Tired of godditit magic

[Anonymous No.5282902]

I'm tired of godditit magic calls from people. "The fine tuning paradox proves god" "Your science fails to explain the origin of the universe" Blah blah blah.

Here's my theory. ALL the laws of physics will eventually be linked. There will be an ultimate single axiom from which everything will follow. That axiom will be. The universe IS rational. One law, one simple rule to believe in. One easy to understand concept for all to hang their hat on so-to-speak. If you still need a god - make that non-sentient concept your god. I'm quietly confident this god will stand up to most scientific inquiry.

[Anonymous No.5282906]

You mean string theory?

[Anonymous No.5282908]

>>5282902
no matter how hard you try, physics won't come close to explaining things as easily and accurately as intelligent design and irreducible complexity.

[Anonymous No.5282912]

Neat. Why is the Universe rational as opposed to unrational? Why can physical laws be linked? Why are there physical laws?

You can't explain these things. This does not prove that there is a deist, but it does not disprove one either.

Simply put, the chemistry and physics of our Earth are (seemingly) present throughout the universe. A layer deeper, we don't understand why. Therefore, you must conclude that there exists a system (not necessarily a God) that is bigger and greater than ourselves that played a key role in the creation of Earth and life.

Your turn, you edgy OP, you.

[Anonymous No.5282914]

>>5282902
>implying we've come this far without assuming the universe is rational

[Anonymous No.5282909]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282906[/spoiler]
>string theory
Old-hat man. It's M-theory now.

[Anonymous No.5282916]

>>5282909
M-theory is untestable and pretty damn close to unfalsifiable. Sounds like the start of a religon to me.

[Anonymous No.5282919]

>>5282908
>complexity

Complexity is just the many combinations of the simple base rules.

[Anonymous No.5282922]

>>5282916
Same applies to evolution. Would you consider evolution a religion as well? Fuck off, troll.

[Anonymous No.5282926]

>>5282912
Have you even considered that maybe you're asking "why" when there is no answer? Eventually, there must be a point where something "just is", with no further explanation or deeper mechanism behind it.

[Anonymous No.5282928]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282922[/spoiler]
macro evolution isn't untestable, and it's falsifiable, we just havent' been around long enough to do a study on it.

if some evidence contrary to M-theory comes up, they'll change it to make it work out and say it's still valid. There's a difference.

[Anonymous No.5282934]

>>5282926
Why?

But I'll indulge. If this is the case, there is seemingly no other instance (or very few) in the universe that is without reason (reducing complexity, etc.) It doesn't logically and rationally follow, and that is the parameters that our favorite athiest OP defined.

[Anonymous No.5282935]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282922[/spoiler]
>Evolution
>Unfalsifiable

That's wrong.

[Anonymous No.5282936]

>>5282928
Evolution is not falsifiable. It can be rearranged when new observations are made. It isn't more than an explanation of the existing evidence. Just like M theory. There's no difference.

[Anonymous No.5282939]

>>5282935
Are you saying you can disprove evolution? Fuck off with that creationism trolling.

[Anonymous No.5282944]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282936[/spoiler]
Evolution s falsifiable:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

[OP No.5282941]

>>5282912
Rationality is my one axiom. As an axiom I consider it self evident. It's mu one fall back call. Instead of a theists "godditit" I'm going to stick with "because it rationally follows"

>>5282914
I didnt mean to imply that many people and science in general dont base the way they operate on rational grounds. I just think it will end up being shown that its the one and only rule we will need.

[Anonymous No.5282943]

>>5282934
Why? Because any line of questioning must either go on to infinity or hit a wall where you can go no further. If you intend to use God to explain things, where did God come from?

[Anonymous No.5282947]

>thread on religion vs science
Love you /sci/

[Anonymous No.5282945]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282939[/spoiler]
You don't know what falsifiable means, do you?

[Anonymous No.5282949]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282936[/spoiler]
if we stay alive for 100 million years and watch organism change and they don't, then that's evidence against evolution.

[Anonymous No.5282950]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282939[/spoiler]
No, I'm implying we can run experiments and make observations that would show it to be false if it where.

[Anonymous No.5282956]

>>5282944
This website is bullshit and obvious troll bait. Let me explain why they are wrong and don't know shit about evolution.

>a static fossil record;
That would mean deleting existing evidence. We have FOUND a lot of different fossils supporting evolution.

>true chimeras
They must have evolved. Just rearrange the phylogenetic tree a little. The tree had to be changed more than once in the past. Evolution allows for improvement of our theories.

>a mechanism that would prevent mutations from accumulating;
Must have a reason within the framework of evolution. If such a mechanism was found, we would find an explanation for >

>observations of organisms being created.
Evolution is not abiogenesis. If organisms were created by whatever mechanism, they would then have to obey the laws of evolution.

[Anonymous No.5282959]

>>5282945
It means there exists a hypothetical scenario that would render the theory wrong. No such scenario exists for evolution.

>>5282949
No. We would find an explanation. Don't you know how science works?

>>5282950
Show me one experiment that disproves evolution. I dare you, troll.

[Anonymous No.5282960]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282956[/spoiler]
Holy shit you're retarded.
Do you even know what falsifiable means?

[Anonymous No.5282969]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282959[/spoiler]
the explanation would be that evolution isn't an accurate description of variation of species

[Anonymous No.5282963]

>>5282960
I know what falsifiable means. You obviously don't. Please look it up in a dictionary. And please point out where anything in my post was incorrect.

[Anonymous No.5282965]

>>5282902
>The universe IS rational. One law, one simple rule to believe in. One easy to understand concept for all to hang their hat on so-to-speak.
inb4 people look back and say 'wow, this one simple truth we've come up with... in some ways it's a lot like that 'god' that those old jews wrote about'

[Anonymous No.5282967]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282959[/spoiler]
>No such scenario exists for evolution.
Yes it does:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

[Anonymous No.5282972]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282963[/spoiler]
Your entire post doesn't make any sense.
It's quite clear you don't understand what it means.

[Anonymous No.5282971]

>>5282967
I just addressed and debunked that troll nonsense. See >>5282956. None of your creationist fantasies is even hypothetically possible.

[Anonymous No.5282975]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282971[/spoiler]
Ok, it's obvious you're either a troll, or have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

[Anonymous No.5282976]

>>5282902

Your understanding of rationality and logic does not seem to be the same as my understanding.

[Anonymous No.5282973]

>>5282947
>>thread on religion vs science
>Love you /sci/
I think people have interpreted that rule rather broadly. This thread isn't anti-science... and nobody posting in it is anti-science. So ....

[Anonymous No.5282977]

>>5282965
shut up, you're ruining the party for all of us that think we have it all figured out.

[Anonymous No.5282979]

>>5282969
Wrong. It would mean we need to make a few changes in the theory. That's all. Scientific theories can change with new observations.

>>5282972
>>5282975
Posting "hurr you're wrong" is not a counterargument. It isn't an argument at all. Just because evolution disagrees with your religious beliefs, that doesn't give you the right to shitpost. Please leave the science board.

[OP No.5282985]

>>5282965
The Jews wrote about a non-sentient god? Doesn’t seem likely.

