At Scientific American: Falsifiability in science is a myth

_{Denyse O'Leary

September 8, 2020

Intelligent Design, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Well, some people, including this theoretical physicist, must sure be hoping it is:

The second is that this knowledge equips people to better argue against antiscience forces that use the same strategy over and over again, whether it is about the dangers of tobacco, climate change, vaccinations or evolution. Their goal is to exploit the slivers of doubt and discrepant results that always exist in science in order to challenge the consensus views of scientific experts. They fund and report their own results that go counter to the scientific consensus in this or that narrow area and then argue that they have falsified the consensus. In their book Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik M. Conway say that for these groups “[t]he goal was to fight science with science—or at least with the gaps and uncertainties in existing science, and with scientific research that could be used to deflect attention from the main event.”
Science studies provide supporters of science with better arguments to combat these critics, by showing that the strength of scientific conclusions arises because credible experts use comprehensive bodies of evidence to arrive at consensus judgments about whether a theory should be retained or rejected in favor of a new one.
Mano Singam, “The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth” at Scientific American

There is nothing new about comprehensive bodies of evidence backed by overwhelming consensus being flat-out riddled with errors and misunderstandings, and therefore mostly wrong.

If propositions in science cannot be falsified by evidence, they aren’t propositions in science. They are simply things many scientists believe for a variety of reasons.

See also: Falsifiability is overrated, cosmologists say. Many cosmologists don’t like Karl Popper’s concept of falsifiability because it gets in the way of simply assuming that concepts like string theory and the multiverse are correct because, well, because they just must be. Many would like to loosen the concept of falsifiability to allow for such cool but unfalsifiable concepts in science.

Comments

"[Copernicus'] goal is to exploit the slivers of doubt and discrepant results that always exist in science in order to challenge the consensus views of scientific experts." That Copernicus is a fool. Someone should tell him that for 1,500 years the consensus view of scientific experts has been that the sun orbits the earth. Damned denier.Barry Arrington_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
05:46 AM
5
05
46
AM
PDT}

9 Bornagain77
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
Oh the irony. "Materialists" married science and took a lover named "logic". And now those 2 ladies have grown bored with the union and have decided to destroy their "materialistic" companionship WITHOUT mercy. Epistemological failure anyone? Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).Truthfreedom_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
04:02 AM
4
04
02
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77
Richard Dawkins’ himself, author of ‘The Selfish Gene and ‘The Extended Phenotype’, (who was, apparently, also commenting outside his own area of expertise),
Seversky does not like "people commenting outside their own area of expertise." :( Except when those commenters support his now failed worldview ("materialism" is no longer "a thing"). Materialism’s Failures: Hylemorphism’s Vindication. (Aristotle is back).Truthfreedom_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
03:54 AM
3
03
54
AM
PDT}

