Peter Nyikos: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."

[Ray Martinez]

Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."

Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
unscientific concept?"

In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?

Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.

Ray

[Slow Vehicle]

Heeeey, Ray-ray:
Are you ever going to address _my _ questions, or are you just going
to keep posturing?

[Glenn]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ab70c82f-5918-4d49...@oq8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...

Ray Martinez is private circuit.

[hersheyh]

Natural selection *is falsifiable* and *testable*. Witness the
role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
sexual selection traits like male guppy tails. The less predation,
the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
face of differing levels of predation.

Natural selection has not *been* falsified despite *being*
falsifiable. That makes NS similar to observations of the action
of gravity on objects with more mass density than air. Falsifiable
(since, in principle, the lead ball could float upward rather than down
toward your foot), but not falsified. IOW, NS is a good description
of what happens in the world of empirical reality. As opposed to
a fantasy world where bodies with higher density than air can ascend
upward (in the absence of magnets, mirrors, wires or other magician's
or fraud's tricks)

[John Stockwell]

Evolution is not falsifiable in the way that the round earth
hypothesis is not falsifiable.

-John



>
>
>
> Ray

[Mitchell Coffey]

On Monday, September 10, 2012 4:13:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:

I suspect you have misunderstood whatever Peter wrote, or missed the context. He's an intelligent guy.

Mitchell Coffey

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

Peter is wrong.
--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."

- McNameless

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 11, 10:08�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> >unscientific concept?"
>
> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> Peter is wrong.

He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.

One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural

[Ray Martinez]

Maybe.

But he said it.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 11, 8:58�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2012 4:13:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> > Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>
> > unscientific concept?"
>
> > In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> > Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>
> > yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> > Ray
>
> Natural selection *is falsifiable* and *testable*.

Professor of Mathematics and die-hard Evolutionist Peter Nyikos says
otherwise, my only point.

> Witness the
> role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
> sexual selection traits like male guppy tails. �The less predation,
> the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
> become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
> the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
> All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
> face of differing levels of predation.
>
> Natural selection has not *been* falsified despite *being*
> falsifiable. �That makes NS similar to observations of the action
> of gravity on objects with more mass density than air. �Falsifiable
> (since, in principle, the lead ball could float upward rather than down
> toward your foot), but not falsified. �IOW, NS is a good description
> of what happens in the world of empirical reality. �As opposed to
> a fantasy world where bodies with higher density than air can ascend
> upward (in the absence of magnets, mirrors, wires or other magician's
> or fraud's tricks)

I read your comments.

Ray

[Bruce Stephens]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes:

[...]

> He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.

Would be better if he were a Professor of Biology (or Evolutionary
Biology).

> One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> selection is not falsifiable.

Such opinions aren't generally particularly persuasive sources. The
argument would be stronger if you could quote some suitable reasoning
for his opinion (and if the reasoning were itself persuasive).

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 11, 12:13�pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Yes, I agree.

But that's not the point. When I said one could use Peter as a source
the same assumes Peter's argument. And the point of the OP is to get
Peter to defend his claim and perhaps see some good exchanges between
Peter and the Darwinists, like Howard Hershey, John Harshman,
Burkhard, etc.etc. One would think that the Darwinists would go after
Peter for saying this since he is, of course, a credentialed
Evolutionist.

For the record: I have not decided if NS is falsifiable in the
Popperian sense, and I have not decided if falsifiability is a valid
scientific prerequisite. (Afterall science thinks species are mutable.
Since they aint science could be wrong about the sacred cow known as
falsifiability.) On one hand I think it absurd for the burden to fall
on the claimant (if that is indeed true).

Ray

[Paul J Gans]

That makes no sense. The "round earth" hypothesis was
falsifiable for many years. However, observation showed
that it was right.

Technically, the "round earth" hypothesis hasn't been a
hypothesis since then. Today, because of observations,
it is a fact.

Evolution is almost in the same category. It is close to
no longer being a theory. Reason? The same. Because
of observations.

--
--- Paul J. Gans

[Burkhard]

On 11/09/2012 23:38, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 11, 12:13 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
> +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>>
>> Would be better if he were a Professor of Biology (or Evolutionary
>> Biology).
>>
>>> One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
>>> selection is not falsifiable.
>>
>> Such opinions aren't generally particularly persuasive sources. The
>> argument would be stronger if you could quote some suitable reasoning
>> for his opinion (and if the reasoning were itself persuasive).
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> But that's not the point. When I said one could use Peter as a source
> the same assumes Peter's argument. And the point of the OP is to get
> Peter to defend his claim and perhaps see some good exchanges between
> Peter and the Darwinists, like Howard Hershey, John Harshman,
> Burkhard,

I have no intention at all to engage with Peter, and you would not
believe how little I'm interested to learn more about people who said
something nasty about him in a different newsgroup (whose topic does not
interest me the slightest) 10 years ago, or find myself suddenly and out
of the blue subjected to rather personal questions and attacks. He has
one of the most irritating posting styles I ever encountered on TO, and
since participating here is for me relaxation after work, I don't see
the point and stopped reading his posts quite a while back. Especially
since the noise to info ratio in his posts is really bad, and everything
that I find worthwhile saying about his position I did in the first few
encounters with him here.

As for the others, are you sleeping? They seem to "go after him"
frequently and with fervour.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:57:16 -0700 (PDT), the following

appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

<pyram...@yahoo.com>:

>On Sep 11, 10:08�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>>
>> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>> >unscientific concept?"
>>
>> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>>
>> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>>
>> Peter is wrong.
>
>He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.

And that means...?

Note that I suspect that Peter said no such thing, and that
you're using the same sort of "logic" here you use to
declare others to be atheists.

>One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
>selection is not falsifiable.

One could use you as a source to support a claim that
evolution doesn't occur, with identical validity.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...

Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
Selection" actually means. It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
effect or the consequences of natural selection.

Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
documented.

It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
moment to moment.

Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.

Rolf

> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:88d5091d-0eed-4e61...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 11, 12:13 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
> +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>>
>> Would be better if he were a Professor of Biology (or Evolutionary
>> Biology).
>>
>> > One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
>> > selection is not falsifiable.
>>
>> Such opinions aren't generally particularly persuasive sources. The
>> argument would be stronger if you could quote some suitable reasoning
>> for his opinion (and if the reasoning were itself persuasive).
>
> Yes, I agree.
>
> But that's not the point. When I said one could use Peter as a source
> the same assumes Peter's argument. And the point of the OP is to get
> Peter to defend his claim and perhaps see some good exchanges between
> Peter and the Darwinists, like Howard Hershey, John Harshman,
> Burkhard, etc.etc. One would think that the Darwinists would go after
> Peter for saying this since he is, of course, a credentialed
> Evolutionist.
>
> For the record: I have not decided if NS is falsifiable in the
> Popperian sense, and I have not decided if falsifiability is a valid
> scientific prerequisite. (Afterall science thinks species are mutable.
> Since they aint

Really? And the evidence is?

[John Stockwell]

On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 4:48:01 PM UTC-6, Paul J Gans wrote:
> John Stockwell <john.1...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Monday, September 10, 2012 2:13:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
> >> Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>
> >>
>
> >> unscientific concept?"
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >>
>
> >> Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>
> >>
>
> >> yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
>
>
> >Evolution is not falsifiable in the way that the round earth
>
> >hypothesis is not falsifiable.
>
>
>
> That makes no sense. The "round earth" hypothesis was
>
> falsifiable for many years. However, observation showed
>
> that it was right.
>
>
>
> Technically, the "round earth" hypothesis hasn't been a
>
> hypothesis since then. Today, because of observations,
>
> it is a fact.

Nope. The ideas pertinent to the notion are the "facts". The
figure of the earth as "round" (what do you mean by round) is
a theoretical construct. Today we argue about the "geoid" a
complicated mathematical fit to the figure of the earth.

>
>
>
> Evolution is almost in the same category. It is close to
>
> no longer being a theory. Reason? The same. Because
>
> of observations.

Theories remain theories forever. They may have data that are pertinent
to them, but a theoretical construct is a theory forever.

>
>
>
> --
>
> --- Paul J. Gans

-John

[pnyikos]

On Sep 11, 11:58�am, hersheyh <hershe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2012 4:13:05 PM UTC-4, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> > Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>
> > unscientific concept?"
>
> > In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> > Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>
> > yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> > Ray
>
> Natural selection *is falsifiable* and *testable*. �Witness the
> role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
> sexual selection traits like male guppy tails. �The less predation,
> the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
> become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
> the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.

And if it had been the other way around, what then? Perhaps the
environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."

The popular literature is full of alleged counterexamples to natural
selection that get shot down with more sophisticated arguments.

In other words, the alleged falsifications themselves get falsified.

> All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
> face of differing levels of predation.

This says nothing about how it could possibly be falsified.

Nor have I seen anything on this thread that says how it could be
falsified.

> Natural selection has not *been* falsified despite *being*
> falsifiable.

So, let's see a hypothetical observation that you would consider as
falsifying it.

And, since you seem to be a lot more precise about things than most
people here, Howard, you might want to begin with a definition of
natural selection that goes beyond what I call the "Darwin of the
Gaps" definition:

"The __________ that did/could/are __________
had a survival advantage over the ones
that didn't/couldn't/weren't
and so they are the ones we see today."