[Anonymous No.5282988]

>>5282975
How about you take a course or read a book on evolution? Clearly you don't understand it.

[Anonymous No.5282989]

>>5282972
>>5282975
>creationists
>on /sci/

Get out. 0/10

[Anonymous No.5282994]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282979[/spoiler]
>Just because evolution disagrees with your religious beliefs, that doesn't give you the right to shitpost.
Ok now it's completely obvious you're a troll - Or you don't even know what you're arguing against.

Here's a protip for you: Something being falsifiable is actually a good thing, it's in fact a requirement for a scientific theory.

[Anonymous No.5283000]

>>5282985
Eh, the bible's full of shit like 'i am the way, the truth and the light', and 'he leadeth me by the still waters, green pastures', etc.... it's all like, southern fire and brimstone preachers that added the other shit, basically. Other than all the 'spaeketh', shit. But I mean...

Oh, and also, since you're so fucking dense, I was implying that god is a part of human consciousness, and that consciousness is a yet to be explained aspect of physics (which people so conveniently forget).

[Anonymous No.5282996]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282988[/spoiler]
I don't know where you're comming from so lets clarify. Are you saying that evolution is fundementally impossible to disprove, and as such is not a scientific theory and should not be taught or researched?

[Anonymous No.5282997]

>>5282994
But it is not falsifiable. There exists no hypothetical scenario that would render it wrong.

[Anonymous No.5283001]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282997[/spoiler]
Yes there does.

[Anonymous No.5283004]

>>5282996
It is impossible to disprove. That doesn't make it less of a scientific theory. It has lots of evidence and explains existing observations. Not every theory has to be falsifiable. Don't stick to outdated Popper ideology that has been known to be wrong for decades.

[Anonymous No.5283007]

>>5283001
Name one. Protip: You can't.

inb4 you link to the troll crap I already debunked

[Extreme Slaughter Celebration No.5283014]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5282971[/spoiler]
>Implying that creationist-pretence isn't an intellectual challenge that pretty much all of regular /sci/ers engage in for the lolz. Hence the "isn't evolution just a geuss" period we had here, where even I got banned once. That ban was in my opinion unjustified. I think /sci/ should be tolerable to intellectual challanges of these sorts.

[Anonymous No.5283010]

>>5283001
Evolution s falsifiable:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

[Anonymous No.5283011]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283004[/spoiler]
>Not every theory has to be falsifiable.
Well this is new.

[Anonymous No.5283015]

>>5283010
This is the third time you post this link and it is still wrong. Please address the refutation in >>5282956.

[Anonymous No.5283016]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283007[/spoiler]
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

[Anonymous No.5283018]

Just so everyone is clear about this:

Falsifiability is when a hypothesis or conjecture can be tested in a way that would clearly show it to be incorrect IF IT WERE FALSE. This does NOT mean the idea has to be wrong to be falsifiable. It only means that we should be able to test it in such a way that we can show it isn't specifically false. Such as test does not prove an idea to be true either. It can only show that an idea is or is not wrong in some specific way.

If an idea is non falsifiable, we can't test it in a way that would specifically prove it wrong if it is wrong. Such an idea would be non scientific, as there would be no evidence to support it.

[Anonymous No.5283030]

>>5283011
No, this isn't new at all. Popper ideology is deprecated for decades now.

>>5283016
Stop that argument by repetition trolling. I have addressed these points and explained why they are wrong. Please refer to >>5282956. If you don't understand my explanation, then ask my about the parts you don't understand. Repeated spamming and shitposting is rude and pointless.

[OP No.5283031]

>>5282994
Actually I think "falsifiability" has been somewhat set aside as an absolute requirement.

Anyhoo: as an example of what I'm on about: In my own words. There used to be four fundamental forces of nature; gravity, electromagnetism (previously two separate forces) the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force. Then after a bunch of experimentation and math low and behold the electro-weak force.

Further there are plenty of people working to combine the remainder. I suggest that they may one day succeed and as a result the "constants" of nature will be shown to be functions of one another leaving us with nothing but reason to explain it all.

You have to admit that its aesthetically pleasing.

[Anonymous No.5283027]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283015[/spoiler]
Nothing you said there is a refutation of anything, it in fact agrees with my point.

[Anonymous No.5283033]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283007[/spoiler]
hypothetical situations:

1. God shows himself and shows us he created the earth and asserts that our science is wrong.

2. We prove that organisms don't change based on environmental needs

there's an infinite number of situations where evolution is not valid

[Anonymous No.5283035]

>>5282902

>ALL the laws of physics will eventually be linked. There will be an ultimate single axiom from which everything will follow. That axiom will be. The universe IS rational.

Sorry to burst your bubble OP.

http://arxiv.org/pdf/0708.1362v2.pdf

[Anonymous No.5283039]

>>5283000
trips proves I'm right.

And also, you have to seperate all the mythology bullshit... because there is that bullshit creation myth, and like.. adam and evelol.... But I mean, it's not even one book, it's a collection of books that the catholics or whatever all decided to include in the child molestation scheme. So you can't really fault psalms or the song of solomon or other interesting, philisophically noteworthy shit for all the shitty shit that's in there. It's not the author of the good shit's fault, he didn't decide to include it in there. People in a dark room voted on what would be 'the bible' like, a long time ago. It's not even a real book. It's more like a magazine.

[Anonymous No.5283040]

>>5283031
I agree with you OP. The whole thing will be logical in the end, everything we've found so far points towards that. The only real question is how long it will take to get to the bottom of it all.

[Anonymous No.5283038]

>>5283027
You are making a baseless claim. Again. Please explain what you didn't understand in my post.

>>5283018
>If an idea is non falsifiable, we can't test it in a way that would specifically prove it wrong if it is wrong. Such an idea would be non scientific, as there would be no evidence to support it.
Incorrect. See evolution,. Evolution is a scientific theory with lots of evidence, but it is not falsifiable.

>>5283033
>1. God shows himself and shows us he created the earth and asserts that our science is wrong.
0/10

>2. We prove that organisms don't change based on environmental needs
We have already proved the opposite, i.e. the FACT that organisms do change based on environmental needs.

[Anonymous No.5283043]

>>5283018
>on /sci/
>not knowing the difference between evidence and falsifiability

I sure hope you are just pretending to be retarded.

[Anonymous No.5283044]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283030[/spoiler]
Your post doesn't make any sesne though, what am I suppose to respond to?
You essentially answered the question "what is 1+1?" with "blue".

[Anonymous No.5283045]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283030[/spoiler]

The fossil record we have could be proven to be fraudulent. all of it.
It's not likely but it is possible. Saying that it is impossible to disprove simply because there is SO MUCH evidence is not an arguement, and that's essentially where you're comming from in every case.

[Anonymous No.5283047]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283038[/spoiler]
>but it is not falsifiable.
Yes it is.

[Anonymous No.5283051]

>>5283044
What didn't you understand? I was using logic and facts to disprove the nonsense you posted. What part do you disagree with? Do you disagree that there fossils backing up the theory of evolution? Do you disagree that a scientific theory can change, given new observations? You are a 0/10 troll.

[Anonymous No.5283057]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283038[/spoiler]
let me see a published paper that proves environmental stimuli was responsible for the large scale change of organisms. We know it works for microevolution, there's no question about that.