And as Chen stated,
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.” Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm
Moreover, as Stephen Meyer pointed out, there are ‘yawning chasms’ in the ‘morphological space’ between the phyla which suddenly appeared in the Cambrian Explosion,,,
“Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space.” - Stephen Meyer – Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Moreover, this top down pattern in the fossil record, which is the complete opposite pattern as Darwin predicted for the fossil record, is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion, but this ‘top down’, disparity preceding diversity, pattern is found throughout the fossil record subsequent to the Cambrian explosion as well.
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head – July 30, 2013 Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form. Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories. ,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: “This pattern, known as ‘early high disparity’, turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn’t a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.”,,, Author Martin Hughes, continued: “Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on. Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: “A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,, http://phys.org/news/2013-07-scientific-evolution.html
Thus according to Singham's own criteria of the 'preponderance of evidence' being the defining rule for judging whether something is truly science or not, Darwin's theory, according to entire field of paleontology itself, is falsified. In fact, to repeat, the fossil record itself is completely upside down from what Charles Darwin himself had predicted it to be. The fossil record is hardly the only place where the 'preponderance of evidence' has falsified Darwin's theory: Here are a few more falsifications of Darwinian evolution that Darwinists simply refuse to accept as falsifications of their theory,
Darwin’s theory holds mutations to the genome to be random. The vast majority of mutations to the genome are not random but are now found to be ‘directed’. Darwin’s theory holds that Natural Selection is the ‘designer substitute’ that produces the ‘appearance’ and/or illusion of design. Natural Selection, especially for multicellular organisms, is found to grossly inadequate as the ‘designer substitute. Darwin’s theory holds that mutations to DNA will eventually change the basic biological form of any given species into a new form of a brand new species. Yet, biological form is found to be irreducible to mutations to DNA, nor is biological form reducible to any other material particulars in biology one may wish to invoke. Darwin’s theory holds there to be an extremely beneficial and flexible mutation rate for DNA which was ultimately responsible for all the diversity and complexity of life we see on earth. The mutation rate to DNA is overwhelmingly detrimental. Detrimental to such a point that it is seriously questioned whether there are any truly beneficial, information building, mutations whatsoever. Charles Darwin himself held that the gradual unfolding of life would (someday) be self-evident in the fossil record. Yet, from the Cambrian Explosion onward, the fossil record is consistently characterized by the sudden appearance of a group/kind in the fossil record(disparity), then rapid diversity within the group/kind, and then long term stability and even deterioration of variety within the overall group/kind, and within the specific species of the kind, over long periods of time. Of the few dozen or so fossils claimed as transitional, not one is uncontested as a true example of transition between major animal forms out of millions of collected fossils. Moreover, Fossils are found in the “wrong place” all the time (either too early, or too late). Darwin’s theory, due to the randomness postulate, holds that patterns will not repeat themselves in supposedly widely divergent species. Yet thousands of instances of what is ironically called ‘convergent evolution’, on both the morphological and genetic level, falsifies the Darwinian belief that patterns will not repeat themselves in widely divergent species. Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Yet as Doug Axe pointed out, “Basically every gene and every new protein fold, there is nothing of significance that we can show that can be had in that gradualistic way. It’s all a mirage. None of it happens that way.” Charles Darwin himself stated that “If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection.” Yet as Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig pointed out, “in thousands of plant species often entirely new organs have been formed for the exclusive good of more than 132,930 other species, these ‘ugly facts’ have annihilated Darwin’s theory as well as modern versions of it.” Charles Darwin himself stated that, ““The impossibility of conceiving that this grand and wondrous universe, with our conscious selves, arose through chance, seems to me the chief argument for the existence of God. Yet ‘our conscious selves’ are certainly not explainable by ‘chance’ (nor is consciousness explainable by any possible reductive materialistic explanation in general), i.e. ‘the hard problem of consciousness’. Besides the mathematics of probability consistently showing that Darwinian evolution is impossible, the mathematics of population genetics itself has now shown Darwinian evolution to be impossible. Moreover, ‘immaterial’ mathematics itself, which undergirds all of science, engineering and technology, is held by most mathematicians to exist in some timeless, unchanging, immaterial, Platonic realm. Yet, the reductive materialism that Darwinian theory is based upon denies the objective existence of the immaterial realm that mathematics is said to