DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post

**JonatonM** · 08-17-2012, 01:21 AM

If you demonstrated that the Earth were considerably younger than five billion years old then you would falsify evolution. Oh. Why then did Kelvin's estimates of 20 million years not kill the theory? There is no empirical measure of evolutionary velocity within the theory at present.

If you demonstrated that all mutations were harmful then you would falsify evolution. Is it possible to demonstrate all mutations?

You'd need a mathematical theory of mutations, which we don't have to prove the general case. Evolution at present doesn't make that argument.

Also, in theory, this wouldn't falsify evolution. 'Harmful' isn't an empirical measure.

08-17-2012, 01:21 AM	#8
JonatonM Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 435 Senior Member	If you demonstrated that the Earth were considerably younger than five billion years old then you would falsify evolution. Oh. Why then did Kelvin's estimates of 20 million years not kill the theory? There is no empirical measure of evolutionary velocity within the theory at present. If you demonstrated that all mutations were harmful then you would falsify evolution. Is it possible to demonstrate all mutations? You'd need a mathematical theory of mutations, which we don't have to prove the general case. Evolution at present doesn't make that argument. Also, in theory, this wouldn't falsify evolution. 'Harmful' isn't an empirical measure.
	Quote