If (marco) evolution can't be falsified, how is it a valid theroy?

Question

ooh Darwin, burn!

Answer 1

Well it's obvious that this one doesn't know what evolution is, doesn't know what a theory is, doesn't know who Karl Popper was, and repeats lies from questionable websites that confirm his own goofy world-view.

It seems that you've been fed a lie. Furthermore, you seem to enjoy believing it, and I'd wager that nothing anyone says will shake your belief in this lie.

To answer the question - "if (marco) evolution can't be falsified, how is it a valid theroy?" - well it CAN be falsified, so it IS a valid theory (at least according to your ridiculous premise).

Answer 2

*sigh* the "macro" vs "micro" distinction in evolution is not one which is generally used by scientists - only by anti-evolution campaigners.

"Macroevolution" is just accumulated microevolutionary changes. After all, if I step an inch a day, I will eventually walk a mile. See this study on E. coli evolution for a good example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_lon...

And speciation events - reproductive isolation - has been observed multiple times:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-spec...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciati...

Since microevolution is (trivially) falsifiable, it is a valid theory. and since there is NO DIFFERENCE between micro and macroevolution, your argument is fallacious.

Answer 3

Because only people who do not understand it (and I'm not just talking about your inability to *spell* it) think it can't be falsified.

Answer 4

Evolution theory is potentially falsifiable, assuming it happens to be false.  For example, every time some researcher collects fossils from a Jurassic locality, they test whether or not present day animals were also alive during that time.  If they started coming up with remains from mice, monkeys and elephants, then there'd obviously be something very wrong with the present understanding.  That wouldn't necessarily show evolutionary theory to be completely false, but it would raise severe difficulties.

Researchers take that risk with every shovelful of sediment they collect.

Answer 5

The philosophy of science has moved quite a bit from Karl Popper's original thoughts.  One philosophical movement that has emerged is  that of pragmatic research models.  In a way science has always done this.  You take what assumptions you need to simplify the area you are investigating.  The origin of your model is ultimately irrelevant if it gets results.  Maxwell's theories came from a 'swirling vortices' model which is itself long forgotten whilst the equations survive healthily.  It has been suggested that this is why macro and micro physics differ (one is deterministic the other seemingly not) because they started from different research programmes. Incidentally a lot of Darwin's original thoughts HAVE been discarded.

Answer 6

No, it is not a valid theory that Marco Polo personally evolved into something else, or do you believe that Marco Polo was an evolutionary biologist?

ooh Foreman, burn!

Also it most certainly can and has been tried to falsify by people who spend there lives studying biology.  So far it is very solid.

Answer 7

As noted above by KT, it is falsifiable.  It's a valid theory in part because no evidence has yet contradicted it.   Believe what you like, but don't pretend it's because you understand the science.  I respect religious differences and opinions, but not spouting pseudo-science to support religious texts.

Answer 8

Must be tough to argue when you can't even get the name spelled right.

Answer 9

Definition: What is Macroevolution?

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/ev...

You are clueless.  Why the parentheses?  I can assure you that Darwin went to his grave a happy man with a clear conscious.

Answer 10

The way Creationists define "macroevolution" (more than has been observed), it cannot be falsified.  This is because the Creationist definition is a moving goal post fallacy.

While there is no one scientific definition of macroevolution, every definition has been characterized and tested by failure to falsify.  If observations of speciation were never observed, that would have been a falsification.  If  molecular homology of non-structural genes did not correlate with the anatomic phylogenetic tree, it would have been falsified.  Evolution is a theory because it is falsifiable and has been tested.