exist in. i.e. Darwinian evolution actually denies the objective reality of the one thing, i.e. mathematics, that it most needs in order for it to be considered truly scientific in the first place! Donald Hoffman has, via population genetics, shown that if Darwin’s materialistic theory were true then all our observations of reality would be illusory. Yet the scientific method itself is based on reliable observation. Moreover, Quantum Mechanics itself has now shown that conscious observation must come before material reality, i.e. falsification of ‘realism’ proves that our conscious observations are reliable!. The reductive materialism that undergirds Darwinian thought holds that immaterial information is merely ’emergent’ from a material basis. Yet immaterial Information, via experimental realization of the “Maxwell’s Demon” thought experiment, is now found to be its own distinctive physical entity that, although it can interact in a ‘top down’ manner with matter and energy, is separate from matter and energy. Darwinists hold that Darwin’s theory is true. Yet ‘Truth’ itself is an abstract property of an immaterial mind that is irreducible to the reductive materialistic explanations of Darwinian evolution. i.e. Assuming reductive materialism and/or Naturalism as the starting philosophical position of science actually precludes ‘the truth’ from ever being reached by science! Darwinists, due to their underlying naturalistic philosophy, insist that teleology (i.e. goal directed purpose) does not exist. Yet it is impossible for Biologists to do biological research without constantly invoking words that directly imply teleology. i.e. The very words that Biologists themselves use when they are doing their research falsifies Darwinian evolution.
Verse:
1 Thessalonians 5:21 Test all things; hold fast what is good.
Besides Darwinists refusing to adhere to the criteria of falsification for their supposedly scientific theory, by any other reasonable measure that one may wish to judge whether Darwinian evolution even qualifies as a science or not, and as is shown in the following video, Darwinian evolution fails to meet those criteria as well:
“There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.” – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17 Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw
There is simply nothing within Darwinian theory, (theoretical pre-Cambrian rabbits or otherwise). that Darwinists can point to and say, ‘and this is what makes Darwinian evolution a hard science instead of a pseudoscience’. Simply put, Darwinian evolution is more properly classified as a pseudoscience, even as a religion for atheists, rather than ever being classified as a real and testable science. Moreover, all of science, every nook and cranny of it, is based on the presupposition of intelligent design and is certainly not based on presumption of methodological naturalism as is presupposed by Darwinian atheists.
From the essential Christian presuppositions that undergird the founding of modern science itself, (i.e. namely, that the universe is rational and that the minds of men, being made in the ‘image of God’, can dare understand that rationality), to the intelligent design of the scientific instruments and experiments themselves, to the logical and mathematical analysis of experimental results, from top to bottom science itself is certainly not ‘natural’. Not one scientific instrument would ever exist if men did not first intelligently design that scientific instrument. Not one test tube, microscope, telescope, spectroscope, or etc.. etc.., was ever found just laying around on a beach somewhere which was ‘naturally’ constructed by nature. Not one experimental result would ever be rationally analysed since there would be no immaterial minds to rationally analyze the immaterial mathematics that lay behind the intelligently designed experiments in the first place.
In fact, (as I have pointed out several times now here on UD), assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based, (as Darwinists insist on doing), leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Basically, because of reductive materialism (and/or methodological naturalism), the atheistic materialist is forced to claim that he is merely a ‘neuronal illusion’ (Coyne, Dennett, etc..), who has the illusion of free will (Harris), who has unreliable, (i.e. illusory), beliefs about reality (Plantinga), who has illusory perceptions of reality (Hoffman), who, since he has no real time empirical evidence substantiating his grandiose claims, must make up illusory “just so stories” with the illusory, and impotent, ‘designer substitute’ of natural selection (Behe, Gould, Sternberg), so as to ‘explain away’ the appearance (i.e. illusion) of design (Crick, Dawkins), and who must make up illusory meanings and purposes for his life since the reality of the nihilism inherent in his atheistic worldview is too much for him to bear (Weikart), and who must also hold morality to be subjective and illusory since he has rejected God (Craig, Kreeft). Who, since beauty cannot be grounded within his materialistic worldview, must hold beauty itself to be illusory (Darwin). Bottom line, nothing is truly real in the atheist’s worldview, least of all, beauty, morality, meaning and purposes for life.,,, Darwinian Materialism and/or Methodological Naturalism vs. Reality – video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CaksmYceRXM
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believe he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to. It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science, indeed more antagonistic to reality itself, than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
2 Corinthians 10:5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;
bornagain77_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
03:43 AM
3
03
43
AM
PDT}

