. Look above for a prime example.
Some of the classic example of potential falsification for evolution would be things like finding undeniable mammal fossils in undeniable pre-Cambrian deposits. Or finding a dinosaur eating a human. But we can do better.
For instance, one evidence for evolution is that phylogenetic trees can be constructed for extant and fossil organisms from morphology. With the advent of molecular and genetic testing, these trees can be produced from lines of evidence completely independent of morphology. If we regularly found that trees from different lines of evidence were statistically dissimilar, this would be a falsification of evolution. Do you have any such data?
There are many examples of transitional creatures in the fossil record. But these invariably follow the rules of the nested heirarchy and phylogenetic trees. For instance, you expect to find, and do find, fossils intermediate between reptiles and birds. A falsification would be to instead find, say, a half mammal / half bird fossil. This would not fit the rules. Do you have any such evidence?
Another consequence of evlution is atavisms. This occurs when a trait from an anestor makes a reappearance in an individual. Some example are atavistic legs on whales and atavistic tails on some humans. Evolution would not be able to explain atavisms that did not match the scientific history. For example, mammal-like nipples on a reptile or feathers on a mammal would not be able to be explained. Do you have any such evidence?
A related example comes from embryology and developmental biology. Ontogeny can reveal details about phylogeny. For example, two bones in a developing reptile for its jaw. The same two bones in a mammal fetus form the bones of the ear. (There happens to be a series of intermediate fossils that show the reptile jaw turning into the mammal ear.) Human embryos have tails which are reabsorbed. Whales and snakes form limbs which are reabsorbed by birth. Falsification would come from finding ontogeny that did not match phylogeny. For instance, finding legs which are reabsorbed on a developing fish. Do you have any such evidence?
So see, evolution is falsifiable.