When I introduced this, Howard, I called it "The default, one-size-
fits-all, totally unfalsifiable naturalistic explanation for any and
all biological phenomena."

[I should add that there are other explanations, like genetic drift,
for some biological phenomena. But a sufficiently gung-ho devotee of
natural selection might confine himself to just the above kind of
argument.]

You participated on the thread where I introduced it, but I had
boycotted you for so long that you may have stopped reading my posts,
so you may have overlooked this one.

Had the thread been started two months later, I would have responded
to your first post on the thread, because your old buddy PZ Myers was
the focus of attention.


>�That makes NS similar to observations of the action

> of gravity on objects with more mass density than air. �Falsifiable
> (since, in principle, the lead ball could float upward rather than down
> toward your foot), but not falsified.

Now HERE, you give a very simple way gravity could be falsified. Can
you do it for natural selection?


>�IOW, NS is a good description

> of what happens in the world of empirical reality. �As opposed to
> a fantasy world where bodies with higher density than air can ascend
> upward (in the absence of magnets, mirrors, wires or other magician's
> or fraud's tricks)

Gosh, you allege a tight link here ("IOW, NS...") but you suddenly
revert to talking about gravity and never make a real connection.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

On Sep 11, 12:43�pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, September 10, 2012 2:13:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> > Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>
> > unscientific concept?"
>
> > In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> > Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>
> > yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.

Ray might be fooled into thinking you agree with me here, but I can't
be sure since he disappeared from this thread without replying to you.

> Evolution is not falsifiable in the way that the round earth
> hypothesis is not falsifiable.

Agreed, but evolution is not the same thing as natural selection.

Peter Nyikos

[Greg Guarino]

On 9/18/2012 4:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>> >Natural selection*is falsifiable* and*testable*. Witness the

>> >role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
>> >sexual selection traits like male guppy tails. The less predation,
>> >the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
>> >become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
>> >the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.

> And if it had been the other way around, what then? Perhaps the
> environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
> vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
> natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."

You confuse the potential falsification of the *concept* of Natural
Selection as an agent of biological change with the falsification of a
particular hypothetical selective factor as the agent of change in a
specific circumstance. If we hypothesize that long tails prevent
predation by being good camouflage, but find that in the presence of
predators tails shrink, we have falsified our hypothesis about tails,
but not the general concept of Natural Selection.

> The popular literature is full of alleged counterexamples to natural
> selection that get shot down with more sophisticated arguments.
>
> In other words, the alleged falsifications themselves get falsified.
>
>> >All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
>> >face of differing levels of predation.
> This says nothing about how it could possibly be falsified.
>
> Nor have I seen anything on this thread that says how it could be
> falsified.
>
>> >Natural selection has not*been* falsified despite*being*
>> >falsifiable.

> So, let's see a hypothetical observation that you would consider as
> falsifying it.

If a trait were to become more prevalent (presumably by some heretofore
unknown mechanism) in a population despite the lower reproductive
success of those individuals that possess that trait, Natural Selection
as an agent of change in that population would be falsified. Given what
we know of heredity, that seems unlikely, but "unlikely" is not the same
as "unfalsifiable in principle".

[Ray Martinez]

Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?

If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?

Waiting....

Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 18, 2:27�pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/18/2012 4:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >> >Natural selection*is falsifiable* �and*testable*. �Witness the
> >> >role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
> >> >sexual selection traits like male guppy tails. �The less predation,
> >> >the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
> >> >become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
> >> >the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
> > And if it had been the other way around, what then? �Perhaps the
> > environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
> > vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
> > natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."
>
> You confuse the potential falsification of the *concept* of Natural
> Selection as an agent of biological change with the falsification of a
> particular hypothetical selective factor as the agent of change in a
> specific circumstance. If we hypothesize that long tails prevent
> predation by being good camouflage, but find that in the presence of
> predators tails shrink, we have falsified our hypothesis about tails,
> but not the general concept of Natural Selection.
>

What falsifies "the concept of Natural Selection as an agent of
biological change"?

>
>
>
>
> > The popular literature is full of alleged counterexamples to natural
> > selection that get shot down with more sophisticated arguments.
>
> > In other words, the alleged falsifications themselves get falsified.
>
> >> >All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
> >> >face of differing levels of predation.
> > This says nothing about how it could possibly be falsified.
>
> > Nor have I seen anything on this thread that says how it could be
> > falsified.
>
> >> >Natural selection has not*been* �falsified despite*being*
> >> >falsifiable.
> > So, let's see a hypothetical observation that you would consider as
> > falsifying it.
>
> If a trait were to become more prevalent (presumably by some heretofore
> unknown mechanism) in a population despite the lower reproductive
> success of those individuals that possess that trait, Natural Selection
> as an agent of change in that population would be falsified. Given what
> we know of heredity, that seems unlikely, but "unlikely" is not the same
> as "unfalsifiable in principle".

I think Greg is actually making an argument, without any awareness,
that natural selection is NOT falsifiable. He has isolated specific
instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing
change. What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused
by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
less.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 12, 9:52�am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Sep 2012 11:57:16 -0700 (PDT), the following
> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez

> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> >> >unscientific concept?"
>
> >> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> >> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> >> Peter is wrong.
>
> >He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> And that means...?
>
> Note that I suspect that Peter said no such thing,

He said it.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 13, 6:27�am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

>
> news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> >> >unscientific concept?"
>
> >> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> >> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> >> Peter is wrong.
>
> > He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> > One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> > selection is not falsifiable.
>
> Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
> Selection" actually means.

Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?

Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!

See how that works, Rolfy?

> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
> effect or �the consequences of natural selection.
>
> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> documented.

Darwinology.

> It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
> species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
> entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
> environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
> species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
> Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
> moment to moment.
>

Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
and fully formed, endure for quite a long time in a state of
changelessness, then disappear abruptly. Ad hoc incremental assembly
of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.

> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>

Done.

Ray

[Greg G.]

No, he isn't. He just laid out the conditions you would have to
observe in order to falsify natural selection. The other important
piece in falsifying a theory is that it has to be false in order for
it to be actually falsified. You recognize that if individuals with a
given allele that reduces their reproductive success, that allele will
decrease in the population. If an allele helps individual have more
reproductive success, that allele will increase in the population.
That is Natural Selection. It is that simple. You see it, you know it
has to happen, but you won't call it what it is.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Sep 18, 8:32�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

No, I simply disagree with you.

> He has isolated specific
> instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing
> change.

Were the scenario I outlined above what we actually see, natural
selection as an agent of biological change would be falsified.

> What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused
> by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
> less.

> Ray

A hypothesis is falsifiable when it makes a prediction that can be
compared with observation. Natural selection predicts that if the
members of a population that have a certain trait reproduce in greater
numbers than those without the trait, the trait will become more
prevalent in the population. That is in fact a prediction that can be
compared with observation, and it lines up nicely with what we see. It
is only the way heredity works in life as we know it that makes it the
relationship between traits and reproductive success inevitable; not
the definition. If, for instance, genetic material was free-floating
in the medium we live in, not inherited from "parents", those that
reproduced the most would not increase their traits in the population.
If a god individually designed each individual, natural selection
would not hold either. But the predictions of natural selection do
match well with observation. As a concept, it is falsifiable, but not
falsified.

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, he is.

Like I said, he wasn't even aware; the same with you.

> He just laid out the conditions you would have to
> observe in order to falsify natural selection.

Nope; he argued 'even if' which was intended to exempt the concept
itself from falsification.

> The other important
> piece in falsifying a theory is that it has to be false in order for
> it to be actually falsified.

Brilliant, Einstein.

> You recognize that if individuals with a
> given allele that reduces their reproductive success, that allele will
> decrease in the population. If an allele helps individual have more
> reproductive success, that allele will increase in the population.
> That is Natural Selection. It is that simple. You see it, you know it
> has to happen, but you won't call it what it is.

"[Y]ou know it has to happen" corresponds to phraseology that supports
the non-falsifiability of natural selection.

Ray

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

We know it has to happen, *given the way heredity works in life on
Earth*. If biology followed some other system, it would not "have to
happen". It's not the definition or the logic that makes it
unavoidable, it's the specific processes of biology.

[Ray Martinez]

From above:

"....Natural Selection as an agent of change **in that population**
would be falsified...." (Greg Guarino).

Clearly you are saying falsification is limited to the example given,
not harming the greater concept itself.

> > He has isolated specific
> > instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing
> > change.
>
> Were the scenario I outlined above what we actually see, natural
> selection as an agent of biological change would be falsified.
>

Then why say "in that population"? and "....falsified our hypothesis
about tails, but not the general concept of Natural Selection" (Greg
Guarino)? Again, clearly, you are saying alleged instances of
falsification do not falsify the general concept.

> > What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused
> > by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
> > less.
> > Ray
>
> A hypothesis is falsifiable when it makes a prediction that can be
> compared with observation. Natural selection predicts that if the
> members of a population that have a certain trait reproduce in greater
> numbers than those without the trait, the trait will become more
> prevalent in the population. That is in fact a prediction that can be
> compared with observation, and it lines up nicely with what we see. It
> is only the way heredity works in life as we know it that makes it the
> relationship between traits and reproductive success inevitable; not
> the definition. If, for instance, genetic material was free-floating
> in the medium we live in, not inherited from "parents", those that
> reproduced the most would not increase their traits in the population.
> If a god individually designed each individual, natural selection
> would not hold either. But the predictions of natural selection do
> match well with observation. As a concept, it is falsifiable, but not
> falsified.