That Mario Singham would start off his article with Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbit as an example of a flimsy falsification criteria so as to show why falsification is, supposedly, not the gold standard for determining whether a theory is scientific or not, does not reflect well on Singham's understanding of science.
J.B.S. Haldane, one of the founders of modern evolutionary biology theory, was reportedly asked what it would take for him to lose faith in the theory of evolution and is said to have replied, “Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian.” Since the so-called “Cambrian explosion” of 500 million years ago marks the earliest appearance in the fossil record of complex animals, finding mammal fossils that predate them would falsify the theory.,,, Identifying and dating Haldane's bone involves using many other theories from diverse fields, including physics, chemistry and geology.,,, - Singham
Haldane's pre-Cambrian rabbit is a joke of a falsification criteria. First off, it is questioned whether Haldane ever made that 'pre-Cambrian rabbit' statement in the first place,
Several authors have written that J.B.S. Haldane (1892–1964) said that the discovery of a fossil rabbit in Precambrian rocks would be enough to destroy his belief in evolution.[1][2][3][4][5][6] However these references date from the 1990s or later. In 1996 Michael J. Benton cited the 1993 edition of Mark Ridley's book Evolution,[7] Richard Dawkins wrote in 2005 that Haldane was responding to a challenge by a "Popperian zealot".[6] In 2004 Richa Arora wrote that the story was told by John Maynard Smith (1920–2004) in a television programme.[8] John Maynard Smith attributed the phrase to Haldane in a conversation with Paul Harvey in the early 1970s. - wikipedia
Secondly even if Haldane made the statement, Haldane's own area of expertise was in helping formulate population genetics, not in paleontology.
,,, known for his work in the study of physiology, genetics, evolutionary biology, and mathematics. He made innovative contributions to the fields of statistics and biostatistics.,,, Haldane's first paper in 1915 demonstrated genetic linkage in mammals. Subsequent works established a unification of Mendelian genetics and Darwinian evolution by natural selection whilst laying the groundwork for modern evolutionary synthesis and thus helped to create population genetics. - wikipedia
Thus Haldane, (if he even said the phrase 'pre-Cambrian rabbit' in the first place), was commenting outside his area of expertise, i.e. population genetics. Thus for Singham to cite this particular example from Haldane as his lead off example of a flimsy falsification criteria is a joke. (which is just as well since population genetics itself, Haldane's area of expertise, has now falsified Darwinian evolution, i.e. Haldane's dilemma, mutational load argument, waiting time problem). Richard Dawkins' himself, author of 'The Selfish Gene and 'The Extended Phenotype', (who was, apparently, also commenting outside his own area of expertise), also, like Singham, took the 'pre-Cambrian rabbit as somehow being an objective falsification criteria for Darwinian evolution that should somehow be taken seriously. (Which is just as well since Dawkins' entire 'Selfish Gene' concept has now been falsified by advances In genetics that show genes to exist in an extensive 'holistic web' of mutual interdependence rather than them existing as independent, i.e. 'selfish', entities)
“However, if there was a single hippo or rabbit in the Precambrian, that would completely blow evolution out of the water. None have ever been found.” - Dawkins - The evolution wars, Time, 7 August 2005
It is almost embarrassing to point out why a 'pre-Cambrian rabbit' is a flimsy falsification criteria for Darwinian evolution. The Cambrian explosion itself, all by its lonesome, falsifies the entire notion of gradualistic Darwinian evolution for crying out loud! As Charles Darwin himself noted, the Cambrian explosion was "a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian system is very great,”,,, “The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.” - Charles Darwin - On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection - 1859. Reprint, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press, 1964, 308.
The problem of the Cambrian Explosion, as Stephen Meyer documented in his book 'Darwin's Doubt', has only gotten far worse, not better, for Darwinists since Darwin first wrote that statement back in the mid 1800s,
Dr. Stephen C. Meyer, PhD talks about the Case for Intelligent Design – video (excellent lecture on the Cambrian Explosion – Oct. 2015) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vl802lHAk5Y video - Darwin's Doubt - recorded March 7, 2017 - In this webinar, Dr. Stephen Meyer will tell the story of the mystery surrounding this (Cambrian) explosion of animal life - a mystery that has intensified, not only because the expected ancestors of these animals have not been found, but because scientists have learned more about what it takes to construct an animal. During the last half century, biologists have come to appreciate the central importance of biological information - stored in DNA and elsewhere in cells - to building animal forms. Meyer will show that the origin of this information, as well as other mysterious features of the Cambrian event, are best explained by intelligent design, rather than purely undirected evolutionary processes. http://foclonline.org/webinar-recording/darwin%E2%80%99s-doubt
In his article, Singham stated that,
"It is the preponderance of evidence that is relevant in making such judgments (about science), not one or even a few results (that may falsify a theory)."
Which was a very interesting claim for Singham to make since the 'preponderance of evidence' from the entire fossil record itself, from the Cambrian explosion onward, directly contradicts Darwinian evolution. As Dr. Jonathan Wells points out in the following video,
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin’s Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) – video (2:55 minute mark)?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vA2LDiWeWb4
, as Dr. Wells points out, Darwin predicted that minor differences (diversity) between species would gradually appear first and then the differences would grow larger (disparity) between species as time went on. i.e. universal common descent as depicted in Darwin's tree of life. What Darwin predicted should be familiar to everyone and is easily represented in the following graph.,,,
The Theory - Diversity precedes Disparity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/F.gif
But that 'tree pattern' that Darwin predicted is not what is found in the fossil record. The fossil record reveals that disparity (the greatest differences) precedes diversity (the smaller differences), which is the exact opposite pattern for what Darwin's theory predicted.
The Actual Fossil Evidence- Disparity precedes Diversity - graph http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/JOURNEY/IMAGES/G.gif
As Richard Lewin stated, “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.”
Jerry Coyne’s Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show “Why Evolution is True” – Jonathan M. – December 4, 2012 Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms. Darwin’s theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science, “Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect.” Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that, “The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa.” Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/12/jerry_coynes_c067021.html Erwin and Valentine’s The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin’s Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is “Unresolved” – June 26, 2013 Excerpt: “In other words, the morphological distances — gaps — between body plans of crown phyla were present when body fossils first appeared during the explosion and have been with us ever since. The morphological disparity is so great between most phyla that the homologous reference points or landmarks required for quantitative studies of morphology are absent.” Erwin and Valentine (p. 340) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2013/06/erwin_valentine_cambrian_explosion073671.html
And as Valentine stated,
“Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.” James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8
And as Goldschmidt remarked
“The facts of greatest general importance are the following. When a new phylum, class, or order appears, there follows a quick, explosive (in terms of geological time) diversification so that practically all orders or families known appear suddenly and without any apparent transitions. Afterwards, a slow evolution follows; this frequently has the appearance of a gradual change, step by step, though down to the generic level abrupt major steps without transitions occur. At the end of such a series, a kind of evolutionary running-wild frequently is observed. Giant forms appear, and odd or pathological types of different kinds precede the extinction of such a line.” Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist 40 (January 1952), 97.
bornagain77_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
03:41 AM
3
03
41
AM
PDT}

