Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable

topmind wrote:
"You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of
falsifiability. The theory of evolution asserts that a certain set of
mechanisms, including but not limited to natural selection, are
responsible for the diversity of life on Earth.

So it is all-or-nothing? May I ask for a citation for this?

Pick any undergraduate level biology textbook. If, as seems highly
likely, you don't have one left over from your own college courses,
start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from
there.

If your question is genuine rather than being a rhetorical device, you
need to educate yourself before attempting to discuss this topic.

If someone were to
demonstrate that those mechanisms cannot explain a particular lifeform
or if the predictions based on the theory (e.g. nested hierarchies)
turned out to be inaccurate, the theory would have to be modified or
discarded."

That is true of any theory or hypoth.

The point is that there are any number of potential falsifications of
the theory of evolution. You are utterly wrong in claiming otherwise.

Scientific theories such as the theory of evolution do not make claims
like "evolution might have happened somewhere." The theory of
evolution is an explanation of how the diversity of life arose on this
planet and applies to all species. That makes it falsifiable. That
makes it science.

This all-or-nothing view needs more justification.

No, it is a simple fact. The theory of evolution is remarkable in that
it unifies all of biology, leading to Steve Jones' famous quote
"Charles Darwin turned biology into science, rather than
stamp-collecting."

If a precambrian rabbit is found, it will falsify the theory of
evolution (quite dramatically) by disproving predictions based on the
theory. Any replacement theory would have to explain the existing
evidence plus the precambrian rabbit and would have to make predictions
in order to be considered scientific.

No. If it has kinks or problem areas, that does not disquality it, only
weakens it.

You are wrong. This is why falsifiability is so important. To be
considered scientific, an hypothesis or theory must make predictions
that could, in principle, be falsified. If one of those predictions is
demonstrated to be incorrect, the theory is wrong. Falsifiability
allows scientists to prove theories wrong, to "disqualify" them, and to
move on to potentially correct theories.

ID can be modified also.

To my knowledge there is currently no scientific theory of intelligent
design. If you believe there is one, please state it.

Is there an official registrar of theories somewhere?

One such is the peer reviewed literature. I know of no theory of
intelligent design that has been expounded therein.

If not, focus on
the ideas behind hypoths and theories rather than try to drag this into
a word game.

I find it interesting how often you resort to referring to requests for
clarification as "word games."

This is not a word game. You have not specified your hypothesis. The
only ideas I've seen you suggest involve unknown entities performing
unknown acts for unknown reasons at some unknown time. Is that your
"hypothesis" of intelligent design?

You have yet to provide a predictive hypothesis based on observations.
Until you explain why you would expect to find signals in DNA and
specify exactly how to detect those signals, you aren't doing anything
resembling science.

Humans do this:

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/creatures/index.html

So it is reasonable to hypothesize that a designer may have done
something similar in DNA.

Humans have not travelled to other planets and inserted messages into
the genomes of other species that have resulted in signals appearing
after tens or hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

You have a long way to go in specifying who, what, when, where, why,
and how before your speculation becomes remotely reasonable.

It is similar to what SETI does: looks for aliens that do things
similar to us.

SETI is looking for a simple signal in a location that, so far as we
currently know, contains no naturally occurring signals of that precise
nature. When you can specify your criteria with the same precision and
justify your hypothesis based on clearly articulated observations as
they do, then you will have earned the right to compare your approach
to theirs.

There is no such scientific concept as "falsifiable in the absolute
sense." The theory of evolution is falsifiable.

Because researchers may modify it if new evidence is found?

No, because it is _replaced_ if it is found to be incorrect. Since the
replacement theory must explain the same evidence as the old theory
plus the new evidence, it is likely to be similar. That doesn't change
the fact that the original, incorrect theory is eliminated.

This is another word game between "replace" and "modify". One can do
the same thing with ID regardless of what you call it.

I just knew you'd call it a word game. If you ever understand the
concept of falsifiability, you'll understand why it isn't.

Further, one _cannot_ "do the same thing with ID" because there is no
scientific theory of intelligent design. Present the theory, in
detail, and the predictions that arise from it.

As explained by several other posters, the null hypothesis of SETI is
"There are no extra terrestrial sources of radio signals matching this
precise set of criteria." Finding such a signal falsifies the
hypothesis.

One can reverse ID also.

No, one cannot. There is no scientific theory of intelligent design,
hence there is no means of falsifying it.

The SETI team is looking for a very simple signal where there are no
known natural sources in order to falsify the null hypothesis. You are
proposing to look for something unspecified inserted for some
inexplicable reason in human DNA by an unidentified entity or entities
using an unknown process.

Why is ID less known than aliens with radio antenna? Humans have put
messages in DNA also. Where is the Alien Anatomy book then?

The goals and nature of the SETI project have been explained to you at
length. Your proposals lack the justification and precision of the
SETI predictions.


The real separator between "DNA-ID" and any scientific theory is that
there is no scientific theory of intelligent design.

Because it is not in this ficticious "registrar" of yours?

No, because no one, including you, has ever presented one. I claim
that no such theory exists. Prove me wrong.

BJ

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from ... That's why falsifiability is ... This is another reason why a scientific theory must be falsifiable. ... intelligent design that has been expounded therein. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from ... evolution by disproving predictions based on the ... This is why falsifiability is so important. ... allows scientists to prove theories wrong, to "disqualify" them, and to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from ... evolution by disproving predictions based on the ... This is why falsifiability is so important. ... allows scientists to prove theories wrong, to "disqualify" them, and to ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Opinions on Carvin basses?
    ... you think "natural selection" means that the universe happened as it did ... Social Darwinism, and like the architects of Naziism, he was ... PS. and let me note that the failure of "evolution" theory does not ... It's eligible for "falsifiability" in the sense ...
    (alt.guitar.bass)
  • Re: topmind: ID is potentially testable
    ... start with the Wikipedia entry on Evolution and follow the links from ... This is why falsifiability is so important. ... what scientists do, it's not too surprising that we would have to remind ... Those appear to be papers by the people who support/run SETI, ...
    (talk.origins)
Loading