You've strayed from the issue at hand via classic "evo babbling."

General Audience: This is what Evolutionists do: babble about natural
selection endlessly. You and I are not ignorant or plagued with
inexplicable misunderstanding when it comes to the Darwinian god known
as "natural selection." The degree to which Greg Guarino has evaded
the clear issue via babbling about natural selection is in direct
ratio equal to the degree in which his mind has been brainwashed by
the nonsense known as "natural selection."

Greg: Like I said originally, you were not even aware of the fact that
you were making an argument that says natural selection not
falsifiable. That's why I made the observation.

Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)

[Greg G.]

I think that is the point you don't get.

>
> > You recognize that if individuals with a
> > given allele that reduces their reproductive success, that allele will
> > decrease in the population. If an allele helps individual have more
> > reproductive success, that allele will increase in the population.
> > That is Natural Selection. It is that simple. You see it, you know it
> > has to happen, but you won't call it what it is.
>
> "[Y]ou know it has to happen" corresponds to phraseology that supports
> the non-falsifiability of natural selection.

Do you see that alleles that increase reproductive success will
increase the percentage of those alleles in the population and that
alleles that decrease reproductive success will decrease the
percentage of those alleles in the population?

What prevents you from showing that alleles that increases
reproductive success would actually cause a decrease in the success of
that allele and vice versa?

The other Greg G.

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/18/12 6:43 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 13, 6:27 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>>>>> Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>>
>>>>> Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>>>>> unscientific concept?"
>>
>>>>> In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>>
>>>>> Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>>>>> yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>>
>>>> Peter is wrong.
>>
>>> He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>>
>>> One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
>>> selection is not falsifiable.
>>
>> Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
>> Selection" actually means.
>
> Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?

Ray, concepts only exist in minds. The fact of natural selection does
exist in nature.

>
> Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!

It would appear the reason you don't understand natural selection is a
combination of ignorance, arrogance, and basic stupidity...

>
> See how that works, Rolfy?

Declaring things doesn't make them real, Ray.

>
>> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
>> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
>> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
>> effect or the consequences of natural selection.
>>
>> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
>> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
>> documented.
>
> Darwinology.

Why are you ignoring the fact of natural selection?

>
>> It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
>> species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
>> entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
>> environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
>> species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
>> Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
>> moment to moment.
>>
>
> Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
> and fully formed, endure for quite a long time in a state of
> changelessness, then disappear abruptly.

Fossils are always going to appear "fully formed" because organisms that
are not "fully formed" don't live long enough to leave fossils.

The actual pattern seen in the fossil record is one of change over
time. Individual species usually only last a few million years, an
eyeblink in geologic time. Older species are replaced by newer species,
often showing intermediate changes, just as evolution would suggest.
Rather than "abrupt" disappearance of species, one sees adaptive
radiation of species from earlier predecessors. The horse sequence is
a very good example of such radiation.

> Ad hoc incremental assembly
> of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.

Evolution does not suggest "ad hoc incremental assembly" of species.
(It might also help if you knew what the term "ad hoc" meant) Evolution
suggests that species come from previous species, and that new species
are variations of older species. That is what the fossil record shows.

Actually, "descent with modification" is easily seen in the fossil
record, in many different linages. In horses, elephants, cattle,
whales, and especially in human evolution, the pattern of radiation from
common ancestors is easily seen. .

>
>> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>>
>
> Done.

Where? Where have you ever falsified natural selection?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

Wrong again, Ray.

>
> Like I said, he wasn't even aware; the same with you.

He's not "aware" because there isn't anything to be aware of. You are
wrong.

>
>> He just laid out the conditions you would have to
>> observe in order to falsify natural selection.
>
> Nope; he argued 'even if' which was intended to exempt the concept
> itself from falsification.

Where do you get that idea? He doesn't say 'even if'.

>
>> The other important
>> piece in falsifying a theory is that it has to be false in order for
>> it to be actually falsified.
>
> Brilliant, Einstein.

Yet you didn't even address this, dunce.

>
>> You recognize that if individuals with a
>> given allele that reduces their reproductive success, that allele will
>> decrease in the population. If an allele helps individual have more
>> reproductive success, that allele will increase in the population.
>> That is Natural Selection. It is that simple. You see it, you know it
>> has to happen, but you won't call it what it is.
>
> "[Y]ou know it has to happen" corresponds to phraseology that supports
> the non-falsifiability of natural selection.

That something happens does not mean it can't be hypothetically
falsified. There are many potential observations that would falsify
natural selection. What there are not, is actual observations that do
falsify it.


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

By mentioning "the logic," the mere fact that you mentioned, supports
the fact that natural selection, first and foremost, is a claim of
logic. The aspect of logic (how the facts are explained) is exempt
from falsification requirements. Again, your comments/phraseology seen
above, without any awareness on your part, are comments that clearly
argue for the non-falsifiability of natural selection.

I would also say (tentatively) that the empirics of natural selection
not falsifiable since variation, superfecundity, and death are things
known to exist. That said, the only thing left is the logic that binds
them; hence natural selection is not falsifiable in a Popperian sense?

Conclusion: Since Darwinists agree that falsification requirements are
legitimate: natural selection is not a scientific concept.

Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/18/12 8:05 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

The "greater concept" is "selection" by itself. Natural selection is
part of the process of evolution, not all of evolution itself. There
are other forms of selection happening in populations. Since all of
these forms of selection are natural processes, they are, to you,
"natural selection".

What would falsify that kind of natural selection would be an
observation that either changes in populations are not inheritable, or
an observation that all variations reproduce equally as well.

>
>>> He has isolated specific
>>> instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing
>>> change.
>>
>> Were the scenario I outlined above what we actually see, natural
>> selection as an agent of biological change would be falsified.
>>
>
> Then why say "in that population"?

Because that's where selection takes place.

> and "....falsified our hypothesis
> about tails, but not the general concept of Natural Selection" (Greg
> Guarino)?

Because the hypothesis being tested in that case was one about tails,
not about natural selection in general.

> Again, clearly, you are saying alleged instances of
> falsification do not falsify the general concept.

Those instances falsify natural selection, as opposed to other forms of
selection. What would falsify selection completely would be showing
that genetic material is not inheritable.

>
>>> What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused
>>> by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
>>> less.
>>> Ray
>>
>> A hypothesis is falsifiable when it makes a prediction that can be
>> compared with observation. Natural selection predicts that if the
>> members of a population that have a certain trait reproduce in greater
>> numbers than those without the trait, the trait will become more
>> prevalent in the population. That is in fact a prediction that can be
>> compared with observation, and it lines up nicely with what we see. It
>> is only the way heredity works in life as we know it that makes it the
>> relationship between traits and reproductive success inevitable; not
>> the definition. If, for instance, genetic material was free-floating
>> in the medium we live in, not inherited from "parents", those that
>> reproduced the most would not increase their traits in the population.
>> If a god individually designed each individual, natural selection
>> would not hold either. But the predictions of natural selection do
>> match well with observation. As a concept, it is falsifiable, but not
>> falsified.
>
> You've strayed from the issue at hand via classic "evo babbling."

Which means Ray can't understand the rather simply stated facts....

>
> General Audience: This is what Evolutionists do: babble about natural
> selection endlessly.

meaning Ray is willfully ignorant, and won't take the time to learn.

> You and I are not ignorant or plagued with
> inexplicable misunderstanding when it comes to the Darwinian god known
> as "natural selection."

Don't be so hasty, Ray. Your audience may not be ignorant, but you
can't say that about yourself. Natural selection is not a "god", it's
just a naturally occurring process that can be seen to operate.

> The degree to which Greg Guarino has evaded
> the clear issue via babbling about natural selection is in direct
> ratio equal to the degree in which his mind has been brainwashed by
> the nonsense known as "natural selection."

Actually, it's more the "degree" in which Ray is willfully ignorant and
stubbornly wedded to his mistakes.

Ray, just out of curiosity, what do you imagine would prevent natural
selection?

>
> Greg: Like I said originally, you were not even aware of the fact that
> you were making an argument that says natural selection not
> falsifiable. That's why I made the observation.

You were wrong, Ray. You remain wrong. Nothing unusual here.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

Rephrase: Certain changes increase reproductive success; others do
not.

So?

You forgot to make a point, Einstein.

And what does natural selection have to do with "alleles that decrease
reproductive success"? Seems as if you are saying the process
sometimes selects that which kills the process? Of course I am the one
who does not understand, right?

> What prevents you from showing that alleles that increases
> reproductive success would actually cause a decrease in the success of
> that allele and vice versa?
>
> The other Greg G.

I made no such claim or claims, YOU are making the claims here. I
recognize your comments as nonsense. I literally have no idea as to
what you are talking about.

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

All this shows is that you have no idea what logic is, or how it's used.
Merely using the word "logic" in a sentence does not make something a
"claim of logic". Natural selection is an observed fact.

