MEMO COPY The Theory of Evolution _is_ falsifiable.
Kent Paul Dolan
Evolution's nervous breakdown.
but retitled to highlight a different aspect of what
was achieved in hershryh's excellent News article.
In talk.origins, hersheyh wrote:
> Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
>> Who said natural selection is a valid method
> I, for one, say that natural selection occurs and
> is a valid mechanism that exists in the real world
> that everyone but you lives in.
> Which of the requisite assumptions of natural
> selection do you think is untrue?
> 1) Natural selection requires variation. If there
> were no mechanism for generating new variation,
> random processes in the absence of selection would
> eventually lead to the loss of all variation. So
> if you can prove that mutation, which generates
> variation is impossible, then you could disprove
> natural selection.
> 2) Natural selection could not occur if there were
> no such thing as *genetic* variation. So, do you
> think that living populations are genetically
> invariant or do you think they vary? If you could
> demonstrate that all species lack genetic
> variation, then natural selection could not occur.
> 3) Natural selection could not occur even if there
> were genetic variation if these genetic variations
> did not affect an organism's phenotype. So if you
> could demonstrate that genes have no effect, not
> even a partial effect, on what an organism looks
> like or acts, you could disprove natural
> selection.
> 4) Assuming that there is genetic variation that
> affected phenotypes, natural selection could not
> occur if local environments did not impact on the
> reproductive success of organisms with different
> phenotypes *differentially*. So, if you could
> prove that no matter what an organism's phenotype,
> it has an equal chance of producing offspring
> relative to any other organism, then there would
> be no natural selection. Instead, there would be
> neutral drift. Selection, by definition, requires
> that the change in frequency each generation be
> significantly larger than that expected for chance
> alone.
> 5) Even with all that, if it were magically the
> case that the *differential* reproduction caused
> by the interaction of local environments on
> genetically and phenotypically distinguishable
> organisms did not result in a *differential*
> transfer of different alleles into the next
> generation, there would be no natural selection.
> So tell me which of the above statements allows
> you to claim evidence for the falsity of the
> mechanism or process we call "natural selection"?
> [In fact, there *are* cases where genetic
> difference has no phenotypic effect and some where
> phenotypic difference makes no difference in
> reproductive success. Those cases are where we
> have neutral drift. But for there to be no
> natural selection, that has to be true in *all*
> cases.]
>> or even a valid method God would use?
> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses
> natural selection because natural selection exists
> in the real world.
[I fixed up your item numbering.]
Besides earning you a well deserved POTM nomination,
it is well worth noting that you have _also_
provided _five_ ways to falsify the Theory of
Evolution, thus completely debunking the frequent
mendacious creationist claim that the ToE is somehow
"unfalsifiable".
Well done.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
> Kent Paul Dolan wrote:
>> In response to the thread:
>> Evolution's nervous breakdown.
>> but retitled to highlight a different aspect of
>> what was achieved in hershryh's excellent News
>> article.
>> hersheyh wrote:
>>> Some self-absorbed moron wrote:
> Actually, those are five ways to falsify the
> theory of natural selection. Don't confuse that
> with the theory of evolution.
Umm, with ToE roughly== RM+NS, how does falsifying
NS _not_ falsify the ToE? The creationist contention
is that the ToE is unfalsifiable, not, in
particular, that NS is unfalsifiable, so narrowing
the result to merely proving NS falsifiable would
not have served the larger purpose. As usual, your
problems with reading for intention trip you up.
xanthian.
Kent Paul Dolan
hersheyh wrote:
[snip]
> If there is a God, it is necessary that he uses
> natural selection because natural selection exists
> in the real world.
hersheyh published the above on November 2nd.
Ray Martinez has vowed repeatedly to answer those
challenges.
Yet, a review of this thread using Google Groups
shows at least _ten_ instances (I didn't bother to
go back to enumerate the places where he had snipped
them away) in which Ray answered a posting, included
all of the above challenges quoted in his posting,
then failed to answer them, either pleading that he
was "out of time", claiming he was going to answer
the issues in his (never to be published, vaporware)
paper rather than on talk.origins, changing the
subject to address issues of time wasting moron
idiocy (like his claim that "the 'natural' in
'natural selection' has exactly the same meaning as
the 'natural' in 'natural materialism'"), rather
than substantive issues, and so forth.
Hersheyh even reposted the challenges, addressed
specifically to Ray Martinez.
In the case, Ray Martinez wasted far more time in
the other nine answers than it would have required
for him to answer the five challenges the first time
he answered a posting containing them.
The evidence is clear: Ray Martinez runs like a
whipped dog when presented with challenges to which
any honest answers he could provide would prove his
entire worldview to be based on utter falsehoods.
He does this not merely in this case, but in every
case, thus explaining one aspect of why he holds the
unpleasant nickname "Dishonest Ray".
I really think that shunning him is going to be the
only way to get legitimately responsive answers from
him; he's obviously here only for the attention he
receives, not to conduct dialogs. If no one responds
to any of his postings until those postings are
honest and responsive, perhaps he will find some
other way to waste his time than annoying people
trying to hold sane conversations with him in
talk.origins.
I don't make the rules here, though, in this
consensual anarchy.
You all do.
A repair to this situation can only happen if you
_all_, without exception, volunteer silently to
participate in such a shunning.
xanthian.
[I again fixed the numbering in the list hersheyh
wrote.]