[Anonymous No.5283053]

>>5283045
>The fossil record we have could be proven to be fraudulent. all of it.
You wish, creationist troll.

>>5283047
No, it isn't. You cannot name one hypothetical falsification.

[Anonymous No.5283054]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283038[/spoiler]
If you did a 100 million year genetic study of a hundred thousand different species in different, changing environments, tracking each and every genetic change in every species for that entire time, it could be done. If this study found not a single change in genetics, despite many diverse changes in environment in a wide array of different creatures, you'd have falsified evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283058]

>>5283033
3. we see evidence that lamarck's theory was correct

also evolution being testable/evidence of evolution: increased pathogenic resistance to penicillin over the past half a decade

[Anonymous No.5283059]

>>5283054
We have already observed genetic change.

[Anonymous No.5283064]

>>5283058
>3. we see evidence that lamarck's theory was correct

Are you retarded? Lamarck's theory is a theory of evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283070]

>>5283058
>implying lamarck isn't proven right by epigenetics

[Anonymous No.5283071]

what are you faggots even arguing about?

christian mythology (earth created in 7 days, adam and eve, etc) has been proven false because it's completely ridiculous. It doesn't make any sense given what we know about the world. I'm not trying to slight all aspects of abrahamic religions, or eastern religions, but the mythology is by definition MYTH, so get over it.

It's like if I told you your room is full of snakes right now, you could look around be like 'nope', well same with mythology.

[Anonymous No.5283074]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283064[/spoiler]
we're talking about darwin's evolution and what's come from that, not any theory of evolution in general.

by that logic, creationism is a theory of evolution

[Anonymous No.5283077]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283059[/spoiler]
but species aren't defined by dna

[Anonymous No.5283087]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283059[/spoiler]
I know. I'm not saying doing that would be practical. I was giving a reason why it is falsifiable, technically speaking. If you were to do the same thing with 10 different kinds of bacteria for 10 years it would still work. We have observed genetic change, hence the theory not wrong according to this test. Despite that, it could be falsified if it were wrong, and hence fits the definition.

[Anonymous No.5283078]

>>5283074
>we're talking about darwin's evolution and what's come from that, not any theory of evolution in general.
We are talking about evolution in general, you moron. Thanks for showing off your lack of education and reading comprehension.

>by that logic, creationism is a theory of evolution
No. Creationism is a theory of abiogenesis, not of evolution. Actually it is not a theory at all. It doesn't even have evidence. It's a myth.

[Anonymous No.5283080]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283051[/spoiler]
>That would mean deleting existing evidence. We have FOUND a lot of different fossils supporting evolution.
This show you don't even understand what falsifiable means.
OF COURSE the evidence WE HAVE shows evolution is true, what part of "there must exist a test which _in principle_ COULD falsify the theory" don't you understand?
Falsifiable basically means: You have to be able to ask a question or make a prediction, that if false would mean the theory is bunk.

>They must have evolved.
No, a true chimera could not have evolved from a common ancestor, it would defeintiely disprove that.
>Just rearrange the phylogenetic tree a little.
Proving my point, you fucking idiot.

>Must have a reason within the framework of evolution.
What?
If it could be shown that there was a 'cap' on mutations that would destroy any chance of species changing into other species.

>Evolution is not abiogenesis.
No one has said it was, retard.
>If organisms were created by whatever mechanism, they would then have to obey the laws of evolution.
NO THEY WOULDN*T.
Jesus christ.
If we observed a new species popping out of existence out of fucking nowhere, that would disprove evolution because the obvious question becomes - why couldn't all the other species have done the same? (The ones we don't have transitional fossils for, which are quite a few)

[Anonymous No.5283083]

>>5283077
0/10

[Anonymous No.5283091]

>>5283000
>god is a part of human consciousness, and that consciousness is a yet to be explained aspect of physics (which people so conveniently forget).
This could work. In that case OP and christfags would both be semi-correct... though I'd give the point more to OP, personally.

[OP No.5283093]

>>5283035
Nice!
Seems a little similar to Godels theorem applied to the universe as a whole. In a sense I agreee. It certainly seems quite possible (likely even in my opinion) that the universe contains plenty of unprovable truths.

However unprovability doesn’t stop us from preparing a coherent description of the universe which follows from a simple single axiom.

The final result may just (dare I say it) have to be taken on faith.

Something at least for those who seem desperate to place it on something.

[Anonymous No.5283096]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283083[/spoiler]
well if you think im trolling, then that must mean you believe that since black people have different dna than white people, they're a different species

[Anonymous No.5283109]

>>5283080
>This show you don't even understand what falsifiable means.
It shows that YOU have no idea what it means.
How is "what if our existing evidence suddenly disappeared" a valid hypothetical falsification? It isn't. It's pure nonsense. You are fucking retarded.

>No, a true chimera could not have evolved from a common ancestor
It has to be evolved. The sole purpose of evolution is to explain how that shit evolved, you retard.

>Proving my point, you fucking idiot.
The phylogenetic tree had to be rearranged several times. Educate yourself. Take at least a highschool level biology course.

>If it could be shown that there was a 'cap' on mutations that would destroy any chance of species changing into other species.
But that "cap" wouldn't be magical. It would have to have a physical explanation. Do you even science?

>No one has said it was, retard.
You and your shitty troll website said it was. You claimed creation would disprove evolution. It doesn't. Evolution explains what happens to populations that exist, but not how life came into existenc in the first place. Evolution is not abiogeneses. Please be trolling.

>If we observed a new species popping out of existence out of fucking nowhere, that would disprove evolution because the obvious question becomes - why couldn't all the other species have done the same?
Are you fucking retarded? EVOLUTION =/= ABIOGENESIS.

[Anonymous No.5283119]

>>5283087
>I was giving a reason why it is falsifiable
You weren't. "The observations made in the past have never been made" is an impossible scenario, not even hypothetically possible.

[OP No.5283120]

>>5283000
>consciousness is a yet to be explained aspect of physics
Really? Really? There is some fantastic new research on the science of consciousness.
Damn I love "horizon"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Biv_8xjj8E

[Anonymous No.5283123]

>>5283120
>science of consciousness
0/10

>science
>unobservable /x/ magic
Choose one.

[Anonymous No.5283125]

>universe
>rational

Pick one

[Anonymous No.5283130]

>>5283096
According to that logic you are a different species too. Well at least that would explain why you're never gonna reproduce.

[Anonymous No.5283136]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283119[/spoiler]
You really have no idea what the fuck you're actually talking about, do you? This isn't even an argument about something important. It's a failed attempt to help you comprehend a definition.

[Anonymous No.5283141]

>>5283136
I know what I'm talking about. Do you have any questions or are you just gonna repeat ad hominems, insults and pointless shitposting?

[Anonymous No.5283142]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283130[/spoiler]
i don't think that, that's why i said dna doesn't define a species

[Anonymous No.5283149]

>>5283142
Your opinions are irrelevant to science.

[OP No.5283154]

>>5283125
feel free to use "logical" or "naturalistic" instead.
<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283123[/spoiler]
How do you know consciousness is unobservable?
Be careful when describing phenomena as unobservable, time may well prove you wrong.

