re: #604 Cato

re: #598 Charles

And as for you Charles, you make the case that evolutionary theory is falsifiable. Let’s see if you believe that. There is a population of creatures who are involved in activities that produce fewer offspring, make them less able to hunt effectively, and kills them earlier. These activies become more widespread rather than die out But this population flourishes rather than dies out. It means that either (1) natural selection is wrong with respect to this population or (2) some other factor makes them more worthy of survival despite the withering effects of their behavior, in short Darwin’s formulation of natural selection lacks an “on balance” modifier. This species is humanity which despite violating numerous behavioral prohibitions flourishes. Why do you find that difficult to understand?

I do understand your point, and I also understand that it’s a non sequitur. You don’t understand the concept of scientific falsification. You’re stating opinions, not scientific facts, by focusing on behaviors that you believe are “immoral.”

The theory of evolution could be falsified simply by discovering the remains of a modern animal — say, a Great Dane or a finch or a sheep — in the same substrate as an ancient dinosaur fossil. This hasn’t happened in 150 years of looking, and it’s not going to happen.

This is what “falsification” means — it’s evidence-based, not opinion-based.