What would falsify the theory of evolution?

[sun rise]

And why would a God use evolution and create defects and fatal diseases in children?

As a means to spend karma.
As a way for the progressing soul to learn certain lessons in life.
As a way for souls to help other learn the lessons of compassion. As the Baal Shem Tov put it: "A soul may descend to earth and live seventy or eighty years for the sole purpose of doing a favor for another. A spiritual favor, or even a material favor." (And that favor might involve having an apparent defect so someone else could learn a lesson in love).

 

[rational experiences]

Evolution not true for biology.

Mass as mass once burning evolved into cooled as mass by spinning.

Law space infinities stretch.

O spinning men claim is time movements around in an alight counted position.

As O earth spins around but also moves around O as a circuit by two variables.

Why year was 12 but an experience of a human on the planet.
Why time was 12 just an experience of a human also.

Biology changed by huge reactive causes is why I say biology never evolved.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

So God could not use evolution as a tool? That is not really a reasonable test since it is not likely to happen.

When a scientific model is tested it is tested with the predictions that the model makes. The theory of evolution makes no predictions about God so that is not an appropriate test. A good model provides a test that would show that it is wrong if it is wrong.

The theory of evolution makes the prediction that the development of the variety of life was an unguided process. The idea that God - or anything - guided evolution is a contradiction in terms.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The theory of evolution makes the prediction that the development of the variety of life was an unguided process. The idea that God - or anything - guided evolution is a contradiction in terms.

I will argue against that using God's omnipotence and omniscience. If he has the capabilities he could have started the universe in such a way that evolution would be inevitable. A god may have only have had to make a universe where it was possible and life would be guaranteed to arise without his further interference. He may not have had a specific goal, such as man in mind. He may simply have wanted an intelligence. That would still go along with the theory of evolution.

I will agree that a God that was constantly meddling would be contradicted by the theory.

 

[blü 2]

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

A satisfactory and repeatable experiment showing that no change, genetic or epigenetic, could ever be possible between the parents' genetic material and its arrangement, and the offspring's inherited genetic material.

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

The experiment I just mentioned would be a good start.

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

Something along these lines: a gradual change in a particular population of animals or plants between the characteristics of that population at time A, and.after intervening generations, the characteristics of the same population at time B.

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

What I said above.

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

For the third time, the experiment I first mentioned.

No offense, old friend, but the way you've framed those questions makes it sound as though you don't know much about evolution or the modern theory of it. I don't claim more than a basic knowledge, but at least I claim that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

A satisfactory and repeatable experiment showing that no change, genetic or epigenetic, could ever be possible between the parents' genetic material and its arrangement, and the offspring's inherited genetic material.

Except that test has already been done. It could have refuted evolution before we were able to sequence DNA, but it can no longer do so since we did that test. In fact much of the evidence for evolution comes from tests that could have falsified it in the past.

 

[rational experiences]

Human scientist by law get their machine removed.

Law cosmic blew it up. If he doesn't keep machine cooled it blows up.

Human scientist told to stop theorising evil or go to gaol his proof. He did as the scientist Galileo lie gaol.

No machine no reason to theory.

Argued science as a human... but I must look at your biology for medical purposes of treatment human isn't evolution.

Just as a human not as a human pretending they are a God.

Human exact position in law.

The human.
The human alive.
The human healthy highest human.

Old advice...unhealthy human.

 

[blü 2]

Exce pt that test has already been done. It could have refuted evolution before we were able to sequence DNA, but it can no longer do so since we did that test. In fact much of the evidence for evolution comes from tests that could have falsified it in the past.

Ah. I was trying to convey the idea that if genetic variation is not possible, evolution (as presently understood) is not possible,

Hence a test which satisfactorily showed that genetic variation is not possible would falsify the ToE ─ which is what the OP asked for. That there is no such test is no bar to proposing such an answer, since if there was, it would, I was thinking.

Apologies for any confusion.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Human scientist by law get their machine removed. ....

Yep --> ignore-list

 

[Subduction Zone]

Ah. I was trying to convey the idea that if genetic variation is not possible, evolution (as presently understood) is not possible,

Hence a test which satisfactorily showed that genetic variation is not possible would falsify the ToE ─ which is what the OP asked for. That there is no such test is no bar to proposing such an answer, since if there was, it would, I was thinking.

Apologies for any confusion.

I understood. The problem is that creationists sometimes try to write a "test" around concepts that have been known for ages and call that a test of their model. Some tests could conceivably show negative results but we have not seen that. Violations of cladistics for example. A horse with feathers would violate cladistics. Since feathers first appeared in a separate line than horses.


Your test did illustrate an important point. When we develop new technology evolution can often be tested. The discovery of DNA had creationists saying "Just wait until we can read it". Well we can read it and now it is some of the strongest evidence for evolution.

 

[sayak83]

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”

I would define the theory of evolution as the idea that all currently living and previously existing organisms on earth originated over a period of time through multiple stages of adaptation and speciation events from a simple community of ancestral lifeforms that first arose on earth billions of years ago. Also, the mechanisms by which these adaptations and speciation events have happened are naturalistic and mechanistic processes that are tractable and explainable using the tools of biological, chemical, physical and mathematical sciences. Some of these processed are already known (mutation, natural selection, sexual selection, genetic drift, gene duplication, polyploidy, epigenetic adaptation etc.) and more mechanisms and processes will doubtless be uncovered as the time goes on.