[Anonymous No.5283153]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283109[/spoiler]
>"what if our existing evidence suddenly disappeared" a valid hypothetical falsification?
Are you fucking retarded?

>It has to be evolved.
But it can't have evolved you moron.
You would need a new theory, you have to throw out single common ancestry, you have to throw out how gene transfer work, etc. It would pretty much be on the scale of Newton -> GR
>The sole purpose of evolution is to explain how that shit evolved
No, the purpose of evolution is to explain the diversity of life.

>The phylogenetic tree had to be rearranged several times.
To fit new data - data which agreed with the existing model you idiot.
It has never been refitted to accommodate a chimera - because it CAN'T accommodate them.

>But that "cap" wouldn't be magical. It would have to have a physical explanation.
Yes of course, but what the fuck does that have to do with anything?
Falsifying evolution doesn't mean magic you retard, it could be a new - but still natural - explanation of course.

>You and your shitty troll website said it was.
Holy shit you truly ARE retarded.

>You claimed creation would disprove evolution.
And it would.
God coming down right now and creating a new species out of thin air would instantly disprove evolution.

>Evolution explains what happens to populations that exist
It's also an explanation for the diversity of life and how and why different species arose.

>Evolution is not abiogeneses
No one has said that, stop strawmanning.

>Are you fucking retarded? EVOLUTION =/= ABIOGENESIS.
No one has said that.

[Anonymous No.5283161]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283123[/spoiler]
I think you're just wrong. You literally just called consciousness 'magic'. lololololololol
>>5283120
>really? reallly?
yes, really. Thanks for the video, though. My connection is all wonky but I'll watch it later. I would be shocked if a month from now they came out and were like 'we know everything there is to know about consciousness'. A mechanism would be cool, but even that only takes you so far due to the nature of the thing itself. It's not exactly like describing the mechanism of a steam engine due to the subjective component. I'm just saying it's difficult.

[Anonymous No.5283171]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283141[/spoiler]
But see, the thing is that you really don't. You THINK you do, but fail to actually know what you're talking about. When someone doesn't actually understand what they talking about (but is confident that they do) than argument becomes useless.

At any point, have you looked of the definition of what you're talking about to make sure you're actually right about it? Or did you just assume you were above doing so?

[Anonymous No.5283175]

You seems to think that the only way for a theory to be fundamentally falsifiable, is for it to be unproven.

It's like saying it were impossible for a couple of dice to land any other way than they did, simply because we've now already observed the results.

In a way it's true. It is impossible for them to land in any other way because it didn't happen and that's a fact. But this is a pretty useless way to look at things.

Point being you can't consider the results of a test in evaluating whether or not a theory is falsifiable. Is the theory of evolution falsifiable when you don't consider the results of experiments? Yes it could be falsified if it were proven that animals can't pass on their traits.

[Anonymous No.5283182]

>>5283153
>Are you fucking retarded?
No, I'm not. You are.
>But it can't have evolved you moron.
Keep asserting that. Maybe if you repeat it a hundred times, it becomes a little bit less wrong. Oh wait, no, it will always be wrong.
>You would need a new theory, you have to throw out single common ancestry, you have to throw out how gene transfer work, etc. It would pretty much be on the scale of Newton -> GR
Scientific theories are altered to account for new observations. Newtonian theory and GR are still theories of gravity. One is an improved version of the other, but both explain the same phenomenon.
>No, the purpose of evolution is to explain the diversity of life.
This is what I said, dumbass.
>To fit new data - data which agreed with the existing model you idiot.
If it agreed with the existing model, nothing would have been changed, you fucking retard.
>It has never been refitted to accommodate a chimera - because it CAN'T accommodate them.
It can. Stop making idiotic assertions. When we find a new speices, we can rearrange the phylogenetic tree to fit it in. This has been done many times before. How uneducated are you?
>Falsifying evolution doesn't mean magic
Yes, it does. Evolution is a law of nature. You would need magic to disprove it and we all know magic doesn't exist.

[OP No.5283184]

>>5283161
My favourite part of the video is the bit from which one could infer that its possible to prove we have no free will; that conscious decisions made by an agent are in fact set by unconscious chemical processes many seconds before realisation in the conscious mind. My mind was blown.

I also note that by posting a link to a wicked awesome but rather long video everyones buggered off and I seem to have killed my own thread.

bums

[Anonymous No.5283191]

>>5283153
>Holy shit you truly ARE retarded.
You used that word at least three times in that one post alone. Please leave. You are too immature for this board.

>God coming down right now and creating a new species out of thin air would instantly disprove evolution.
Once again: EVOLUTION =/= ABIOGENESIS
Even a newly created species would obey the laws of evolution. What's there not to understand?

>It's also an explanation for the diversity of life and how and why different species arose.
But it is NOT an explanation for how life originated in the first place, i.e. abiogenesis.

>No one has said that, stop strawmanning.
You just did. Three sentences earlier.

[Anonymous No.5283197]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283182[/spoiler]
>No, I'm not. You are.
You shown time and time again you don't understand what 'falsifiable' means.

>Keep asserting that. Maybe if you repeat it a hundred times, it becomes a little bit less wrong. Oh wait, no, it will always be wrong.
Cool, lets see the explanation for how a chimera could have evolved then, I'm waiting...

>Newtonian theory and GR are still theories of gravity.
And one of them is wrong.

>If it agreed with the existing model, nothing would have been changed
You don't understand the difference between evidence, and a model for the evidence, do you?

>When we find a new speices, we can rearrange the phylogenetic tree to fit it in.
Except a chimera wouldn't fit in anywhere, there's no hierarchy you can put it in which would be logically consistent with the theory. It's like trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

>Yes, it does.
No, it doesn't.

>Evolution is a law of nature.
Ok, it's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about now.

[Anonymous No.5283199]

>>5283184
eh, my internet has decided to take a vacation from being good, so I'm still here. I'll be shocked if the video makes a legit case for the non-existence of free will. It seems like it would just be tremendously difficult to prove that, especially given what we know today. You could certainly prove that our actions are largely the result of chemistry, but to completely disprove free will would take some serious shit that I would imagine is beyond our current means.

[Anonymous No.5283202]

>>5283154
>How do you know consciousness is unobservable?
Show me how it is observable.

>>5283161
>You literally just called consciousness 'magic'
Definition "magic": The power of apparently influencing the course of events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

An unobservable and non-interacting entity that is nonetheless somehow supposed to exist would definitely be mysterious and supernatural.

[Anonymous No.5283204]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283191[/spoiler]
>Once again: EVOLUTION =/= ABIOGENESIS
No one has said that, stop using strawmen.

>Even a newly created species would obey the laws of evolution.
There is no "law of evolution" you retard.
God creating and showing how all species were created would falsify evolution - no species has evolved into anything else because everything was created as-is.

>You just did. Three sentences earlier.
Where?

[Anonymous No.5283206]

>>5283171
Explain what you don't understand in my posts. Petty ad hominems won't achieve anything.

[Anonymous No.5283210]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283202[/spoiler]
>Show me how it is observable.
that's not an argument. you're dumb.
>definitely be mysterious and supernatural.
you believe in magic. you're an moron.

