Proving evolution?

[LinuxGal]

> PitBull @PitBulllOwner
> Replying to @SariellaForever @LinuxGal
>
> So not only can you not refute scripture or answer my science
> questions on evolution but you cant prove your loony evolution
> claims either.. 🤣🤣🤣

Evolution claims are never proven, they are what remains standing after all the loony stuff (like a god giving mouth-to-mouth to a mudpie) is rendered implausible.

[Jehanne]

The moden neo-Darwinian paradigm has made testable predictions over the last century, some of which have been verified; as a scientific model and description of life, it is eminently falsifiable, but, to date, not a single reversal in the fossil record has been found. To claim that evolution can someday be disproven is to claim that we will all awake someday to discover that Science has, finally, discovered the Earth to be flat. While theoretically possible, such is vastly, vastly improbable.

[The Grand Nudger]

Any given theory -of- evolution may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that evolution were false..because life does, in fact, change.

[Angrboda]

Any given theory -of- evolution may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that evolution were false..because life does, in fact, change.

That sounds like an equivocation.

[LinuxGal]

Any given theory -of- evolution may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that evolution were false..because life does, in fact, change.

If rabbit fossils, world-wide, were found in a layer below trilobite fossils, then evolution would be falsified.

If Genesis 2 said a Day Six human being existed before Day Five birds (actually, it does), then believers would say one of the following:

1. Genesis 1 is not to be taken literally. It's just a litany used in temple worship. 
2. Genesis 2 is a secondary creation that all happened on the sixth day so Adam could name the birds that already existed.
3. Genesis 2 is not intended to present the chronological sequence of events, it's a theological statement.

[The Architect Of Fate]

> PitBull @PitBulllOwner
> Replying to @SariellaForever @LinuxGal
>
> So not only can you not refute scripture or answer my science
> questions on evolution but you cant prove your loony evolution
> claims either.. 🤣🤣🤣

Evolution claims are never proven, they are what remains standing after all the loony stuff (like a god giving mouth-to-mouth to a mudpie) is rendered implausible

Creationists don't have any science they have a rejection of science, And Evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology that interweaves with a number of other scientific fields and is believed by countless Christians so it's not even an atheistic idea. Creationism by contrast has a group of snake oil salesmen and a few hacks with actual degrees in something relevant to the field and most of them are too cowardly to engage in peer review or write papers that can be scrutinized outside their echo chamber. instead, they choose live debates where their word games and razzle-dazzle can confuse an ill-informed public like a typical con artist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Any given theory -of- evolution may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that evolution were false..because life does, in fact, change.

That sounds like an equivocation.

I can't really help the way things sound?  I do get that when most people say "evolution" they mean a specific theory, but to then extend a falsification of a specific theory to mean that the observation of the thing it had hoped to explain is somehow invalidated is an effect of a subtle and probably unintentional equivocation itself.  It doesn't just sound that way, and it might even be why such clarification sounds like an equivocation?  That's just a hypothesis, that may not be why people make this mistake, but if there were some other explanation it would still be the fact that people do make this mistake.  Another simple example, this time by close analogy.  Finding that any given theory or hypothesis of gravity is false, would not change the way things are observed to fall.  

Any given theory -of- evolution may, at least potentially, end up being proven false..but it would not be possible to prove that evolution were false..because life does, in fact, change.

If rabbit fossils, world-wide, were found in a layer below trilobite fossils, then evolution would be falsified.

Not in the slightest, though it could..in theory... falsify some theories of how or when or in what sequence the observed changes occurred.  We do, btw, sometimes find fossils where they aren't expected to be.  Creationists tend to make alot of hay about these.

[Angrboda]

That sounds like an equivocation.

I can't really help the way things sound?  I do get that when most people say "evolution" they mean a specific theory, but to then extend a falsification of a specific theory to mean that the observation of the thing it had hoped to explain is somehow invalidated is an effect of a subtle and probably unintentional equivocation itself.  It doesn't just sound that way, and it might even be why such clarification sounds like an equivocation?  That's just a hypothesis, that may not be why people make this mistake, but if there were some other explanation it would still be the fact that people do make this mistake.  Another simple example, this time by close analogy.  Finding that any given theory or hypothesis of gravity is false, would not change the way things are observed to fall.  

If rabbit fossils, world-wide, were found in a layer below trilobite fossils, then evolution would be falsified.

Not in the slightest, though it could..in theory... falsify some theories of how or when or in what sequence the observed changes occurred.  We do, btw, sometimes find fossils where they aren't expected to be.  Creationists tend to make alot of hay about these.

Scientific evolution is the idea that the change and diversity of life forms can be explained through naturalistic processes of variation with inheritance.  Evolution as 'change' is a completely different concept, so using both within the same breath as if they were the same is an equivocation.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's not even the theory of evolution. Inheritance with variation is genetics. Mendel worked that one out. Still a useful example. Let's say that inheritance with variation is not the way anything works - we would still be searching for why parents children are similar, but not identical. That's the observation that a theory or hypothesis attempts to explain.

[Angrboda]

That's not even the theory of evolution.  Inheritance with variation is genetics.  Mendel worked that one out.  Still a useful example.  Let's say that inheritance with variation is not the way anything works - we would still be searching for why parents children are similar, but not identical.  That's the observation that a theory or hypothesis attempts to explain.

Yes, that is the theory of evolution. No, that's not what Mendel worked out. And now, you've worn out your welcome with bullshit defenses.