|
|indexhere=yes
}}
== Overstatements about falsifiability ==
From the Unfalsifiability section:
:: {{tq|human DNA should be far more similar to chimpanzees and other great apes, than to other mammals. If not, then common descent is falsified.}}
"If not" would not falsify anything here. If DNA is part of the construction code for organisms then morphological similarity should correlate with DNA similarity, whether or not the DNA has arrived in its current state through evolution.
:: {{tq|DNA analysis has shown that humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage of their DNA (between 95% to 99.4% depending on the measure).[62] }}
We would not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent. The 95-99 figure is confirmation of evolution, but not the result of a falsifiable test. The falsifiable prediction is much weaker: that similarity will be higher with chimpanzees than with animals of clearly bigger morphological distance from us, such as elephants or reptiles. Estimates of the expected amount of similarity can be made within particular models of how morphology and DNA co-evolve, but if the predicted numbers are wrong, that only disconfirms the model used, not evolution.
:: {{tq|Also, the evolution of chimpanzees and humans from a common ancestor predicts a (geologically) recent common ancestor. Numerous transitional fossils have since been found.[63] Hence, human evolution has passed several falsifiable tests.}}
This probably falsifies "no evolution at all", i.e., an unchanging set of species, but it does not falsify "limited morphological random walk (or extinction) within each species, but no genuine speciation". It is, after all, believed that modern humans interbred with many of the earlier forms so an anti-evolutionist could just say that the nature of humans changed over time but no real speciation happened.
Even if the transitional fossils falsify all nonevolutionary accounts of human-chimpanzee origins, that doesn't mean evolution has passed another falsifiable test. For falsifiability, it would have to be true that if {{tq|numerous transitional fossils}} had '''not''' been found over time, evolutionary theory would have been modified or discredited. What would probably have happened in that case is to continue searching, based on confidence in evolution and a lack of competing explanations. So the quoted passage is confusing confirmation of evolution and disconfirmation of alternatives, with a falsifiable test.
The current wording in the article is overstated. Rather than BRD this I am posting on the talk page first, as this subject is prone to edit wars. [[User:Sesquivalent|Sesquivalent]] ([[User talk:Sesquivalent|talk]]) 22:03, 25 September 2021 (UTC)
:*"DNA should be far more similar" - it does not matter that one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.
:*"humans and chimpanzees share a large percentage" - We would indeed not reject evolution if the similarity to chimps were only 89 percent, but 89 percent are still "a large percentage". Try 10%. This is one possible falsification of evolution.
:*"(geologically) recent common ancestor" - Again, one can construct other models which predict the same thing as evolution does. This is one possible falsification of evolution.
:More to the point, those refutations of creationist poppycock come from reliable sources, and your [[WP:OR|original research]] trying to find fault with them is 100% irrelevant. --[[User:Hob Gadling|Hob Gadling]] ([[User talk:Hob Gadling|talk]]) 13:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
::Regarding transitional fossils, the concept of [[Precambrian Rabbit|Fossil rabbits in the Precambrian]] is relevant. [[User:Kauri0.o|Kauri0.o]] ([[User talk:Kauri0.o|talk]]) 00:49, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
== NPOV issues 2023 ==
| 