/lit/ - Literature

>>20649313
>I've already told you what the empirically falsifiable parts are and you've agreed to them. Inheritance, mutation, genes effecting phenotype, and phenotype effecting reproductive fitness.

you havent proposes a testable hypothesis you are just being intellectually dishonest like all team rooting atheists. the things youve mentioned are empirically proved to be correct even if you believe in young earth creationism/odin creation stories/alien abduction creation stories or evolution.

again>>20649280
>How will humans change, what organs will be lost via vestigiality, what organs will be new?
>Ill make it simple 4u - how will IQ change based on evolution?

>>14310728
>They readjusted their opinions in the face of contrary evidence.

COULD IT JUST HAPPEN THAT THEY DONT EVEN HAVE A SOLID GROUND TO STAND ON THAT YOU CAN TRY TO FALSIFY!!!????

>>13524520
Implying the opposite by greentext when you don’t have the intellectual capacity to make a case for it is a cop out and it only makes yourself look like a pseud and cement the fact that historical materialism is an unfalsifiable “theory” that belongs in the garbage dump of history.

pic related

"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory but a metaphysical research programme."

what did Karl Popper mean by that?