Szymcionorski - Science Communication

  Today I am not focusing on a creationist claim, article nor video - quite the opposite, actually. Recently I stumbled across the article:  Updating Darwin: biologists are returning to an older theory to explain anomalies in evolution . The article is dedicated to a thesis that modern evolutionary theory requires changes as new mechanisms previously not known to exist are being discovered and they're heavily to previously rejected ideas of inheritance known as Lamarckism. This indeed is the case and these mechanisms are gradually incorporated into our current understanding of evolutionary processes. Initially (and especially to a person not educated on the topic), it looks like a standard article about science that may be at best slightly oversensationalized. However, at a closer look it becomes more clear that it contains some information that is either misleading or incorrect. Fortunately, it isn't written to discredit evolution as the article starts with a line: "E...

How (generally speaking) do we determine which scientific theory is valid or not? Typically, we look at the evidence to see if there's any supporting or refuting that theory. But what happens if... we are inherently unable to even hypothetically find evidence that could refute it? Here comes the concept of falsifiability . Falsifiability is a concept introduced by Karl Popper - a famous philosopher of science known for his rejection of the classical inductivist view on the scientific method. The concept is typically defined as: "Standard of evaluation of scientific statements, including theories and hypotheses. A statement is falsifiable if it belongs to a language or logical structure capable of describing an empirical observation that contradicts it."  Karl Popper in year 1990. But, you may ask, why do I think that falsifiability is important? Well, if we can't falsify  a scientific claim then we essentially can never evaluate whether or not it is ...

Hello everyone! My nickname is Szymcionorski (spelled Shym-chyo-nor-skee) and here I plan to upload some content regarding creationism and science communication (aside from my YouTube channel " Polish "Evolutionist" (Szymcionorski) " dedicated to the same goal and Szymcionorski's website that serves as my work's information hub). But what about the title of this blog post? Simply put - I do not see essentially any evidence that would validate claims made by creationism in general.  A good example of that is a common argument used by them regarding "new information". From what I've observed the argument usually starts with a given creationist claiming that x evolutionary transition requires huge amounts of "new information" and thus their opponent should provide a mechanism for which this supposed information could arise. Then the person defending evolution gives examples like gene duplication, de novo gene birth and sequence mod...