> The aspect of logic (how the facts are explained) is exempt
> from falsification requirements. Again, your comments/phraseology seen
> above, without any awareness on your part, are comments that clearly
> argue for the non-falsifiability of natural selection.

Natural selection would be falsified if one could show that the
environment has nothing to do with which variations in a population had
differential reproductive success.

It would be falsified if genetic material was not inheritable.

It would be falsified if all variants in a population had equal
reproductive success.

Reality trumps your fantasy, Ray.

>
> I would also say (tentatively) that the empirics of natural selection
> not falsifiable since variation, superfecundity, and death are things
> known to exist.

Natural selection is differential reproductive success of particular
variants in populations, in regards to the environmental factors those
members of the population are exposed to.

If you admit that those factors exist, what, in your imagination, would
prevent there from being differential reproductive success of particular
variants?

> That said, the only thing left is the logic that binds
> them; hence natural selection is not falsifiable in a Popperian sense?

What is left is proposing a situation which would demonstrate that
differential reproductive success cannot happen. I gave three such
situations above. None of those have been observed, so you have to
explain why you think natural selection does not happen.

>
> Conclusion: Since Darwinists agree that falsification requirements are
> legitimate: natural selection is not a scientific concept.

A good example of a "non sequitur" logical fallacy. While
falsification is indeed legitimate, natural selection is falsifiable.
Natural selection is falsifiable, even if it's not falsified.
Therefore falsification is not a barrier to natural selection being
scientific.


DJT

[Ernest Major]

In message
<2bc6cbf1-b2ef-4016...@g7g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>On Sep 18, 2:27 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/18/2012 4:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> >> >Natural selection*is falsifiable*  and*testable*.  Witness the
>> >> >role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
>> >> >sexual selection traits like male guppy tails.  The less predation,
>> >> >the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
>> >> >become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
>> >> >the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
>> > And if it had been the other way around, what then?  Perhaps the
>> > environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
>> > vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
>> > natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."
>>
>> You confuse the potential falsification of the *concept* of Natural
>> Selection as an agent of biological change with the falsification of a
>> particular hypothetical selective factor as the agent of change in a
>> specific circumstance. If we hypothesize that long tails prevent
>> predation by being good camouflage, but find that in the presence of
>> predators tails shrink, we have falsified our hypothesis about tails,
>> but not the general concept of Natural Selection.
>>
>
>What falsifies "the concept of Natural Selection as an agent of
>biological change"?
>

Variation within populations not being hereditary would do it.

Reproduction success never being correlated with hereditary traits would
do it.
--
alias Ernest Major

[Greg G.]

And those changes will be passed on more often to the following generations. Those changed generations will have more changes that increase reproductive success. And so on, and so on, and so on.

> And what does natural selection have to do with "alleles that decrease
> reproductive success"? Seems as if you are saying the process
> sometimes selects that which kills the process? Of course I am the one
> who does not understand, right?

Yes, you are the one who is having problems understanding. Those alleles that decrease reproductive fitness *decrease* in the population. I clearly said that before. How did you get "you are saying the process sometimes selects that which kills the process" out of that? Should I have pointed out to you that if the owner of a gene doesn't survive to mate, there is one less parent to pass on that gene?

> > What prevents you from showing that alleles that increases
> > reproductive success would actually cause a decrease in the success of
> > that allele and vice versa?
> >
> > The other Greg G.
> I made no such claim or claims, YOU are making the claims here. I
> recognize your comments as nonsense. I literally have no idea as to
> what you are talking about.

I gave a potential method of falsifying natural selection so one can't say it is not falsifiable as a scientific hypothesis. Scientists are always examining DNA and watching populations of species for conservation or industry. Every test they do is a potential falsification of natural selection.

Remember when I said that the other thing necessary for actual falsification is that the hypothesis must actually be false. Every test ever done that could have falsified natural selection confirms it, millions of times in a row.

It was once believed that acquired traits were passed on to the next generation. The hypothesis said that if several generations of rats had their tails cut off, they would begin to have offspring with shorter tails. If the following generations had shorter and shorter tails, it would be confirmation of the hypothesis but if they did not, the hypothesis would be falsified. When they did the experiment, the later generations did not have shorter tails that the first population, so the hypothesis was falsified.

It was a scientific hypothesis that was falsified because it was false. Natural selection is a scientific hypothesis that could be falsified by experiment and observation but is always confirmed.

Therefore, the claim that "natural selection is unfalsifiable" is false and the claim that "natural selection is false" is also false.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Refutation of natural selection is possible and as Popper holds, in
"Natural Selection and its Scientific Status" (1977), natural selection
("In its most daring and sweeping form" -Popper) is refuted in cases
such as sexual selection (eg- peacock's tail). And Popper points also to
the exceptional case of genetic drift. Being thus refuted doesn't mean
natural selection is forever vanquished as an explanation elsewhere,
just that it "is not" as Popper says "strictly universal".

Refutation expands upon Darwinism, not eliminates it. Exceptions to
natural selection add complexity and nuance. Far more is known now than
in Darwin's time.

But I can understand that to a simple mind like yours, unable to grasp
complicated things or nuance, this refutability of natural selection is
impossible to comprehend.

You may think you are doing something by dogmatically clinging to a
false caricature of Popper's falsification principle, but that dog don't
hunt. Some of us have actually read him as a first hand source. I would
think a scholar such as yourself would be less careless and less apt to
such embarrassing mistakes in misapplying the work of other scholars. I
was mistaken.

[*Hemidactylus*]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html

[Burkhard]

On Sep 19, 1:47 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 13, 6:27 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > >> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> > >> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> > >> >unscientific concept?"
>
> > >> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> > >> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> > >> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> > >> Peter is wrong.
>
> > > He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> > > One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> > > selection is not falsifiable.
>
> > Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
> > Selection" actually means.
>
> Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>
> Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!

Doesn't make any sense. "I understand X" and "X exists" are two
totally different things. It s perfectly possible to understand things
about objects that do not exist. We understand e.g. the motivation of
Hamlet, or why Doctor Watson admires Sherlock Holmes. In fact, the
whole idea of falsification is premised on the idea that we can also
understand things that eventually turn out not to exist. The way
physicists tested for the existence of aether was to determine what
role it played in the theory of physics at the time, and to determine
what sort of things we should also see if aether really existed. The
tests than proved that there is no such thing. It was a valid
falsification precisely because they understood what aether was meant
to be , and how it was to be understood in the physical theories that
used the concept.

The way to test a theory, any theory, is to ask: assuming
hypothetically the theory is true, what should we then observe? And
this presupposes that you understand the theory in the first place,
whether or not you agree with it and whether or not it is actually
true.
.

>
> See how that works, Rolfy?
>
> > It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
> > it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> > learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
> > effect or  the consequences of natural selection.
>
> > Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> > artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> > documented.
>
> Darwinology.

Ever seen a chihuahua and compared it to a great Dane?

>
> > It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
> > species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
> > entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
> > environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
> > species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
> > Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
> > moment to moment.
>
> Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
> and fully formed,

Of course they do, and nothing in the theory of evolution predicts
otherwsie. "Not fully formed" animals are only something you'd find if
animals were designed. Go to any design bureau, R&D department of a
manufacturer or an artists working room and you find plenty of half
formed or not fully formed objects - prototypes, sketches, partly
developed parts added to a mock-up of the rest etc etc. Having
unfinished or partly finished objects is what every design process
relies on.
Here an example of the sort of thing you find on every workbench:
http://pulpfactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Spaceman-Work-in-progress-Sculpture-by-Emil-Alzamora.jpg

Biological evolution by contrast has to have fully formed, fully
functioning entities at every step, otherwise they'd hardly be able
to reproduce, would they now?
So finding incomplete, partly formed animals in th epaleontological
crust woudl eb a pretty good argument for intelligent design and
against evolution.

> endure for quite a long time in a state of
> changelessness,

How would you know? How can yu tell from two fossils that one did not
have a major change in its immune system that allowed it to to survive
in an environemnt where the other could not?


>then disappear abruptly.

Since fossils are fossils of individuals, how exactly are they
supposed to disappear "non-abruptly"? You mean they lost a leg but the
rest is still there? The term is biologically speaking meaningless.

>Ad hoc incremental assembly
> of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.

There are good examples where it can be seen, such as the horse
series. The gaps are an artefact produced by the "recording device",
and in line with what we know how fossilisation happens. In the same
way in which photos of an arrow in flight do not show movement, but
the arrow only ever in one discreet position, so do fossils, with
necessity , only ever show discrete entities.

Now, there are ways in which the fossil record could falsify
evolution, but this is not one of them. If for instance we found, when
digging deeper into the crust, an exact repetition of the pattern we
have so far (so, below the Cambrian, we suddenly find humans, and
below these dinos, and below these...) that would be a serious issue
for the standard model of evolution.

[William Morse]

Ray;

Natural selection is true by definition. If you have heritable variation
and excess reproduction, then you necessarily have natural selection. Is
it your claim that heritable variation does not occur, or that excess
reproduction does not occur?

> Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> unscientific concept?"
>
> In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>

> Ray
>

[Ernest Major]

In message
<9181534a-5a10-49a8...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

Wrong. Naive falsificationism is not a good answer to the demarcation
problem.

However ...