[Anonymous No.5283220]

>>5283197
>You shown time and time again you don't understand what 'falsifiable' means.
I have explained to you what it means. The dictionaries agree with me.

>Cool, lets see the explanation for how a chimera could have evolved then, I'm waiting...
Show biologists a chimera. They'll find an explanation.

>You don't understand the difference between evidence, and a model for the evidence, do you?
What shitty strawman is this? The difference is obvious and models can change with new observations.

>Except a chimera wouldn't fit in anywhere
That's why the tree needed to be rearranged. Are you illiterate?

>Ok, it's obvious you don't have a clue what you're talking about now.
Why do morons use ad hominems after being disproved. Just admit you were wrong, you cretionous piece of shit.

[Anonymous No.5283215]

This thread is literally just semantics. Two sides have different interpretations of the same word, and they're slightly at odds. Everyone go find some good sources on what falsifiability is and see if maybe you're missing something.

[OP No.5283217]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283202[/spoiler]
i provided a link to a really nice vid which does just that. Which part did you think was lies?

The video also makes a pretty good case for rejecting mind/body duality

[Anonymous No.5283224]

>>5283204
>No one has said that, stop using strawmen.
You said a newly created species would disprove evolution. It wouldn't. After its "creation" it would evolve.

>There is no "law of evolution" you retard.
>God creating and showing how all species were created would falsify evolution
Now this is shitposting.

[Anonymous No.5283226]

>>5283210
>that's not an argument. you're dumb.
I asked you for evidence? Do you have evidence? If not, go back to >>>/x/

>you believe in magic. you're an moron.
I don't. You do. Please don't do this on a science board.

[Anonymous No.5283228]

>>5283217
A youtube video is not a scientific publication. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.5283229]

>>5282902
Until we find this magical axiom stop talking like we DO know the origins of the universe. Not knowing things doesn't prove or disprove there is a God.

[Anonymous No.5283234]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283220[/spoiler]
>I have explained to you what it means. The dictionaries agree with me.
Yet you keep making statements which shows you don't understand what it means.
You're like a man copying Chinese symbols without understanding them.

>Show biologists a chimera. They'll find an explanation.
So you don't have an explanation then?

>The difference is obvious and models can change with new observations.
And if evidence comes it that cannot fit the current model, that model has been falsified.

>That's why the tree needed to be rearranged
You cannot arrange it to make it fit, it would falsify common ancestry.

>Why do morons use ad hominems after being disproved.
You don't even know what an ad hominem is, protip: name calling isn't ad hominem.
And you haven't disproved jack shit.
What are these "laws of evolution" then?

[Anonymous No.5283241]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283224[/spoiler]
>You said a newly created species would disprove evolution.
By a god, yes, and it would.

>Now this is shitposting.
Cool arguments.

[Anonymous No.5283238]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283206[/spoiler]
I understand them perfectly well. They just happen to display a misinterpretation of the idea of falsifiability. You're convinced that it's right though. If you won't accept that you could be wrong, than I can't really make any progress here.

I accept that I could be wrong too. I looked it up myself before I started this. I've checked myself, and I'm still right.

[Anonymous No.5283245]

>>5283234
>Yet you keep making statements which shows you don't understand what it means.
That's exactly what you do. Nice projection.

>So you don't have an explanation then?
Unless you show me a chmera, there's nothing that needs a new explanation.

>And if evidence comes it that cannot fit the current model, that model has been falsified.
Are you saying that evolution has been disproved everytime we found a new species and had to rearrange the phylogenetic tree? You clearly have no idea what evolution means.

>You cannot arrange it to make it fit, it would falsify common ancestry.
Bullshit.

>What are these "laws of evolution" then?
See? This is why you shouldn't post. How dare you arguing about evolution without even knowing what it is?

[Anonymous No.5283248]

>>5283241
>By a god, yes, and it would.
No. Evolution =/= abiogenesis. How often do I need to repeat this? Please take an intro course on biology and evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283246]

>>5283238
My definition of falsifiability agrees with the dictionaries. If you disagree with me, you disagree with dictionaries. Most likely you are wrong then.

[Anonymous No.5283252]

/sci/ , this is a Public Service Announcement.

please go here

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

and read through that list, familiarizing yourself with them.

>note that there are more fallacies than numbers 1 and 41

Thank you.

[OP No.5283258]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283228[/spoiler]
Conciousness is not my field. Feel free to follow their references. The guy interviews people actually working in this field. I just like it coz its presented in lay terms. Also feel free to post your own scientific papers presenting an alternate view.

>>5283229
I NEVER claimed anyone knows the true origins of the universe. I'm honestly surprised you inferred that. Also since there is no proof for god either way (or any other fantastic magical being for that matter) I'll stick will a naturalistic interpretation of the world I observe.

[Anonymous No.5283263]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283246[/spoiler]
You fail to understand the philosophy of the concept. You don't know what "able to be disproved" means in it's philosophical, abstract context.

[Anonymous No.5283265]

>>5283263
I fully understood it. By now I asked you several times to point out where you think I'm wrong. You didn't point it out. Instead you did nothing but repeating silly ad hominems. Please stop wasting your time. Shitposting is pointless.

[Anonymous No.5283302]

>this entire thread

The people claiming evolution is not falsifiable are retards

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x05n5w520g614xt1/

[Anonymous No.5283304]

>>5283302
Did you read the book? I'd like to know how they think evolution could be falsified.

[Anonymous No.5283307]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283304[/spoiler]
That isn't a book, ding dong. It's a scientific publication.

[Anonymous No.5283308]

>>5283307
Didn't answer my question, asshat.

[Anonymous No.5283311]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283308[/spoiler]
It's not my fault the NEET trolls on /sci/ don't attend university. Buy the article and read it yourself.

[Anonymous No.5283312]

>>5283311
I do attend university and I will not buy that article. Can you please answer my question now?

[Anonymous No.5283324]

>>5282902
But what about arbitrary phenomena, like different languages having different words for the same thing? There's no correspondence between the things we name and the names we give them. Sure, languages come from protolanguages and are affected by social and historical processes, but why are protolanguages different?

[Anonymous No.5283329]

>>5282943
Perhaps God can be saved by saying that he is not a phenomenon, and therefore has no cause or origin.

[Anonymous No.5283334]

COULD the CREATIONIST GUYS PLEASE GET OFF /SCI, I DONT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING HERE. We discuss /sci related stuff, not magic (->/x), not god (->reddit).

[Anonymous No.5283333]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283265[/spoiler]
I was gone there, sorry for the belated response.

Your problem is that you think the concept of falsifiability implies that the idea must be intrinsically false. You seem to assume "must be able to prove it it false" means that it doesn't apply to any concept that is true.

What it actually means is that a given idea must be testable in a way such that if it were false, it could be proven false. Evolution can be tested in ways that would show it to be wrong it it actually is wrong. These tests do not falsify it, but instead lend it further credence. Still, it is falsifiable in principal. The "in principal" part is what matters here. It contrasts with thing such as the existence of God, or much of String Theory, which can NOT be falsified in principal.

[Anonymous No.5283341]

>>5283333
>you think the concept of falsifiability implies that the idea must be intrinsically false
I never implied this. Please work on your reading comprehension.