Any evidence of pre-human directed selection or special intentional creation among current and previously existing life forms on earth will (at least partly) falsify it. So if suddenly, a set of rocks suddenly transforms into a new species of organism and this process is observed and documented...then evolution will be falsified. Another example....If we uncover a series of alien gene modification labs from late Jurassic where reptiles were altered to create mammals, then also we would say mammals did not evolve but were created by these alien beings. Also...if modern mammals, reptiles and birds are found as fossils in unambiguously pre-Cambrian era sedimentary rocks...this also would herald wholescale changes to the theory.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'd stick with "falsify" because that's a much more specific (and higher) bar to clear than "true beyond a reasonable doubt."

It's true beyond a reasonable doubt that nothing in biology makes much sense except in light of evolution. It's also true that for other purposes, alternative narratives are just as useful especially when it comes to how humans understand their relationship with the broader universe. While I personally incorporate hard science like evolution into my own religious narratives on a routine basis, it's not everybody's cuppa. I get that. The artful storytelling of our ancestors is really fun and tells us a lot about human culture and condition too. Studying it all is quite enriching.

But when the bar is to falsify? Nothing in biology would make sense without evolution. Like, none of it. The entire discipline would be upended. The magnitude of evidence needed to falsify that? I have difficulty imagining that as a possibility, and I have a very overactive imagination. Short of something comically ridiculous like aliens dropping by and going "oh, just kidding, we actually manipulate this artificially through some crazy science you haven't figured out yet from behind the scenes" which... I mean... I don't really feel the need to even entertain that level of nonsense.

Your answer is correct on the level of philosophy of science as to the assumption of the universe being natural.
Most of the answers assumes that naturalism is correct and answers the falsification within that assumption.

So the answers of falsification have 2 levels. Falsification within naturalism versus of naturalism.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

What would falsify the theory of evolution?

In your opinion, what discovery should be made in order for you to reject the theory of evolution

Please

1 Explain exactly what you mean by evolution

2 explain what would falsify it / what discovery could potentially be done to falsify evolution (according to your definition provided above)

3 why do you think that would falsify it.

Ok ok “falsify” is a very strong word, but what would make you conclude that evolution is not “true beyond reasonable doubt”

I don't have much to add to all replies you have already received.
More specifically, I will second the replies by @Polymath257 and @Jose Fly

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

And why would a God use evolution and create defects and fatal diseases in children?

Ow I don't know. Let's play advocate of the devil for second...

If it's the god of the bible, imo that would fit his character. He seems to like using suffering as a tool for his sick plan.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I will agree that a God that was constantly meddling would be contradicted by the theory.

I'm not so sure about that.

Since we are talking about a supposed being that is supposedly all-powerful, you'ld have to assume that such a god could do "anything".

That would include triggering mutations that could happen naturally, but which would have low chances of probability a priori (like every other specific mutation).

And in that way, such a god could "steer" evolution in a specific direction without anyone ever knowing or being able to tell the difference.

To us, those mutations would look just as natural as any other. They essentially would be.

After all, how could you tell the difference?

Incidentally, the fact that one couldn't tell the difference also means that we would have no rational reason to assume it was anything but a natural mutation.

The point however, is that such a "meddling" wouldn't show up in evolution research, nor would it contradict it - because we would never know and it would look exactly the same as a natural process.

 

[John53]

Another one is that the various shark teeth all over the forest where I live have been deposited by a great flood, hence showing the story of Noah to be accurate and therefore showing that Earth must be young. Is that true? Were all of the shark teeth in my woods put here by a great flood?

More likely to have been a sharknado.

 

[blü 2]

Your answer is correct on the level of philosophy of science as to the assumption of the universe being natural.
Most of the answers assumes that naturalism is correct and answers the falsification within that assumption.

So the answers of falsification have 2 levels. Falsification within naturalism versus of naturalism.

Though you have yet to falsify naturalism by, for example, proving you're not real.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Though you have yet to falsify naturalism by, for example, proving you're not real.

You really don't understand axiomatic assumptions, because there are more possible sets than yours. In short, you haven't tested your own, because you take them for granted and thus you get a wrong result when you test them against other ones, but that result is only wrong 1st person in your mind.

 

[blü 2]

You really don't understand axiomatic assumptions, because there are more possible sets than yours. In short, you haven't tested your own, because you take them for granted and thus you get a wrong result when you test them against other ones, but that result is only wrong 1st person in your mind.

I've listed my assumptions ─ that a world exists external to me, that my senses can inform me of it, and that reason is a valid tool. I've pointed out that they have to be assumptions because I can't
begin to demonstrate their correctness without assuming they're already correct.

I've also pointed out that by your actions in posting here you've shown that you agree with the first two, and I've given you the benefit of the doubt that you agree with the third as well.

So what further assumptions of this kind do you make that I haven't listed? Spell them out nice and clear.

 

[Brickjectivity]

More likely to have been a sharknado.

A sharknado implies a weakening of gravity and/or much denser air. Are you saying that at some time in Earth's history that gravity became weak enough to allow sharknadoes? There remain questions, such as what gives the water its cohesion. I posit that it must be some sort of slime, perhaps sharky skin slime.