Natural selection is a label for the (mathematical) fact the
differential reproductive success causally correlated with hereditary
traits will lead to an increase in the proportion of a population with
such traits. Falsifying this would be like falsifying the claim that
there is an infinite number of prime numbers.

But that natural selection is a cause of adaptive change in real
populations is in principle falsifiable - you just have to show that
variation within populations is not hereditary, or that reproductive
success is never causally correlated with hereditary traits.

That natural selection is a cause of particular changes in population is
also falsifiable.
>
>Waiting....
>
>Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Ernest Major]

In message
<f350e318-2a05-492e...@r4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>On Sep 18, 6:52 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 9:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 18, 6:12 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Sep 18, 8:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Sep 18, 2:27 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > On 9/18/2012 4:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> >Natural selection*is falsifiable*  and*testable*.  Witness the
>> > > > > >> >role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
>> > > > > >> >sexual selection traits like male guppy tails.  The less
>> > > > > >> >

>> > > > > >> >the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
>> > > > > >> >become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the

>> > > > > >> >predation,
>> > > > > >> >the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
>> > > > > > And if it had been the other way around, what then?  Perhaps the
>> > > > > > environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
>> > > > > > vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
>> > > > > > natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."
>>
>> > > > > You confuse the potential falsification of the *concept* of Natural
>> > > > > Selection as an agent of biological change with the
>> > > > >falsification of a
>> > > > > particular hypothetical selective factor as the agent of change in a
>> > > > > specific circumstance. If we hypothesize that long tails prevent
>> > > > > predation by being good camouflage, but find that in the presence of
>> > > > > predators tails shrink, we have falsified our hypothesis about tails,
>> > > > > but not the general concept of Natural Selection.
>>
>> > > > What falsifies "the concept of Natural Selection as an agent of
>> > > > biological change"?
>>
>> > > > > > The popular literature is full of alleged counterexamples

>> > > > > >natural
>> > > > > > selection that get shot down with more sophisticated arguments.
>>
>> > > > > > In other words, the alleged falsifications themselves get
>> > > > > >
>>

>> > > > > >> >All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
>> > > > > >> >face of differing levels of predation.
>> > > > > > This says nothing about how it could possibly be falsified.
>>
>> > > > > > Nor have I seen anything on this thread that says how it could be
>> > > > > > falsified.
>>
>> > > > > >> >Natural selection has not*been*  falsified despite*being*
>> > > > > >> >falsifiable.
>> > > > > > So, let's see a hypothetical observation that you would consider as
>> > > > > > falsifying it.
>>
>> > > > > If a trait were to become more prevalent (presumably by some
>> > > > >heretofore
>> > > > > unknown mechanism) in a population despite the lower reproductive
>> > > > > success of those individuals that possess that trait, Natural
>> > > > >Selection
>> > > > > as an agent of change in that population would be falsified.
>> > > > >Given what
>> > > > > we know of heredity, that seems unlikely, but "unlikely" is

How can you be an anti-selectionist species immutabilist with you have
just conceded the reality of natural selection. (Or do you deny the
existence of one or more of variation, superfecundity or death?)
--
alias Ernest Major

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/11/2012 02:57 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>

>>> Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>>
>>> Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>>> unscientific concept?"
>>
>>> In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>>
>>> Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>>> yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>>

>> Peter is wrong.
>
> He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> selection is not falsifiable.

I prefer Popper and he holds natural selection is refutable and refuted.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f350e318-2a05-492e...@r4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

Scientific concept or not; like it or not, it is an inavoidable fact of
life.

So what?

rolf
> Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)
>

[*Hemidactylus*]

Popper himself points to genetic drift and sexual selection to make
points about natural selection not being universal and its being
refutable and refuted. Refuted is not the same thing as forever
vanquished from applicability to other cases.

[jillery]

Darwin appears to have selected against this one. Apologies in
advance if anybody already received it.

I'm sure the following has been pointed out to you several times
before, by people who expressed it better than I do, but the above
paragraph demonstrates the fundamental flaw in your argument. In
order for the fossil record to show what you demand, there would have
to exist, in a single geographic location, fossils of exquisite
detail, spanning over tens to hundreds of millions of years, of
consecutive generations of a single population undergoing adaptive
change.

Since you write as if you are a fossil expert, you should recognize
that such an unambiguous record is unlikely in the extreme. Fossil
preservation is haphazard, incomplete and imperfect. Fossilization
processes are incapable, except in the most exceptional cases, of
preserving morphological changes of soft parts, and/or whole
populations, and/or consecutive generations.

The fossil record is like a collection of incomplete jigsaw puzzles
tossed into a single box. From that clutter, paleontologists have
teased out the history of life on Earth over time and geography. If
the details are missing between species, they are abundant across
higher taxa. Dana Tweedy already mentioned horses from a dog-sized,
5-toed forest browser. To which I add whales from a dog-sized hoofed
semi-aquatic carnivore. There are fish with legs and lungs. There
are reptiles with feathers. Fossils document the evolution of a
mammal's inner ear from a reptile's jawbone. This is all evolution
preserved in the fossil record. To deny the evidence the fossil
record provides, because it doesn't capture the details you know it
can't, is simpleminded solipsism.

You claim to be an old-Earth Creationist. I assume that's because you
recognize the young-Earth interpretation doesn't follow the evidence.
I invite you to use that part of your mind which affirmatively
rejected young-Earth geology, and apply it to your young-Earth biology
as well.

>> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>>
>
>Done.

The nature of the fossil record you describe above is one of the
arguments for Punctuated Equilibrium, whose creators recognized as a
variation and/or supplement to old-fashioned Darwinian Evolution. Why
don't you?

[jillery]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>>
>
>Done.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Would you, as our resident Paleyian, take Popper as an authority on
evolution? OK:

[quote] Although Darwin destroyed Paley's argument from design by
showing what appeared to Paley as purposeful design could as well be
explained as the result of chance and of natural selection, he was most
modest and undogmatic in his claims. [/quote]

from "Natural Selection and its Scientific Status (1977)"- Karl Popper

[Burkhard]

On Sep 19, 1:32 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 2:27 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 9/18/2012 4:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > >> >Natural selection*is falsifiable*  and*testable*.  Witness the
> > >> >role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
> > >> >sexual selection traits like male guppy tails.  The less predation,
> > >> >the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
> > >> >become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
> > >> >the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
> > > And if it had been the other way around, what then?  Perhaps the
> > > environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
> > > vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
> > > natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."
>
> > You confuse the potential falsification of the *concept* of Natural
> > Selection as an agent of biological change with the falsification of a
> > particular hypothetical selective factor as the agent of change in a
> > specific circumstance. If we hypothesize that long tails prevent
> > predation by being good camouflage, but find that in the presence of
> > predators tails shrink, we have falsified our hypothesis about tails,
> > but not the general concept of Natural Selection.
>
> What falsifies "the concept of Natural Selection as an agent of
> biological change"?
>

Lots of pretty good examples have been given by me and others
previously to that question
One of my favourites: If we observed that species, just like the
individuals that make them up, come into existence, grow and then die
(out) according t more or less fixed periods of time, independent from
the environment. E.g. if we observed the pattern that species always
only exists for 100 times the length of the average lifespan of its
members, then NS would be falsified. The idea that species have such
an inbuild "life span" was taken serious as a hypothesis at one point
in time.

Observing that all organisms have the same number of offspring would
be another falsification, finding that all traits are neutral and
their pattern corresponds to that of shift only another, or that all
variation of traits are not inheritable but purely epigenetic.

> > > The popular literature is full of alleged counterexamples to natural
> > > selection that get shot down with more sophisticated arguments.
>
> > > In other words, the alleged falsifications themselves get falsified.
>
> > >> >All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
> > >> >face of differing levels of predation.
> > > This says nothing about how it could possibly be falsified.
>
> > > Nor have I seen anything on this thread that says how it could be
> > > falsified.
>
> > >> >Natural selection has not*been*  falsified despite*being*
> > >> >falsifiable.
> > > So, let's see a hypothetical observation that you would consider as
> > > falsifying it.
>
> > If a trait were to become more prevalent (presumably by some heretofore
> > unknown mechanism) in a population despite the lower reproductive
> > success of those individuals that possess that trait, Natural Selection
> > as an agent of change in that population would be falsified. Given what
> > we know of heredity, that seems unlikely, but "unlikely" is not the same
> > as "unfalsifiable in principle".
>
> I think Greg is actually making an argument, without any awareness,

> that natural selection is NOT falsifiable. He has isolated specific

> instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing

> change. What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused

> by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
> less.
>

OK, if we try to translate this into English, you do have something
like a point: What you are saying essentially is: whenever we make an
observation that contradicts a theory, we can argue that there is
something specific to _this_ observation that creates an exception.
This way, we can reformulate the original theory, keeping most of its
concepts, and making it just a bit more complex, and less valuable for
making predictions.

That is absolutely true - but not specific to NS, or even biology, but
to all theories, scientific or otherwise. That a theory is falsifiable
(a structural property of the theory) does not tell us what to do
when a theory is actually falsified. Popper himself was far from clear
about that distinction, and it is one of the reasons why few people
these days are falsificationists in the Popperian sense.