>What it actually means is that a given idea must be testable in a way such that if it were false, it could be proven false.
Incorrect. Falsifiable means there exists a hypothetically possible scenario that would render the theory false, if it happened. This scenario not necessarily testable by systematic methods. It can happen by pure coincidence.

>Evolution can be tested in ways that would show it to be wrong it it actually is wrong
This is incorrect. There exists no observation that would make evolution false.

[Magi No.5283347]

OP, I looked at your pic & the is only one way I can agree, with that pretense that implies existance outside of existance is merely a concept & by thst we can say that everything in existance is a post interpretation of functions already being performed.
Look at everything around you OP, could that represent a rationality of a function outside our world?

[Anonymous No.5283354]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283341[/spoiler]
Dear anon , /sci gets it, you are correct. Let him just be, you know you can't convince christians with logic, think at the pigeon analogy. I tried it several times and its hopeless. As long as those guys don't enforce their weird stuff on other people its okay.

[Anonymous No.5283350]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283245[/spoiler]
>That's exactly what you do. Nice projection.
No, that's what you've been doing as evident by your incoherent statements.

>Unless you show me a chmera, there's nothing that needs a new explanation.
Again, not understanding what the point even is.

>Are you saying that evolution has been disproved everytime we found a new species and had to rearrange the phylogenetic tree?
It was always a tree, we never had to rearrange it into random white noise - which would disprove common ancestry.

>Bullshit.
Tell me how and where you'd fit in a mermaid then?

>See? This is why you shouldn't post. How dare you arguing about evolution without even knowing what it is?
Still waiting on an answer... You keep dodging the question.

[Anonymous No.5283353]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283248[/spoiler]
>Evolution =/= abiogenesis.
No one has said this, stop using strawmen.

[Anonymous No.5283359]

>>5283350
Why do you shitpost? Your post has absolutely zero content. It is just an weird compilation of fallacies and insults. Please stop inanely wasting your time. You won't convert me to your religion.

[Anonymous No.5283362]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283341[/spoiler]
Your first two points contradict each other.

If you were to find that DNA was physically incapable of mutation, that would do it. I'm not sure why I'm giving that example though. You've been given examples and dismiss them.

[Anonymous No.5283363]

ABIOGENESIS or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes. In particular, the term usually refers to the processes by which life on Earth may have arisen.

EVOLUTION is the process of change in all forms of life over generations

[Anonymous No.5283365]

>>5283353
I see now who you are. You are that mentally ill person who trolls /sci/ every evening with highly repetitive shitposting, repeating the same fallacies and wrong bullshit over and over again. Don't you have meds to take?

[Anonymous No.5283375]

>>5283362
>If you were to find that DNA was physically incapable of mutation
That's obvious bullshit. We know how DNA looks like and how it reacts to certain environmental impacts. "DNA physically incapable of mutation" is impossible. I hope you're trolling. If not, then please immediately stop posting until you took at least a highschool biology course and learnt what DNA is.

[Anonymous No.5283371]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283341[/spoiler]
>Incorrect.
Nothing you said dispute that definition , it exactly agrees with it.
A test or experiment doesn't just have to be: do something in a lab, see what happens. It could be making a prediction and then looking at the world and see if it agrees - and this includes unexpected phenomena being observed.

>This is incorrect. There exists no observation that would make evolution false.
Again, you show you don't understand what falsifiable means.
Of course such an actual observation doesn't exist - if it did, the theory would be _false_ as in not science.

You seem to be confused what the difference between falsiFIED and falsiFIABLE is.

[Anonymous No.5283377]

Let us assume evolution correct. Then let the scientists keep working on it under this assumption. Fin.

And actually is there any research done in the field creationism? Just wondering what you could research there other than reading the bible under the assumption that the bible is correct.

[Anonymous No.5283378]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283359[/spoiler]
Take your creationist garbage out of /sci/ please.

[Anonymous No.5283380]

>>5283371
>A test or experiment doesn't just have to be: do something in a lab, see what happens.
A test involves a systematic method. Unexpected observations to happen by pure coincidence is nothing we can test for.

>Of course such an actual observation doesn't exist - if it did, the theory would be _false_ as in not science.
Please learn to read. I was saying that it cannot even _hypothetically_ exist.

[Anonymous No.5283382]

>>5283378
Troll harder. You were the one talking about God disproving evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283391]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283375[/spoiler]
Christ you ARE retarded.

>"DNA physically incapable of mutation" is impossible.
Why would that be impossible?
There's nothing in principle that would prevent DNA from being a perfect* replicator.

* Of course a perfect replication is physically impossible but for the purposes here it would suffice to have a replicator that either produces an identical copy, or abandons the process, that would completely prevent any mutations.

DNA in general was a perfect candidate for falsifying evolution - Darwin didn't even know it existed. If DNA would have shown zero genetic family trees - for example if your children had completely unrelated DNA to you, no mechanism for producing new information it would have completely destroyed the theory.

[Anonymous No.5283394]

>>5283391
>Why would that be impossible?
Because we know how we can make DNA mutate.

[Anonymous No.5283392]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283382[/spoiler]
Now you apparently don't even have basic reading comprehension.
You don't even know what or who you're arguing against, do you?
Protip: Everything I've said has been in support of evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283399]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283396[/spoiler]
>I was trying to explain evolution to you
No, I was explaining it to you, because you're a creationist shitposter.

[Anonymous No.5283396]

>>5283392
0/10

I was trying to explain evolution to you, while you were talking about God disproving evolution. Stop shitposting. It isn't even funny. You're wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.5283397]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283380[/spoiler]
>A test involves a systematic method. Unexpected observations to happen by pure coincidence is nothing we can test for.
Observation is systematic.

>I was saying that it cannot even _hypothetically_ exist.
And you're wrong, countless examples have already been shown in this thread.
I think one of the more 'famous' ones hasn't even been said:
"fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."

[Anonymous No.5283398]

Whatever you guys are saying, if you want to disprove the evolution theory (in the mathematical sense) you would have to observe all species on the earth for an infinite amount of time which is not possible. And since evolution theory is very plausible for /sci and other scientist there will be more research in this area. Nothing you creationist guys can do

[Anonymous No.5283402]

>>5283397
>Observation is systematic.
Observations made by pure coincidence are not systematic.

>countless examples have already been shown in this thread.
You mean all the obvious trolls?

>"fossil rabbits in the Precambrian era."
Then rabbits must have evolved earlier. No problem. Try harder.

[Anonymous No.5283403]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283394[/spoiler]
You really are thick, aren't you?

Why would that be impossible _in principle_?
What prevents the existence of a kind of DNA that prevents mutations?

[Anonymous No.5283405]

>>5283399
I am no creationist. I believe in evolution. Evolution is the most plausible scientific theory. Why are you trying so hard? What do you want to achieve? You're wasting your time.

[Anonymous No.5283409]

>>5283403
Do you even know what DNA is? We know how it chemically looks like and we know how we can physically alter that molecule.

[Anonymous No.5283410]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283402[/spoiler]
>Observations made by pure coincidence are not systematic.
The data != The act or test.
Observing is a systematic principle, what you find can of course be unexpected.

>Then rabbits must have evolved earlier.
Thus falsifying the theory.

