Evolution discussion from Time magazine

[Anonymouse]

Given that the quote was from Popper, and Popper is not one of the authors of this article, this article is not the source of the quote. At least, not unless an interview of Popper conducted by these men somehow made it into Nature.

Anyway, it's interesting how you call Siggie on what you see as a fallacious appeal to authority, and then pull out a quote from Popper as support for your own case.

The point of the quote was to further illustrate my point, not for the truth of the matter. For the record, Siggie's appeal was not to authority, it was to commonly held belief, or better known as appeal to the consequences of belief. That is different from appeal to authority.

[Siggie]

Something like a fossil rabbit in precambrian strata in wouldn't falsify evolution?
How about human fossils with a dinosaurs dating to the same time?

[winoman]

Evolution is good science - and even Popper thinks so

He refuted his earlier quote that you post BTW - and we have discussed this and Popper before haven't we.

First - again you seem to misunderstand what Science is/isn't (and your idea that Science can only concern what is observable is untrue and in fact is entirely the opposite of what Science is all about):


Science Provides Evidence for the Unobservable

The primary function of science is to demonstrate the existence of phenomena that cannot be observed directly. Science is not needed to show us things we can see with our own eyes. Direct observation is not only unnecessary in science; direct observation is in fact usually impossible for things that really matter. For example, the most important discoveries of science can only be inferred via indirect observation, including such things as atoms, electrons, viruses, bacteria, germs, radiowaves, X-rays, ultraviolet light, energy, entropy, enthalpy, solar fusion, genes, protein enzymes, and the DNA double-helix. The round earth was not observed directly by humans until 1961, yet this counterintuitive concept had been considered a scientific fact for over 2000 years. The Copernican hypothesis that the earth orbits the sun has been acknowledged virtually ever since the time of Galileo, though no one has ever observed the process to this day and in spite of the fact that direct observation indicates the very opposite. All of these "invisible" inferences were elucidated using the scientific method.

[winoman]

Now - concerning Evolution being Science

I'll post this link once again - and its one of many that I could post (Why do I feel similarly when posting the same evidenc e of the Armenian Genocide to Turks over and over?):

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/evo_science.html

Philosophers of science such as Popper and Kitcher say that it is. Scientists such as Mayr, Dobzhansky, and Ridley agree. Many organizations have passed resolutions to this effect. However, the important question is whether these authorities can back up what they say with evidence.

The following list gives a few of the predictions that have been made from the Theory of Evolution:

(see link for this extensive list)......

[winoman]

More

The short proof for Evolution (worth a read):

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

[winoman]

Oh and regarding Popper -and I have posted this before BTW

- so shame on you using that quote which he repudiates here:

The fact that the theory of natural selection is difficult
to test has led some people, anti-Darwinists and even some
great Darwinists, to claim that it is a tautology. ... I
mention this because I too belong among the culprits. Influenced
by what these authorities say, I have in the past described
the theory as "almost tautological," and I have tried to
explain how the theory of natural selection could be
untestable (as is a tautology) and yet of great scientific
interest. My solution was that the doctrine of natural
selection is a most successful metaphysical research
programme. ...
I have changed my mind about the testability and logical
status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to
have an opportunity to make a recantation. ...
The theory of natural selection may be so formulated that
it is far from tautological. In this case it is not only
testable, but it turns out to be not strictly universally
true. There seem to be exceptions, as with so many biological
theories; and considering the random character of the variations
on which natural selection operates, the occurrence of
exceptions is not surprising. (Popper, "Natural Selection and
the Emergence of Mind," _Dialectica_ 32(1978):339-355; quotations
are from pp. 344-346)

And Popper also wrote:
It does appear that some people think that I denied scientific
character to the historical sciences, such as paleontology, or
the history of the evolution of life on Earth. This is a mistake,
and I here wish to affirm that these and other historical sciences
have in my opinion scientific character; their hypotheses can in
many cases be tested. (Popper, Letter to _New Scientist_,
87(1981):611)

[Anonymouse]

It does not matter whether Popper, or anyone else affirms or reaffirms the said theory. It remains that the cracks in the theory have been shown, and contrary to the wishes of fanatics, it is only a belief.

[Siggie]

Uhh, you had said that the reason it's not science is that isn't not falsifiable. It is.
So, why now is it still a belief? Even if you call it a belief, at the very least it's a belief based on sound scientific inquiry and evidence. Extrememly different from creationism and ID.

[winoman]

It does not matter whether Popper, or anyone else affirms or reaffirms the said theory. It remains that the cracks in the theory have been shown, and contrary to the wishes of fanatics, it is only a belief.

"Oh you Armenians and your Genocide propoganda - I know that my fellow Turks are incapable of such nastiness and that you are making it all up - regardless of the very many experts and scholars and all evidence aside - I am choosing to believe the Turkish story even if I cannot offer a shred of anything to back it up" - Anonymouse as a typical Turk

[winoman]

"I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it." --Albert Einstein

Right on! For this statment alone he is OK in my book...even if I never have to travel and be prepared for near light speeds and such...(my...just think - take a short trip out into space [in time] and come back [into the future] and find all of you older then me! (when do I sign up!)