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

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

@Michael_Okoko

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.

Please present evidence the conflicts with the GAE. IF you can’t, then you shouldn’t claim it is consistent with science.

@Michael_Okoko

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?

Most scientific theories rely on math. 1+1=2. That is unfalsifiable, as are several assumptions in any given mathematical system. Some are axioms that are asserted and cannot be falsified. Others are just true statements that do not have any valid evidence against them.

Unless you intend to argue that scientific theories that rely mathematical claims are unscientific (absurd, don’t do that), it should be clear that all theories rely on components that are unfalsifiable.

There are far more examples of this too. You might want to catch up here: Does Science Work by Falsifiability?.

@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?

I could only falsify the GAE if there was evidence that it is false, but there isn’t. I certainly tried to falsify it, but I could not.

I could just as easily ask you to show me how you would falsify evolution. You can’t, because we do not have strong evidence against it. That doesn’t make evolution unscientific, does it?