falsifying Natural Selection

[spinoza99]

Let's say you believe Peacocks evolved from Turkeys. How would you falsify that?

[Trolldor]

..presumably by assessing genetics and observing, where possible, the fossil record.

[Clinton Huxley]

Suppose you thought crocodiles evolved from ducks, how would you falsify that?

[Trolldor]

Ditto.

[Svartalf]

But the two species are linked, haven't you ever seen a crocoduck?

[Feck]

Why do you say' believe' ,not think ? why would you, either there are good reasons for thinking they do or there aren't .I can't think of a good reason why anyone would want to ?
why don't you ask the real question ?

[Trolldor]

But the two species are linked, haven't you ever seen a crocoduck?

I've seen a golden one.

Why do you say' believe' ,not think ? why would you, either there are good reasons for thinking they do or there aren't .I can't think of a good reason why anyone would want to ?
why don't you ask the real question ?

To be fair, a hypothesis is a belief, a statement you expect to be true and that you attempt to falsify. If repeated experimentation proves your hypothesis right then you can say "I think" because you have verifiable evidence. If it is proven to be false then either you throw away the idea or continue to 'believe' in the absence of any evidence.

[Feck]

Believing and then wanting to falsify evidence has nothing to to do with disproving the null hypothesis .It implies a faith or a reason to believe some thing that you would want to falsify Ie LIE about .At no point in the scientific method should anyone be Believing something before there are good reasons to ,they might think some thing fits a theory ,there might be a few reasons why a theory is considered due to small amounts if evidence or a question has been asked and a number of theories might be proposed and a number of experiments done to add weight to one or the other one of them . If any evidence exists that a theory is wrong then it is wrong in hole or in part ,but much more evidence is needed to prove some thing is true. I don't think the use of Believe is useful and I don't think that expecting and believing are the same thing and I don't think Scientists Either expect or Believe anything about the relatedness of bird species for example without evidence .It feels a lot like a leading question it's presuming that scientists are more attached to their particular theory than they are to to the whole of the scientific method ,these are the sort of people that Peer review finds out .

[Bella Fortuna]

Serving the Thanksgiving peacock will make things more jazzy, at least...

[Trolldor]

Feck, way over stating it.

I know Spinozy is fairly rubbish at the game but he asked a question and I answered it.

An idea, without evidence, is a belief.

[Svartalf]

Serving the Thanksgiving peacock will make things more jazzy, at least...

You know peacock is not really good to eat, right?

Prepared so as to leave the feathers intact, it makes for a prestige piece, but I'd rather have pheasant myself

[Bella Fortuna]

Serving the Thanksgiving peacock will make things more jazzy, at least...

You know peacock is not really good to eat, right?

Prepared so as to leave the feathers intact, it makes for a prestige piece, but I'd rather have pheasant myself

I grew up in an area where they are wild - miserable noisy messy feckers - they deserve to be eaten on general principle!

[Svartalf]

stop thinking of pee and come eat a large and meaty cock now.

[charlou]

Feck, way over stating it.

I know Spinozy is fairly rubbish at the game but he asked a question and I answered it.

An idea, without evidence, is a belief.

Feck answered it better, TMH.

And, no, idea =/= belief.

Let's say you believe Peacocks evolved from Turkeys. How would you falsify that?

Be more direct, please ... What would you really like to hear?

[JimC]

Your question, of course, is about falsifying evolution in general, rather than one of its principle mechanisms. In other words, the concept of descent with modification...

Might as well try to falsify a broadly Copernican view of the solar system...

Falsifying natural selection (in a specific instance) is actually a much more interesting question. Not all features of organisms derive from selection in the pure sense, genetic drift and other mechanisms are often involved (proving, BTW, that I am not the arch-selectionist some may believe... )

Disentangling the actual mechanisms responsible for a given evolutionary change is fascinating stuff, and requires the full armory of reason and a competent education in the sciences. Unavailable to most religious people, in other words...