*kurt falsifies evolution

james LYONSW at UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU
Mon Jun 6 14:45:52 EST 1994


it was written:

Warren vonRoeschlaub (kv07 at iastate.edu) wrote:

: >Not to be argumentative, but could you demonstrate how evolution is
: >falsifiable?

:   Find a creature for which no related organisms exist in the fossil
record.
: (ie godzilla)

In 1983 an animal (_Nanoloricus mysticus_) was found. It was so
different


In 1983 an animal (_Nanoloricus mysticus_) was found. It was so
different
from other animals it was given its own phylum.

: Warren Kurt   | By virtue of being correct, the opinions expressed


end of quotes

Nothing can be falsified by negative evidence.  Our lack of knowledge of
taxa related to a newly discovered life form does not require special
pleading vis a vis ad hoc creation.  Our ignorance of the universe has
NOTHING to do with its origins.  Would any jury allow an alleged criminal
to go free because witnesses could be placed at the scene of the crime
as well as the criminal?

For this "godzilla" argument to work, we would have to *know* the
"tree of life", then find a life form we could not place AT ALL ON ANY
BRANCHES OF THE TREE ANYWHERE INCLUDING IN AN ANCESTRAL POSITION...

Oh, wait a minute.  I though I was responding to scientists for a moment.
Accoding to THEIR model of origins, there is no tree of life.

Boy, those creationsist are sure fond of nontestable hypotheses! (Not that
the stated hypothesis actually is untestable, but if you include GOD
in your background knowledge, it becomes untestable.

When will you humans learn to think for yourselves?

Q



More information about the Bioforum mailing list