1bornagain77_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
03:40 AM
3
03
40
AM
PDT}

1 AaronS 1978
My argument is science is filled with these things called humans And they’re very FLAWED.
Sshhh. A stake with your name carved on it might be on your way. :)Truthfreedom_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

2 Polistra
Oreskes and Conway are the direct descendants of Sprenger and Kremer. When the Church speaks, all falsifiers must burn.
Malleus maleficarum. :) Those who monopolize knowledge , monopolize power. The fight is savage. Today's priests wear white lab-coats.Truthfreedom_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
12:33 AM
12
12
33
AM
PDT}

AaronS 1978
Remember kids if you don’t like what science is doing well just shut up and listen they’re experts you don’t know anything you don’t get to question them. And if they make mistakes you still don’t get to question them, you just have to deal with it.
That is the definition of fundamentalist religion , not science.
Religious fundamentalists believe in the superiority of their religious teachings, and in a strict division between righteous people ("consensus science") and evildoers ("consensus science critics"). (Altemeyer and Hunsberger, 1992, 2004).
Truthfreedom_{September 9, 2020
September
09
Sep
9
09
2020
12:27 AM
12
12
27
AM
PDT}

Oreskes and Conway are the direct descendants of Sprenger and Kremer. When the Church speaks, all falsifiers must burn.polistra_{September 8, 2020
September
09
Sep
8
08
2020
10:49 PM
10
10
49
PM
PDT}

I merely have to point to the failed replication studies and refusal to publish those failed replication studies of oxytocin and the schmuck is completely wrong My argument is science is filled with these things called humans And they’re very FLAWED How about I just point to Covid research, that’s pretty recent and proves this nonsense absolutely wrong Those were a bunch of experts that couldn’t get anything right about COVID (space cooties) How about free will research? that was 60 years of scientific consensus demanding that we drop our free will and it wasn’t till recently that got shot down I wish I could just post on their stuff and ask for answers to all of that Oh and climate change, about that, Does anybody ever kind of consider the fact that they have been screaming that we’re all going to die from climate change for at least 40 years and all of their predictions end up being wrong I’m not saying we’re not damaging our environment But I would like to point out that an old-time magazine said that our O zone was gonna crack open we be living in a desert wasteland by the year 2014 I believe that was published back in 1982 Why is it that I see that that didn’t come to pass I have no idea why I would think that But they’re so blinded by their incredible intelligence to see that maybe they made some mistakes and everybody remembers those mistakes but them Remember kids if you don’t like what science is doing well just shut up and listen they’re experts you don’t know anything you don’t get to question them. And if they make mistakes you still don’t get to question them, you just have to deal with it Science can be wrong but they don’t have to be sorryAaronS1978_{September 8, 2020
September
09
Sep
8
08
2020
10:41 PM
10
10
41
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply