Evolution: An adult fairytale?

I'm not trying to infer that evolution is wrong , the original question asked for a valid scientific reason why evolution could be a fairytale. I just pointed out that Popper called evolution a metaphysical research programme. Natural Selection requires random mutation , I can see how simple organisms over a small period of time can be observed and predicted adaptations be reproduced ,I can also see how it might be possible to observe non-advantageous mutations being eliminated in simple organisms. I'm not sure how this could be done over a much longer period for more complex organisms. Natural Selection , a random process (a gradual process over a non-determined time)is difficult to falsify .Again I'm not saying that Natural Selection isn't random, just difficult to test for.

Originally posted by kaminsky
I'm not trying to infer that evolution is wrong , the original question asked for a valid scientific reason why evolution could be a fairytale. I just pointed out that Popper called evolution a metaphysical research programme. Natural Selection requires random mutation , I can see how simple organisms over a small period of time can be observed and predicte ...[text shortened]... lsify .Again I'm not saying that Natural Selection isn't random, just difficult to test for.

Astrology is falsifiable, is it science? If it isn't, explain how Popper's falsifiability is a valid requirement that allows you to call the theory of evolution non-scientific. If it is, meaning you think astrology is a valid science, then I think it is safe for us all to ignore your posts as the ramblings of a crank.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Astrology is falsifiable, is it science? If it isn't, explain how Popper's falsifiability is a valid requirement that allows you to call the theory of evolution non-scientific. If it is, meaning you think astrology is a valid science, then I think it is safe for us all to ignore your posts as the ramblings of a crank.

twhitehead is right, evolution is more a statement of fact, I'm not a crank ,I'm an antithiest who believes in the efficacy of science. What is and what isn't science is though, open to debate.You put a target up to be shot at.Forget Astrology we both know it's not a science.
Natural Selection requires random mutation, is it possible to test for randomness , I maybe wrong but is it impossible ?.

Originally posted by kaminsky
Natural Selection requires random mutation,

No, actually, it doesn't. It requires only variation.

is it possible to test for randomness , I maybe wrong but is it impossible ?.
It is impossible to proves something is truly random, but it is falsifiable in that if a pattern is detected, it is possible to prove something is not random. (although I suppose one could argue that any pattern may simply be a rare random sequence.)

Originally posted by kaminsky
I'm not trying to infer that evolution is wrong , the original question asked for a valid scientific reason why evolution could be a fairytale. I just pointed out that Popper called evolution a metaphysical research programme. Natural Selection requires random mutation , I can see how simple organisms over a small period of time can be observed and predicte ...[text shortened]... lsify .Again I'm not saying that Natural Selection isn't random, just difficult to test for.

Natural Selection requires random mutation ,

only long-term if it is to produce major change and that is not the defining feature of natural selection.
Natural Selection requires genetic variation to work. Mutations merely add to that genetic variation which natural selection acts on and helps the process but, even if there is no more mutations, natural selection will continue to work for as long as there is genetic variation.

I can see how simple organisms over a small period of time can be observed and predicted adaptations be reproduced

AND COMPLEX organisms! What 'barrier' would stop such observations? I can give examples on request where such observations have been actually made.

,I can also see how it might be possible to observe non-advantageous mutations being eliminated in simple organisms.

AND in COMPLEX organisms! Again, what 'barrier' would stop such observations?

….I'm not sure how this could be done over a much longer period for more complex organisms.

why should that be necessary? If you can observe the effects of random mutations and natural selection over short time periods then it is just a matter of logic that you can rationally extrapolate that mutations and natural selection don't only occur over short time periods but long time periods and you can rationally extrapolate what effect those mutations and natural selection would have over long time periods ( and even observe the fossil record to test some of the predictions ) .

Natural Selection , a random process

Note that Natural Selection, not to be confused with the random mutations, is not a totally random process but has a degree of predictability. because some outcomes of the precesses are more probable than others.
If natural selection was totally random, all outcomes would be equally likely -And yet we observe that they are not.

is difficult to falsify

no, natural selection is EASY to falsify! What 'barrier' would stop us making observations that natural selection is false if it was simply false? We would expect to have just such observations by now if it was false! And yet everywhere we observe we see evidence of natural selection at work and NONE of the predictions that can be made from understanding of it have been proven false!

I'm going to have to concede this one , Phil put up such a big target I couldn't resist having a shot .I knew really it could only end in tears.

Originally posted by kaminsky
twhitehead is right, evolution is more a statement of fact, I'm not a crank ,I'm an antithiest who believes in the efficacy of science. What is and what isn't science is though, open to debate.You put a target up to be shot at.Forget Astrology we both know it's not a science.
Natural Selection requires random mutation, is it possible to test for randomness , I maybe wrong but is it impossible ?.

Since you agree Astrology isn't a science then you also agree that Popper's idea that falsifiability denotes science is wrong. Evolution is science, evolution is also falsifiable and makes predictions. Why is it that you are so wedded to the idea that evolution isn't science?

