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

[Michael_Okoko]

@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.

I have never argued GAE is in conflict with any scientific evidence, stop strawmanning me. I am only saying that parts of it are not supported by science. There is nothing consistent about a miraculous de novo creation of Adam and Eve with science.

@swamidass

Most scientific theories rely on math. 1+1=2. That is unfalsifiable

1+1 = 2
1+1 = 4

Which of the above calculations is wrong and tell me how you arrived at that conclusion?

@swamidass

Most scientific theories rely on math. 1+1=2. That is unfalsifiable, as are several assumptions in any given mathematical system

Scientists use maths to make predictive models. They isolate the major variables involved in a given system and try to relate them in a logical way using mathematics. The components of these mathematical models are observed parts of that system. For example, the Michaelis-Menten (MM) mathematical model of enzyme kinetics incorporates initial velocity, maximal velocity, substrate concentration and a Michealis constant to predict the kinetic properties of single-substrate enzymes: all these parts aren’t imagined, but are derived from looking at simple enzyme systems.

In addition, the assumptions made by the MM model are falsifiable (because we can check to see if they hold) and invalidate the model when violated. For example, the MM model assumes that after an enzyme-catalyzed reaction kicks off, the concentration of one of the intermediates will approach a steady-state because it is consumed and produced at nearly equal rates. This is an assumption that can be checked quite easily and falsified for a given experimental system.

@swamidass

Some are axioms that are asserted and cannot be falsified. Others are just true statements that do not have any valid evidence against them.

We don’t find any of these things in mathematical models of science. Provide examples to the contrary if I am wrong. I am willing to change my mind.

@swamidass

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.

No. Scientific models employ maths to connect essential variables in a system for the purpose of predicting the behavior of that system. This makes mathematical claims in science testable, since they are used to explain aspects of reality.

@swamidass

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 am not asking you to falsify GAE. I am asking you falsify one of its components/assumptions, the de novo creation of AE.

@swamidass

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?

This is a faulty comparison. Evolution can be falsified, there is no doubt about that and its what makes it science, but how can you falsify the miraculous de novo creation of AE thousands of years ago in GAE models?