Generally, belief revision is conservative - when we get new data, we
try to change as little of our beliefs as possible, and only as much
as is necessary. That is a general feature of belief revision and
applies to all our theories, scientific and otherwise. When we
discovered e.g. tha objects on the subatomic level did not obey the
Newtonian laws of particle mechanics, we did not throw out all the
Newtonian concepts, we simply restricted them to the larger objects
for which they still work perfectly well, and deal with the others
through quantum mechanics.

The same we do in everyday life. I belief for instance the theory that
the times on the bus timetable tell me when buses will arrive at my
stop. Now, the timetable says there ought to be a bus at 10.15, it is
already 10.17 and no bus in sight. At this point, the theory:
"timetables times correspond to real times" is falsified. What is the
rational reaction to this? Should I give up the belief that buses and
timetables exist at all? Or should I give up the idea that timetable
times and real times ever correspond, and that i can use the timetable
to predict at all when a bus will be coming? Or should I make a much
more conservative adjustment to my beliefs: timetable times tell me
_within a margin or error_ when buss will come? (that is, more of less
accurately)? Or maybe: Sometimes a driver gets ill, or a bus breaks
down, so in most cases, but not always, do timetables tell me when a
bus will come?

I'd say rational people will opt for one of the last two revisions in
this case. But the doctrine of falsification does not tell me what to
do, which parts of the theory I should revise and which ones to keep.

Now, if I get more data than a single observation, and find that in
Edinburgh, buses are as likely to show up when the timetable says they
should as not, I eventually give up the timetable as useless. But what
then if i travel to Glasgow? Should I trust the timetable there? Well,
I'd say that would be perfectly reasonable. in this case, i revised my
original theory of: "Timetables predict the times when buses come"
to "Timetables predict the times when buses come, but not in
Edinburgh where the bus operator is incompetent".

That illustrates a more interesting philosophical point: the
distinction between observations and theories is simply not as clear
cut as the Popperian model claims. Take again the example of me
waiting for a bus at the busstop. No bus shows up. What _exactly_
have i observed, what does it falsify? Have I observed
- no buses show up
- no buses show up at 10.15
- no buses show up in the morning
- no buses show up in Craighouse Gardens Busstop
- no buses show up in Edinburgh
- no buses show up in Craighouse gardens at 10.15
etc etc etc

all these statements are valid and mutually consistent descriptions
of my observation. None of them is "more true" than the other, just
more or less specific. However, the more specific the description of
my observation, the less impact it will have on any theory they
falsify. Narrowly described obs4rvations falsify only very specific
theories, widely described observations can falsify much more general
theories. Which description is the best to chose in a given situation
is not a question of what i observe, bit of all the other theories I
have, and my research question. If I have good reasons to belief e.g.
that bus timetables in Edinburgh are by and large correct, but suspect
that those in Morningside do not, because the busoperator dislikes
people in Morningside, the appropriate formulation - for that
specific situation and research question, would be: "no buses show up
in Craighouse Gardens Busstop " That is as specific as it needs be,
and as wide as it can be.

General lesson: how we describe an observation depends on our theories
and on our research question, there are no "pure" observation
statements independent from interpretation and theories.

So, the examples of falsification for natural selection that I gave
above are "as good an example" of the falsification of a theory, any
theory, as you can get. The concept is just as falsifiable as those
in any other theory, not more so, but also not less.

> Ray

[pnyikos]

On Sep 18, 8:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 1:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?

You are a fine one to talk about evasion. Look at the documentation
below.

> If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?
>

> Waiting....

> Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)

First things first. I've been waiting to find you before suspending
my Koltanowski Sanction on your skepticism-laden challenge, documented
here:

______________ excerpt, you going first________________
> > > DPism is a pro-Atheism
> > > construct (space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause,
> > > not God); hence why you are, in fact, an Atheist.

> > Guilt by association.

> No, guilt by evidence and sound logic.

I am beginning to think the unthinkable: that you are an anti-
creationist fanatic pretending to be a believer in God, the better to
turn people off to creationism and theism.

Why, for instance, do you relentlessly pursue the creationist
Kaldidas, instead of innumerable anti-creationist, atheistic zealots?

> > > If not, post a link
> > > that shows you arguing for the existence of God? Do so and I will
> > > promptly retract.

> > Sorry, we need to clear up an important detail first.

> Answer the question, Peter.

> Suddenly you are looking mighty nervous on the stand.

You never tire of wishful thinking, do you, you deluded jerk?
================= end of excerpt
from http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/765c13c52c2cb011

Due to your rudeness, I postponed posting a link. [See documentation
of "prediction" below.]

And, just as I suspected, you disappeared from the thread after I
posted this.

I'm not asking you to rebut anything of what you see above; I just
want some reassurance that you will not disappear after I repost the
post I had in mind, as referred to at the end of the linked post:

____________ second excerpt_________

> You appear shook, needing time to think.

Wishful thinking. I have a lovely post to show you, one where you are
even mentioned, and which you would have seen if you hadn't
disappeared from the thread where it was made.

However, I'm applying a mild Koltanowski Sanction at this point before
showing it to you.

I'm only "going to sleep" for a day or two, or at most five. You can
make it one day by starting to behave like a mature adult instead of a
troll.

> So be it.
>
> Ray

Is this you claiming victory in preparation to disappearing from this
thread? If so, make it five, and expect to see the post in some
thread where you will be active then.
================ end of second excerpt

I tried, but I couldn't find any post by you later than the 14th, so I
decided to wait until I found one you made more recently.

Peter Nyikos

[pnyikos]

CC: Greg G. and Greg Guarino

I did a post this morning ca. 8:50 but it still hasn't propagated; nor
are any posts below dated later than yesterday.

Still, I am posting, in the hope that whatever logjam is holding up
these posts, all of them will be released once the logjam is taken
care of.

On Sep 18, 9:12 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sep 18, 8:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > On Sep 18, 2:27 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 9/18/2012 4:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> > > >> >Natural selection*is falsifiable*  and*testable*.  Witness the
> > > >> >role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
> > > >> >sexual selection traits like male guppy tails.  The less predation,
> > > >> >the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
> > > >> >become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the more predation,
> > > >> >the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
> > > > And if it had been the other way around, what then?  Perhaps the
> > > > environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
> > > > vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
> > > > natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."
>
> > > You confuse the potential falsification of the *concept* of Natural
> > > Selection as an agent of biological change with the falsification of a
> > > particular hypothetical selective factor as the agent of change in a
> > > specific circumstance. If we hypothesize that long tails prevent
> > > predation by being good camouflage, but find that in the presence of
> > > predators tails shrink, we have falsified our hypothesis about tails,
> > > but not the general concept of Natural Selection.
>
> > What falsifies "the concept of Natural Selection as an agent of
> > biological change"?
>

> > > > The popular literature is full of alleged counterexamples to natural
> > > > selection that get shot down with more sophisticated arguments.
>
> > > > In other words, the alleged falsifications themselves get falsified.
>
> > > >> >All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
> > > >> >face of differing levels of predation.
> > > > This says nothing about how it could possibly be falsified.
>
> > > > Nor have I seen anything on this thread that says how it could be
> > > > falsified.
>
> > > >> >Natural selection has not*been*  falsified despite*being*
> > > >> >falsifiable.
> > > > So, let's see a hypothetical observation that you would consider as
> > > > falsifying it.
>
> > > If a trait were to become more prevalent (presumably by some heretofore
> > > unknown mechanism) in a population despite the lower reproductive
> > > success of those individuals that possess that trait, Natural Selection
> > > as an agent of change in that population would be falsified. Given what
> > > we know of heredity, that seems unlikely, but "unlikely" is not the same
> > > as "unfalsifiable in principle".
>
> > I think Greg is actually making an argument, without any awareness,
> > that natural selection is NOT falsifiable. He has isolated specific
> > instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing
> > change. What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused
> > by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
> > less.

That's the way it sounds to me too. Guarino specifically said "in
that population," and he isn't even taking into account all the other
traits whose frequency may be going the expected way.

> No, he isn't. He just laid out the conditions you would have to

> observe in order to falsify natural selection.

First of all, it's not clear that he has covered all the possible
bases. But more importantly, he has left other factors, such as
mutation, out of the picture.

A very common sort of mutation is trisomy 21, also known as Down
Syndrome. Despite the fact that the reproductive success of people
with this trait is very low, it could increase explosively in the
population if the abortion of individuals with it were to cease.

It appears from what you write below that you confine "traits" to
alleles, and I suppose you include traits that are "invisible" due to
being recessive, and most carriers being heterozygotes.

That is important, otherwise you have phenomena like sickle cell
anemia to contend with. Those who have it are homozygotes for the
trait, and they have a very low reproductive rate. However, in a
region where malaria is rampant, the heterozygotes who carry the trait
in one chromosome but not the pair, may have better reproductive
success than "normal" members of the population, and so the proportion
of those with sickle cell anemia may actually increase.

>The other important
> piece in falsifying a theory is that it has to be false in order for
> it to be actually falsified.

And how are we to ever know if NS is falsified, if its falsity is one
of the prerequisites?

>You recognize that if individuals with a
> given allele that reduces their reproductive success, that allele will
> decrease in the population.

Mutation is not restricted to alleles, trisomy being one
counterexample.

> If an allele helps individual have more
> reproductive success, that allele will increase in the population.

