Is it "Deceptive" to say the GAE is "Consistent With" Evolution?

[Michael_Okoko]

@swamidass

They specified their model with enough clarity that we can say with confidence it is conflict with the genetic evidence. Of course, it is in conflict with quite a bit more, but we can scope it there for now. I’d start by pointing out that it requires/predicts mutation rates orders of magnitude greater than what we observe.

I was referring to GAE models of AE, not Jeanson’s. How do you falsify them?

@Michael_Okoko

@swamidass

Every model has components that are unfalsifiable.

Making those parts not consistent with science.

Just stop with that. I’m not obligated to use your private definition of “consistent”. By your argument all scientific models are unscientific.

I was referring to only GAE models, not purely scientific models. I don’t know of any scientific models which employ unfalsifiable components. Care to name any?

I am also wondering how the de novo creation of two people is consistent with science?

@swamidass

@Michael_Okoko

Yes, but it would make some parts of the model unscientific. This is not necessarily a bad thing though.

Unscientific is the wrong term

So the de novo creation of AE under GAE is not unscientific?

@swamidass

We can agree that components of the theory are not science, but they are coherent with and informed by science

So how is de novo synthesis of AE “coherent with and informed by science”?

I don’t have any issues with GAE. Its a great idea, but it has parts not consistent with what we know from current science like de novo creation of AE.