BTW, the theory of evolution has six parts and natural selection is only one. Do you know what the other five are?

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Since you agree Astrology isn't a science then you also agree that Popper's idea that falsifiability denotes science is wrong. Evolution is science, evolution is also falsifiable and makes predictions. Why is it that you are so wedded to the idea that evolution isn't science?

BTW, the theory of evolution has six parts and natural selection is only one. Do you know what the other five are?

It's over Phil, you won, the irony is you remind me of the character played by Fredric March in Inherit the Wind.

Originally posted by kaminsky
It's over Phil, you won, the irony is you remind me of the character played by Fredric March in Inherit the Wind.

Not I won, Popper's idea that falsifiability denotes science lost.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
Astrology is falsifiable, is it science? If it isn't, explain how Popper's falsifiability is a valid requirement that allows you to call the theory of evolution non-scientific. If it is, meaning you think astrology is a valid science, then I think it is safe for us all to ignore your posts as the ramblings of a crank.

If something is both falsifiable and false, and yet it is not rejected, then it is not science.

Originally posted by forkedknight
If something is both falsifiable and false, and yet it is not rejected, then it is not science.

??????

Originally posted by twhitehead


[b]is it possible to test for randomness , I maybe wrong but is it impossible ?.
[/b]

Yes, within your model.
It's what (mathematical) statistics is all about.

Originally posted by Phil Hill
??????

I hypothesize that 1+1=3, this is falsifiable. so far so good for science

I can prove that 1+1 /= 3, science says we should reject this hypothesis

I assert that 1+1=3, science just went out the window

What don't you understand?

Originally posted by kaminsky
Forget Astrology we both know it's not a science.

I wouldn't be so quick to cast dispersion's.

We lack empirical data to confirm it for sure.
Modern humans have too many variations in lifestyle to gather any truly relevant
data but long ago when each member of society lived in similar conditions, it is
entirely possible that the effects of the Sun and the Moon were more pronounced.

'Authors have reported a correlation of frequency of renal colic with lunar phases. The highest incidence is noted around full moon (days 14–17) while the least incidence of renal colic is at the “extreme days of lunar month.”[13] Thus, there may exist a potential reno-lunar axis, which needs to be studied in detail by renal endocrinologists. Perhaps the lunar cycle affects fluid balance and changes the concentration of urine in ways that are yet to be understood, to influence of renal function and the frequency of renal colic.

As we continue to discover newer renal hormones and as we keep on finding novel renal effects of classical hormones, we must keep exploring the biochemical and physiological rationale of so-called “traditional” medicine.

It is possible that one day modern researchers in renal endocrinology may find robust biologic explanations to justify the title of this editorial: The sun, the moon, and renal endocrinology'

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3313730/

The Gravitation of the Moon Plays Pivotal Roles in the Occurrence of the Acute Myocardial Infarction
'The Gravitation of the Moon Plays Pivotal Roles in the Occurrence of the Acute Myocardial Infarction (AMI)...
According to recent studies, all mammalian cells seem to possess internal biological clocks. (Dunlap, 1999) There seem to be three major components of biological clocks. These are (1) input signals, such as light in the case of the mammalian eye or hormonal factors for peripheral tissues; (2) the clock mechanism itself; and (3) the output genes. (Balsalobre, et al. 2000; Gekakis, et al. 1998) The gravitation of the moon may also regulate the cardiovascular system via internal biological clock genes as well as input signals.

Biological clock oscillation is a basic quality of human physiology and may determine the feature of cardiovascular risk.

In conclusion, because there is significant biological clock oscillation in cardiovascular events, these characteristics and the motion of the moon should be taken into account when making decisions about the treatment and prevention of ischemic heart disease.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3091346/?tool=pmcentrez#b8-ehi-2008-063


The Effect of the Gravitation of the Moon on Frequency of Births
'These results suggest that the gravitation of the Moon may have an influence on the frequency of births.

The effect of the gravitation on human is receiving increased media attention due to Randall’s12 report that the gravitation may have an influence on our body more than we have known before.12 Results of this study seem to support this contention.

A previous study showed that the gravitation of the Moon may regulate the cardiovascular system.11 While there is little evidence to support the relationship of the cardiovascular system with childbirth, this is an area of potential future research.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2956479/?tool=pmcentrez

The lunar cycle: effects on human and animal behavior and physiology.
'It is suggested that melatonin and endogenous steroids may mediate the described cyclic alterations of physiological processes. The release of neurohormones may be triggered by the electromagnetic radiation and/or the gravitational pull of the moon.'
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16407788

Any good lie is 99% truth. Religion has many good messages and a great many
truths. Unfortunately the 1% lie controls all of those messages.
Astrology may be among the same creed. Whereby there is an element of truth
or truths that needs to separated gently and with great care.