[Anonymous No.5283411]

>>5283354
I'm not a Creationist. I completely believe Evolution. I don't think it it actually CAN be falsified. I just want to point out that it hypothetically COULD be.

In the end it's not a terribly important philosophical distinction in this case. There is ample evidence for evolution and no reason to believe we'll disprove it.

It IS an important distinction when we talk about the merits of String Theory, which is why this came up in the first place.

[Anonymous No.5283414]

>>5283410
>Observing is a systematic principle, what you find can of course be unexpected.
Now you're arguing semantics.

>Thus falsifying the theory.
You mean verifying the theory. If it can be explained in terms of evoluiton, it surely doesn't disprove evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283416]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283409[/spoiler]
Answer the question.

What prevents the existence of a replicator molecule that never propagates any mutations? - A kind of all-or-nothing deal.

You have to answer this question if you wanna claim that it's impossible for mutations to not have existed.

[Anonymous No.5283429]

>>5283416
>What prevents the existence of a replicator molecule that never propagates any mutations?
Nothing prevents it. But for sure that molecule is not DNA because we know how to make DNA mutate.

[Anonymous No.5283426]

>>5283411
>I just want to point out that it hypothetically COULD be.
It cannot. "Hurr what if god" is not a valid hypothetical falsification.

>It IS an important distinction when we talk about the merits of String Theory
Exactly. You dismissed string theory because it cannot be falsified. In this aspect it is epistemologically equivalent to evolution. If you dismiss string theory for this reason, you have to dismiss evolution as well. Otherwise you would be logically inconsistent and hypocritical.

[Anonymous No.5283430]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283414[/spoiler]
>Now you're arguing semantics.
That has been the entire thread you retard - what it means to be falsifiable is semantics.

>You mean verifying the theory.
No, falsifying it.

>If it can be explained in terms of evoluiton
But it can't. The theory cannot account for rabbits in the Precambrian.
That would destroy the entire timeline of evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283435]

>>5283430
>what it means to be falsifiable is semantics.
No, it has an objective definition that can be found in dictionaries and in my posts.

>No, falsifying it.
0/10

> The theory cannot account for rabbits in the Precambrian.
Yes, it can. "The rabbit has evolved earlier, now let's rearrange our phylogenetic tree." See? Theory accounted for precambrian rabbits.

[Anonymous No.5283437]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283429[/spoiler]
>Nothing prevents it.
So, that then is a test that you could in principle falsify evolution with you fucking idiot.
IF DNA was found to be incapable of mutations, that would falsify the theory - there's your hypothetical scenario.

[Anonymous No.5283439]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283426[/spoiler]
I don't dismiss String Theory. I just don't believe it either. I'm just as agnostic toward the idea as I am toward that of God, because they have about the same amount of evidence at this point.

[Anonymous No.5283441]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283435[/spoiler]
>"The rabbit has evolved earlier, now let's rearrange our phylogenetic tree."
Oh sure, it's definitely that easy, that's all you have to do!

The rabbit cannot have evolved earlier, do you even know what the Precambrian era is?

[Anonymous No.5283443]

>>5283437
>IF DNA was found to be incapable of mutations
DNA is not incapable of mutations. We know how to make DNA mutate. You keep repeating yourself despite being told why you're wrong. Stop it.

[Anonymous No.5283451]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283443[/spoiler]
>DNA is not incapable of mutations.
Uhm yeah, we know that.

You seriously have falsifi_able_ confused with falsifi_ed_.

Do you understand the difference between a ball that IS green and a ball that COULD BE painted green?

[Anonymous No.5283449]

>>5283441
>The rabbit cannot have evolved earlier
Why? Because that would hurt your feelings? If we hypothetically made that observation, then we would find an explanation, whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.5283457]

>>5283451
We know what a DNA molecule looks like. Well, people who graduated middle school know what it looks like. Are you just admitting that you haven't yet graduate middle school?

[Anonymous No.5283458]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283449[/spoiler]
Because rabbits could not survive in that environment.

[Anonymous No.5283460]

>>5283458
I guess that's why they became fossils.

[Anonymous No.5283461]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283443[/spoiler]
>Can't make the distinction between the abstract idea of hypothetical idea of falsifiability and the actual ability to falsify something in practice.
>Calls other people stupid.

Do you even thought experiment?

[Anonymous No.5283466]

>>5283461
An impossible scenario is not a hypothetical falsification. Your abstract thinking skills are sub-par.

[Anonymous No.5283462]

>>5283458
If we _hypothetically_ found one, then surely it must have survived in that environment.

[Anonymous No.5283465]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283457[/spoiler]
I don't know why I keep responding, you have already admitted that I'm right: <span class="quote deadlink">>>5283429[/spoiler]

Nothing to prevent it, so you have your hypothetical scenario, the theory is falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.5283471]

>>5283465
You are talking about DNA. For DNA your scenario is impossible. If we found an organism with genetics that aren't based on DNA and don't mutate, that wouldn't falsify evolution either, because such organism was never accounted for in the theory of evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283474]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283462[/spoiler]
No, if we found one the most plausible explanation is that the timescale and the understorey is complete wrong.
A mammal like a rabbit could not have survived in the Precambrian era, not to mention this would have severe implications, if a rabbit evolved that quickly and early, why was there a pretty much "dead" perioed for hundreds of millions of years before the rest arrived?
You have serious holes and foundational problems if such a fossil were ever found (well a single one probably wouldn't be a big deal since there might be other - unrelated to biology at all - explanations for a single fossil out of place).

[Anonymous No.5283477]

>>5283474
>A mammal like a rabbit could not have survived in the Precambrian era
That's why it is a _hypothetical_ scenario.

>not to mention this would have severe implications
Rearrange the phylogenetic tree.

>You have serious holes and foundational problems if such a fossil were ever found
Not really.

[Anonymous No.5283478]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283471[/spoiler]
>For DNA your scenario is impossible.
No it's not, you've already admitted that it isn't.

I seriously need to have you explain that you understand this difference:

A ball IS green.

A ball COULD BE green.

Can you explain the fundamental logical difference and implications between those two statements?

[Anonymous No.5283479]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283477[/spoiler]
>Rearrange the phylogenetic tree.
Is this some buzzword you've learned in your bible camp or something?
Do you think evolution is just a hierarchical graph and that's it?

[Anonymous No.5283480]

>>5283478
It is not even hypothetically possible for DNA to be safe from mutations. Mutations happening is a FACT.

[Anonymous No.5283485]

>>5283479
I have never been to a "bible camp". If that's where you got your only education, that's sad but no excuse for shitposting on /sci/. It is you who thinks evolution is an immutable hierarchy of animals. Otherwise you wouldn't be so concerned over a hypothetical rabbit that evolved earlier.

[Anonymous No.5283486]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283480[/spoiler]
>It is not even hypothetically possible for DNA to be safe from mutations
Why isn't it possible?

Remember, this is talking about the origins of the DNA molecules, we're imaging a new universe having a new pathogenesis event.
Why couldn't DNA have become a molecule with little or no mutational mechanisms?

[IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no No.5283487]

>>5282909
>It's M-theory now.
This is breathtakingly incorrect. M-theory is the maximally decompactified aspect of string theory, but this does not imply it is more "fundamental" or can replace "string theory". All of the string theories, including M-theory, are equivalent to one another via dualities.

[Anonymous No.5283490]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283485[/spoiler]
You seriously have no clue what or who you're even arguing against, do you?

(10/10 troll if you're trolling, you really got me good)

[Anonymous No.5283491]

>>5283486
Please go to school. You obviously don't know what DNA is and how mutations work on a chemical level.

[Anonymous No.5283493]

>>5283490
I am not "trolling". I am genuinely trying to make you a little bit less ignorant. I have studied quite a lot of genetics and evolution, so I know what I'm talking about.

[Anonymous No.5283492]

>>5283486
* abiogenesis
damn autocorrect.

[Anonymous No.5283497]

>>5283494
There can be such a replicating molecule. But it's NOT DNA.

[Anonymous No.5283494]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283491[/spoiler]
You still haven't shown why it's physically impossible for there to be a replicating molecule which doesn't allow for mutations to propagate.

[Anonymous No.5283496]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283493[/spoiler]
>I have studied quite a lot of genetics and evolution, so I know what I'm talking about.
Dohohoho.

[Anonymous No.5283498]

>>5283496
Why do you shitpost?

[IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no No.5283500]

>>5282916
>M-theory is untestable
String theory is the only theory in the quantum gravity regime to provide testable predictions. It is the only theory containing a finite landscape of vacuum solutions, each located on a point of configuration space. These are “self-contained theories of everything”, meaning each vacuum will predict all the observable phenomena that can ever occur. We eliminate vacua that are not our own by analyzing collider data. Eventually, and without any need for Planck-scale experiments, we will find our own vacuum. It may even happen within our lifetimes.

>pretty damn close to unfalsifiable, sounds like the start of a religon to me.
Do you consider quantum electrodynamics a religion as well? Or evolution? I mean, both of these are also "pretty damn close to unfalsifiable". It is very hard to falsify a very promising theory - almost by definition. A promising theory is a theory that seems consistent with all/most things we can see right now. That fact that these things are harder to falsify but at the same time qualitative just means that they are more likely to be correct. "Religion" does not contain any sort of qualitative framework, it does not make predictions, and it is very much so falsified by observation (evolution, unmalleable physical laws, etc).

To clarify your misconception, though, in the standard model we deal with a particular field content that has to be extracted from the experiments, much like the coupling constants and masses; in the same way, there are compactifications of string theory and the data equivalent to the particle content and parameters - which compactification - has to be extracted from the experiment.

[Anonymous No.5283502]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283497[/spoiler]
>There can be such a replicating molecule.
That's all I need to prove my point you fucking idiot.

THERE IS YOUR HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO.
THIS IS WHAT IT MEANS TO BE FALSIFIABLE.

> But it's NOT DNA.
No of course fucking not, mutations are a fact of life, we know this.

[IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no No.5283503]

>>5283500 cont
To make the predictions specific, one needs to deal with a particular quantum field theory (the standard model) which means one must determine the field content and the parameters; there is an analogous extra choice - the choice of the right discrete compactification - in string theory that is needed to produce the equivalent predictions of string theory. There are compactifications of string theory that have the standard model field content at low energies, after SUSY breaking (below all these other scales of new physics).

Your suggestion that the string theory “is the start of a religion” is just a proof that you don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about. If you agree on the validity of the way standard model particle physics is done, your "argument" is equivalent to an argument against quantum mechanics in the 1920s saying that a potato looks classical, so it's a problem for quantum mechanics. Just to be sure, this "argument" is invalid because according to quantum mechanics, a potato also behaves in a similar way as classical physics used to predict. Still, the right theory - for atoms as well as potatoes - is quantum mechanics.

[Anonymous No.5283507]

>>5283502
This would not falsify evolution. Evolution applies to organisms based on DNA and RNA. A new hypothetical organism having genetics that are never subjected to mutation would be fundementally different and could simply by definition not be part of evolution.

[IQ fundie !!8XTTCUzK2no No.5283508]

>>5282928
>if some evidence contrary to M-theory comes up, they'll change it to make it work out and say it's still valid. There's a difference.
Why do you recite this parasitic, kibitz, pseudointellectual ideology? It is just unbelievably dishonest. Where have you acquired this information from? Do you have a source for this crackpottery, or are you just babbling philosophical nonsense that you irrationally convince yourself to be true on an emotional basis?

Unlike the standard model or quantum field theory, it is impossible "deform" or "change" string theory "to make it work". All of the solutions are exact. Any deformation will render the theory non-unitary, leading to the violation of basic postulates of quantum mechanics. This means a very specific thing; it may be demonstrated by very specific techniques, and understanding why it is true is completely essential to understanding why the term "string theory" exists and why we study it at all. If something prevents you from learning the technical insights linked to this point, you can't really start to understand what string theory is.

[Anonymous No.5283514]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283507[/spoiler]
>This would not falsify evolution.
Uhm yeah, it absolutely would.
Before DNA, evolution was common ancestry with natural selection - Darwin didn't even know about DNA. DNA was a perfect candidate that could in principle have falsified evolution, if comparative DNA studies would have turned out that no organisms was related on a genetic level, that children didn't share any particular genetic traits with their parents, that there were no genetic mechanism for creating new information - any of those would have completely destroyed the theory of evolution, and a completely new model would have had to be thought up.

But of course that DIDN'T happen, and instead confirmed the theory even more strongly - but that doesn't disprove the fact that it's falsifiable.

Being falsifiED and falsifiABLE are two completely different things.

If you don't understand this point then there's really nothing more I could say.

[Anonymous No.5283518]

>>5283514
>Before DNA, evolution was common ancestry with natural selection
Before DNA the theory of evolution was only a philosophical idea and not a scientific theory.

>Being falsifiED and falsifiABLE are two completely different things.
You do not need to repeat the obvious. Evolution is neither falsified nor falsifiable. There is no _hypothetical_ scenario that would falsify evolution.

[Anonymous No.5283523]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283518[/spoiler]
You do realize that the status of a theory as falsifiable doesn't change once new evidence supports it, right? If it was falsifiable, it remains falsifiable.

[Anonymous No.5283525]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283518[/spoiler]
>Before DNA the theory of evolution was only a philosophical idea and not a scientific theory.
Oh boy, you truly are clueless.
Ever heard of a little book called On the Origin of Species?

>There is no _hypothetical_ scenario that would falsify evolution.
Yes there thus, you've already admitted to such a scenario, and several more have been posted in this thread.

It's time to stop shitposting now.

[Anonymous No.5283526]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283226[/spoiler]
>I asked you for evidence?
You asked for evidence of something which obviously exists, dummy.
>I don't. You do.
you're just an idiot.

[Anonymous No.5283529]

>>5283526
If it exists, it shouldn't be too hard to show me the evidence. Where is it?

[Anonymous No.5283551]

>>5283529
fuck you

[Anonymous No.5283590]

<span class="quote deadlink">>>5283551[/spoiler]
Nice counter argument.

[Anonymous No.5283628]

>>5283590
nigger

[Anonymous No.5283955]

>>5283628
lol, wasn't even me.