kurt falsifies evolution

Uwe Stolz Stolz at uxa.cso.uiuc.edu
Thu Jun 16 12:56:05 EST 1994

In article <2svqcb$cqp at news.bu.edu>, colby at bio.bu.edu (Chris Colby) wrote:

> 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
> from other animals it was given its own phylum.
>   Well there would be one very obvious way to throw a damper on evolution and evolutionary theory.  Let's say for example tomorrow a scientist found the fossilized remains of a mouse skeleton in the Burgess Shale.  The date of the mouse matched the dating around it.  Well I would say that this would give creationists a boost.
	   However, this has not happened and nothing like it has happened.  The
fact we find animals we did not know existed is not a problem.  We can
imagine how they could have existed.  But in the example about the mouse,
we know that it could not happen according to our knowledge and theories.
				So to "falsify" evolution something as unlikely as the mouse in the
Burgess Shale would have to happen to directly contradict our current
knowledge.  (Or GOD could come down and tell us we are wrong)  It hasn't
happened yet and I doubt it will ever happen.
				So I suppose that you could "falsify" evolution, theoretically ;-)

Uwe Stolz
Stolz at uxa.cso.uiuc.edu

More information about the Bioforum mailing list