Human evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable

GrumpyMrGruff wrote: However, the authors point out that this is consistent with the current understanding of primate phylogeny.

It’s only a problem if one assumes quick fixation for the ERV – that it’s inherited by every member of the population before speciation. In this case, the authors propose that some members of the ancestral species carried the inert ERV (and some didn’t). It was only after the species diverged that genetic drift fixed the ERV in some species and led to its loss in our species.

What this demonstrates is that evolution is unfalsifiable. It can take in any evidence and present an ad hoc explanation for it.

nygreenguy wrote:

otseng wrote:
ERV has historically been labelled as “junk DNA” and assumed to have no purpose.

Irrelevant. The world was once labeled as flat, new evidence has shown that to not be the case. Do you wish to throw that evidence out?

Now that recent research has shown that ERV can have a function, it falsifies the original assumption that ERV is junk DNA.

So what? This statement is irrelevant to the discussion.

I would agree that if ERV is functionless, it would be better explained by some random process of virus DNA/RNA insertion than design. However, since science is now revealing that ERV have function, it is better explained by design.

A gene gaining function after being functionless is not some wacky new novel phenomena. We see it all the time in genetics. It is only if you are naive to the science does this sort of stuff seem incredulous.

The original assertion of ERV theory is that “they sit quietly in the genome”. Now you accept that they do not sit quietly. Again, this shows that human evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable. It can assert and assume anything it wants. And if the assumptions are found to be false, it is dismissed and marches on.

Abraxas wrote:

As I mentioned before, even a gradual evolution among hominids to man cannot even be established. We do not have any fossil evidence of the common ancestor between chimps and humans. And we do not have any fossil evidence of a common ancestor with any other primate. So, I have a differing opinion of which fails dramatically.
None of which is really all that relevant.

Right, because evolution is unfalsifiable. Any lack of evidence or evidence against evolution doesn’t matter.

Does it not seem strange that if humans evolved, that we are not able to find any fossil evidence of the common ancestor between man and chimps or any of the other great apes? That we cannot establish any clear evidence that there is a gradual progression of hominids to humans?

Goat wrote: Your point?? Similar is not the same. The TOE says that things happen in small steps. Having it ‘similar’ but either bigger or smaller is exactly what would be expected. 100% expected.

Grumpy said “Predictions=brain size smaller, height shorter, weight less”. You stated that Homo heidelbergensis is a human ancestor. I presented evidence that Homo heidelbergensis has an average brain size that is larger and an average height that is taller than humans. Now you say “either bigger or smaller is exactly what would be expected”. This is yet again an example of an ad hoc explanation and the unfalsifiability of human evolution.