Even if you are this restrictive, it is theoretically possible for an
allele to be produced by mutation with great enough frequency to
offset its relative reproductive disadvantage. Don't forget, the
example Greg G. gave was a hypothetical (and probably fictitious) one.

> That is Natural Selection. It is that simple. You see it, you know it
> has to happen, but you won't call it what it is.

If only it *were* that simple!

Peter Nyikos
Professor, Dept. of Mathematics -- standard disclaimer--
University of South Carolina
http://www.math.sc.edu/~nyikos/
nyikos @ math.sc.edu

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:f76f378e-bc7e-46a6...@m17g2000pby.googlegroups.com...

> On Sep 13, 6:27 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
>> >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
>> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
>> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>>
>> >> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>>
>> >> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>> >> >unscientific concept?"
>>
>> >> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>>
>> >> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>> >> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>>
>> >> Peter is wrong.
>>
>> > He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>>
>> > One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
>> > selection is not falsifiable.
>>
>> Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
>> Selection" actually means.
>
> Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>
> Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>
> See how that works, Rolfy?
>

All I see is how your mind works around inconvenient facts.

Rolf

>> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
>> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
>> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about
>> the
>> effect or the consequences of natural selection.
>>
>> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
>> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
>> documented.
>
> Darwinology.
>
>> It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
>> species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
>> entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and
>> the
>> environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well.
>> No
>> species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the
>> environment.
>> Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing
>> from
>> moment to moment.
>>
>
> Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
> and fully formed, endure for quite a long time in a state of
> changelessness, then disappear abruptly. Ad hoc incremental assembly
> of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.
>

>> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>>
>
> Done.
>

> Ray
>

[pnyikos]

On Sep 11, 7:48 pm, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 11/09/2012 23:38, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 12:13 pm, Bruce Stephens <bruce
> > +use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> >> [...]

>
> >>> He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>

> >> Would be better if he were a Professor of Biology (or Evolutionary
> >> Biology).

>
> >>> One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> >>> selection is not falsifiable.
>

> >> Such opinions aren't generally particularly persuasive sources. The
> >> argument would be stronger if you could quote some suitable reasoning
> >> for his opinion (and if the reasoning were itself persuasive).
>
> > Yes, I agree.
>
> > But that's not the point. When I said one could use Peter as a source
> > the same assumes Peter's argument. And the point of the OP is to get
> > Peter to defend his claim and perhaps see some good exchanges between
> > Peter and the Darwinists, like Howard Hershey, John Harshman,
> > Burkhard,
>
> I have no intention at all to engage with Peter, and   you would not
> believe how little I'm interested to learn more about people who said
> something nasty about him in a different newsgroup (whose topic does not
> interest me the slightest) 10 years ago,

There is more said about what happened 17-11 [not 10--I was gone by
then in a posting break that didn't end here until December 2010]j
years ago by others, especially Paul Gans.

And, to top it off, Gans has never been able to back up his claims
about what happened then, many of which are wildly false.


> or find myself suddenly and out
> of the blue subjected to rather personal questions and attacks.

Burkhard is overly sensitive. I don't think he can name a single
personal attack against him by me that is any worse than those that
come at me out of the blue on a daily basis.

[snip]

> and since participating here is for me relaxation after work, I don't see
> the point and stopped reading his posts quite a while back.  Especially
> since the noise to info ratio in his posts is really bad, and everything
> that I find  worthwhile saying about his position I did in the first few
> encounters with him here.

How Burkhard can possibly say this after having killfiled me for more
than half a year (possibly a lot more) I cannot imagine.


> As for the others, are you sleeping? They seem to "go after him"
> frequently and with fervour.

Correct, see above.

>   etc.etc. One would think that the Darwinists would go after
> > Peter for saying this since he is, of course, a credentialed
> > Evolutionist.
>
> > For the record: I have not decided if NS is falsifiable in the
> > Popperian sense, and I have not decided if falsifiability is a valid
> > scientific prerequisite. (Afterall science thinks species are mutable.
> > Since they aint science could be wrong about the sacred cow known as
> > falsifiability.)

This is a textbook example of GIGO by Ray. To top it all off,
falsifiability belongs properly to the philosophy of science, far from
the realms of species mutability.

Peter Nyikos

> > On one hand I think it absurd for the burden to fall
> > on the claimant (if that is indeed true).
>
> > Ray

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:ff5de329-937c-4504...@t4g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

That's your problem. Before you understand natural selection you won't be
able to complete your project of falsifying the ToE. (OTOH, as soon as you
do, your project falls flat.)


> Ray
>

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/18/12 8:50 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 18, 7:12 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>>> "[Y]ou know it has to happen" corresponds to phraseology that supports
>>> the non-falsifiability of natural selection.
>>
>> Do you see that alleles that increase reproductive success will
>> increase the percentage of those alleles in the population and that
>> alleles that decrease reproductive success will decrease the
>> percentage of those alleles in the population?
>>
>
> Rephrase: Certain changes increase reproductive success; others do
> not.
>
> So?

There is a reason why certain changes increase reproductive success, and
others do not. That reason is the environmental conditions the
population faces. That is natural selection.

>
> You forgot to make a point, Einstein.

He didn't forget, Ray, the point just went over your head. You seem to
be agreeing that natural selection happens.

>
> And what does natural selection have to do with "alleles that decrease
> reproductive success"?

That is what natural selection is all about. Alleles that decrease
reproductive success will appear less often. If there was no natural
selection, those traits would appear equally often in a population.

> Seems as if you are saying the process
> sometimes selects that which kills the process? Of course I am the one
> who does not understand, right?

Correct, you do not understand. Admitting you have a problem is the
first step to overcoming that problem. What he's saying is that the
process sorts out variations into those which increase reproductive
success, and those that don't. Those that do, will increase in that
population. Those that do not, will decrease, eventually disappearing
altogether. That's how adaptive changes get fixed int a population,
and detrimental traits get culled out. The process is not random.

>
>> What prevents you from showing that alleles that increases
>> reproductive success would actually cause a decrease in the success of
>> that allele and vice versa?
>>
>> The other Greg G.
>
> I made no such claim or claims, YOU are making the claims here.

Your claim, Ray is that natural selection does not exist in nature.
The only way that could be true is if alleles that increase reproductive
success could be shown to decrease in a population.

If you admit that beneficial variations increase in a population,
while detrimental variations decrease, you are accepting that natural
selection does indeed exist in nature.

> I
> recognize your comments as nonsense.

Strange that you "recognize" that, when it's your own claim that is
nonsense. Maybe you are "recognizing" incorrectly?

> I literally have no idea as to
> what you are talking about.

Which only confirms your personal ignorance, and willful stupidity.


DJT

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Sep 18, 10:07�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > No, I simply disagree with you.
>
> From above:
>
> "....Natural Selection as an agent of change **in that population**
> would be falsified...." (Greg Guarino).
>
> Clearly you are saying falsification is limited to the example given,
> not harming the greater concept itself.

Clearly, to anyone but you, not so. The question is not, "Could
natural selection operate as an agent of biological change in some
hypothetical system?". We want to know if it does so in a specific
system, in this casein the case of life on Earth.

> > > He has isolated specific
> > > instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing
> > > change.
>

> > Were the scenario I outlined above what we actually see, natural
> > selection as an agent of biological change would be falsified.
>
> Then why say "in that population"?

The predictions of a scientific hypothesis are always tested against
observation in the sphere that it is claimed to operate in. That's
what falsifiability is. In the case of natural selection, it is
claimed to operate in the population of life on Earth. If the
hypothesis of Natural Selection were to fail to fit observation in the
population of life on Earth, it would be falsified for that
population. If it failed to fit observation in some yet-to-be-
discovered species on Earth or elsewhere, it would be falsified for
that species. As heredity on Earth seems to follow a certain system,
this is unlikely, but it is not ruled out in principle.

> and "....falsified our hypothesis
> about tails, but not the general concept of Natural Selection" (Greg
> Guarino)? Again, clearly, you are saying alleged instances of
> falsification do not falsify the general concept.

Falsifiability means that a hypothesis must make a prediction that can
be compared against observation. Specifically, it must disallow some
potential observation. When people say that "God did it" is
unfalsifiable, they mean that the God-did-it hypothesis does not
disallow any observation we might find.

The hypothesis of Natural Selection does disallow potentially
observable things. Specifically, it prohibits traits from becoming
more prevalent when the possessors of those traits reproduce in fewer
numbers than those that don't possess those traits. So far, that
prediction holds for life on Earth.

> > > What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused
> > > by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
> > > less.

> > > Ray
>
> > A hypothesis is falsifiable when it makes a prediction that can be
> > compared with observation. Natural selection predicts that if the
> > members of a population that have a certain trait reproduce in greater
> > numbers than those without the trait, the trait will become more
> > prevalent in the population. That is in fact a prediction that can be
> > compared with observation, and it lines up nicely with what we see. It
> > is only the way heredity works in life as we know it that makes it the
> > relationship between traits and reproductive success inevitable; not
> > the definition. If, for instance, genetic material was free-floating
> > in the medium we live in, not inherited from "parents", those that
> > reproduced the most would not increase their traits in the population.
> > If a god individually designed each individual, natural selection
> > would not hold either. But the predictions of natural selection do
> > match well with observation. As a concept, it is falsifiable, but not
> > falsified.
>
> You've strayed from the issue at hand via classic "evo babbling."

