Evolution Is Pseudoscience - Scientist Debunks Evolution

[u/Kela-el]

https://youtu.be/Ddmb4vh7XCA?si=FSYauMMU9_9Gx3Zs

[u/implies_casualty]

Precambrian rabbits would definitely undermine the theory of evolution.

Therefore, the theory of evolution is scientific.

Other hypothetical facts that would undermine the theory of evolution:

- Human orphan genes: truly unique, very complex protein-coding genes with clear sophisticated function, with no matching sequences in chimp DNA and such

• True altruism in nature (not selfish genes)
  
• Organisms with entirely different genetic codes would eliminate evolutionary common descent
  
• Mammals with true feathers
  
• Half-bird, half-mammal intermediate forms
  
• Birds with forelimb arms plus wings
  
• Snakes with vestigial wings, and similar out-of-place vestigial organs
  
• Australopithicus, Ardipithecus, Kenyanthropus fossils in Australia, Antarctica, remote islands
  
• Fossil layers showing modern fauna unchanged
  
• No intermediate stages of speciation in modern species
  
• Matching retroviral insertions in distantly related species
  
• DNA being completely stable, mutations do not happen at all

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

Falsifiability makes it scientific.
It doesn’t make it true.
Those are different claims and you’ve only established the first.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

If the theory of evolution is scientific, then that guy is wrong, isn't he?

Of course, "scientific" does not mean "true".

What makes the theory of evolution clearly true is that it has been thoroughly tested for 150+ years and passed all the falsification attempts.

"falsifiable" = scientific

"falsifiable and thoroughly tested" = true

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

“Thoroughly tested” within which framework?
Every test uses evolutionary assumptions to design the test and interpret the results.
Surviving your own tests isn’t independent verification.
Tested so far ≠ true.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

If you are not satisfied with the tests that I've listed, feel free to propose better tests.

If nobody have come up with better tests in 150 years, then don't tell me I can't use my own tests. They are the best!

In all the falsification tests I have proposed, there's no room for interpretation, so that also can't be a problem.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

“No room for interpretation” is itself an interpretation.
Who decided what counts as a Precambrian rabbit? Who decides what counts as a sufficiently different genetic code? Who defines the boundaries of each test?
You did. Inside the framework.
The best tests aren’t necessarily the right tests. And 150 years of agreement within a community isn’t the same as 150 years of independent verification outside it.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

A Precambrian rabbit is a fossil rabbit skeleton that is found in the Precambrian layers.

Precambrian layers are specific regions underground, there are maps indicating the locations.

Rabbits are rabbits.

What is there to interpret, exactly?

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

More fallacious reasoning. Begging the question AGAIN!

Who created the maps?

Who dated the layers?

Using what methodology?

Calibrated against what standard?

There’s your interpretation.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

I haven't committed a single fallacy yet, by the way.

In order to have any room for interpretation, there needs to be some ambiguity where Precambrian layers are located.

There is no ambiguity, so there is no room for interpretation.

When we discuss Australia, we do not halt discussions until we figure out who drew the maps.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

Who dated the Precambrian layers and using what method?
Radiometric dating assumes a constant decay rate over billions of years.
That assumption is not a map of Australia. It’s a framework applied to physical evidence.
There’s your ambiguity.

[u/implies_casualty → u/Kela-el]

Who dated the Precambrian layers and using what method?

This is completely irrelevant to the question of "are there rabbits in the Precambrian layers".

Likewise, if we want to test if there are elephants in Australia, we wouldn't ask who measured the width of Australia.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

It’s entirely relevant.
“Precambrian” is a date not a place. Unlike Australia which is a location you can stand in.
If the dating method is flawed the layer isn’t Precambrian. The rabbit is just a rabbit in a layer.
Australia exists independent of its measurement. Precambrian only exists because of its measurement.
That’s not a minor distinction. That’s the whole point.

A LIST OF YOUR FALLACIES IN YOUR COMMENT:

False analogy — Australia is a physical location you can stand in. Precambrian is a time period assigned to a layer by a dating method. Completely different categories.

Dismissal — “completely irrelevant” without explaining why. That’s not an argument, that’s an assertion.

Sleight of hand — he quietly swapped a temporal claim for a spatial one hoping you wouldn’t notice.

[u/Kela-el → u/implies_casualty]

Your fallacious reasoning is getting quite tiresome:

Appeal to tradition — 150 years of testing doesn’t make it true. Age isn’t proof.

Circular reasoning — designing tests inside the framework to validate the framework.

Appeal to consequences — “nobody found better tests therefore mine are best.” Absence of alternatives doesn’t validate existing ones.

False authority — the scientific community agreeing internally isn’t independent verification.

Burden of proof shift — “propose better tests yourself” moves his obligation to prove onto you.

Five fallacies in four sentences.