> General Audience: This is what Evolutionists do: babble about natural
> selection endlessly. You and I are not ignorant or plagued with
> inexplicable misunderstanding when it comes to the Darwinian god known
> as "natural selection." The degree to which Greg Guarino has evaded
> the clear issue via babbling about natural selection is in direct
> ratio equal to the degree in which his mind has been brainwashed by
> the nonsense known as "natural selection."

I detect no argument there. Natural Selection makes predictions. It
disallows certain potential observations. Thus it is falsifiable.
Done.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/20/2012 09:55 PM, William Morse wrote:
> Ray;
>
> Natural selection is true by definition. If you have heritable variation
> and excess reproduction, then you necessarily have natural selection. Is
> it your claim that heritable variation does not occur, or that excess
> reproduction does not occur?

I think some of the evoheads are going too far the other way on this
thread, trying to protect their deity Natural Selection from the
sacrilegious acts of Ray the Infidel. In your case, you fail to account
for small population sizes, founder effects, or bottlenecks where
selection is not going to be the only factor involved. That's when Lady
Luck steps in. Sometimes evolution is but a shuffle of the deck and no
more. Or it is a bottleneck like when a guy is compelled to gather
animals by twos (or sevens) and cram them into a stuffy boat. Or a
boulder rolls down the mountain and pancakes the Fittest Couple and
their Glorious Offspring. Or heritable allelic changes are adaptively
meaningless (=neutral). Or an asteroid slams the Earth and wipes out the
dominant groups, resetting the playing field.

[pnyikos]

On Sep 13, 9:27 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> >> >unscientific concept?"
>
> >> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> >> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> >> Peter is wrong.
>

> > He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>

> > One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> > selection is not falsifiable.
>

> Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural

> Selection" actually means. It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;

> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
> effect or  the consequences of natural selection.
>
> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> documented.
>

> It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
> species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
> entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
> environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
> species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
> Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
> moment to moment.

I don't expect Ray to argue against this, for an unusual reason. I
can't see anything in it that he disagrees with.

He certainly didn't argue against it in his first reply. Instead he
immediately got on his anti-speciation hobbyhorse.

Peter Nyikos

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 18, 7:17�pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

GG has been down. Could not find any site to view newsreader posts
when posted.

> On 9/18/12 6:43 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 6:27 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >>>>> Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >>>>> Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> >>>>> unscientific concept?"
>
> >>>>> In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >>>>> Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> >>>>> yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> >>>> Peter is wrong.
>
> >>> He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> >>> One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> >>> selection is not falsifiable.
>
> >> Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
> >> Selection" actually means.
>

> > Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>

> Ray, concepts only exist in minds.

Greg and I understand what "concept" means, you and your source (John
Harshman) do not.

> The fact of natural selection does
> exist in nature.
>

There is no evidence supporting the existence of natural selection----
none.

>
> > Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>

> It would appear the reason you don't understand natural selection is a
> combination of ignorance, arrogance, and basic stupidity...
>

Either that is indeed true OR I do understand that natural selection
is nonsense. Since the latter is true it is you, Darwin and Dawkins
who are stupid.

> > See how that works, Rolfy?
>

> Declaring things doesn't make them real, Ray.

>
>
>
> >> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
> >> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> >> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
> >> effect or �the consequences of natural selection.
>
> >> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> >> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> >> documented.
>

> > Darwinology.
>
> Why are you ignoring the fact of natural selection?
>

The fact of the matter is that Darwinology is incomprehensible. We
understand natural selection, the "thing itself," to exhibit nonsense.
Anyone who does not view the thing as nonsense does not understand
natural selection.

>
>
> >> It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
> >> species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
> >> entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
> >> environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
> >> species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
> >> Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
> >> moment to moment.
>

> > Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
> > and fully formed, endure for quite a long time in a state of
> > changelessness, then disappear abruptly.
>

> Fossils are always going to appear "fully formed" because organisms that
> are not "fully formed" don't live long enough to leave fossils.
>
> � �The actual pattern seen in the fossil record is one of change over
> time. � Individual species usually only last a few million years, an
> eyeblink in geologic time. �Older species are replaced by newer species,
> often showing intermediate changes, just as evolution would suggest.
> Rather than "abrupt" disappearance of species, one sees adaptive
> radiation of species from earlier predecessors. � The horse sequence is
> a very good example of such radiation.

>
> > Ad hoc incremental assembly
> > of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.
>

> Evolution does not suggest "ad hoc incremental assembly" of species.
> (It might also help if you knew what the term "ad hoc" meant) �Evolution
> suggests that species come from previous species, and that new species
> are variations of older species. �That is what the fossil record shows.
>

Completely false.

Since you do not understand "ad hoc," especially in the context in
which I used it, I offer the same as evidence supporting the fact that
you do not understand natural selection (or evolution for that
matter).

Yes, the concept of evolution says (not suggests) species originate
species. But the issue was how (natural selection)? The claim is that
species are assembled incrementally----without any rhyme or reason
(design); the same is encompassed in the term "ad hoc."

Ray

> Actually, "descent with modification" is easily seen in the fossil
> record, in many different linages. � In horses, elephants, cattle,
> whales, and especially in human evolution, the pattern of radiation from
> common ancestors is easily seen. �.

>
>
>
> >> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>
> > Done.
>

> Where? � �Where have you ever falsified natural selection?
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

[*Hemidactylus*]

"Understanding that which is incomprehensible is nonsensible" is the
category or "thing itself"

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/19/2012 08:55 AM, pnyikos wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:17 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Sep 18, 1:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?
>
> You are a fine one to talk about evasion. Look at the documentation
> below.
>
>> If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?
>>
>> Waiting....
>
>> Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)
>
> First things first. I've been waiting to find you before suspending
> my Koltanowski Sanction on your skepticism-laden challenge, documented
> here:
>
> ______________ excerpt, you going first________________
>>>> DPism is a pro-Atheism
>>>> construct (space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause,
>>>> not God); hence why you are, in fact, an Atheist.
>
>>> Guilt by association.
>
>> No, guilt by evidence and sound logic.
>
> I am beginning to think the unthinkable: that you are an anti-
> creationist fanatic pretending to be a believer in God, the better to
> turn people off to creationism and theism.

That's a possibility, but he's been at it for many years. He seems
sincere, though I wonder if some of the things he says are intentional
howlers and not instances of lacking to think things through. He could
be wolf in sheep's clothing (=cryptoatheist).

> Why, for instance, do you relentlessly pursue the creationist
> Kaldidas, instead of innumerable anti-creationist, atheistic zealots?

He's more concerned with theistic evolutionists and other creationists
than us atheists. I suspect Ray kinda likes us for some reason.

The attacks upon other creationists as being impure compared to his
exacting standard reeks of what Freud referred to as the narcissism of
small differences. This could be a psychological form of character
displacement or competitive exclusion, where those most similar compete
the most and engage in bloody rivalries to become top dog within their
domain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Character_displacement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Competitive_exclusion_principle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narcissism_of_small_differences

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/21/12 1:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 18, 7:17 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:

snip

>>> Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>>
>> Ray, concepts only exist in minds.
>
> Greg and I understand what "concept" means, you and your source (John
> Harshman) do not.

I suspect that Greg would take exception to you including him in your
personal ignorance. Both John, and myself are correct that concepts
only exist as abstract ideas.

>
>> The fact of natural selection does
>> exist in nature.
>>
>
> There is no evidence supporting the existence of natural selection----
> none.

Except for hundreds of observations of natural selection in action. The
peppered moth study is one, the Galapagos Finch study by the Grants, is
another. The study of colorization in guppies in South America is yet
another.

Why are these studies not evidence of natural selection?

>
>>
>>> Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>>
>> It would appear the reason you don't understand natural selection is a
>> combination of ignorance, arrogance, and basic stupidity...
>>
>
> Either that is indeed true OR I do understand that natural selection
> is nonsense.

The first explanation is much better supported.

> Since the latter is true it is you, Darwin and Dawkins
> who are stupid.

What evidence do you have that the "latter" is true? It's fairly clear
that your failure to grasp the simple idea of natural selection is your
own ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.

>
>
>>> See how that works, Rolfy?
>>
>> Declaring things doesn't make them real, Ray.

Please see the above, in relation to your last statement.

>>
>>
>>
>>>> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
>>>> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
>>>> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
>>>> effect or the consequences of natural selection.
>>
>>>> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
>>>> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
>>>> documented.
>>
>>> Darwinology.
>>
>> Why are you ignoring the fact of natural selection?
>>
>
> The fact of the matter is that Darwinology is incomprehensible.

Whatever "Darwinology" might be, perhaps. The theory of evolution, on
the other hand is quite comprehensible. Natural selection remains a
simple fact of nature.

> We
> understand natural selection, the "thing itself," to exhibit nonsense.

Who is the "we", Ray? What exactly is it about natural selection that
you claim "exhibits nonsense"? You appear to accept that more
offspring are born than can survive. You appear to accept that variants
with beneficial traits survive more often, and reproduce more often than
other variants in a population. You also seem to accept that variants
who have traits that are not beneficial don't survive, or reproduce as
often.

What exactly do you find nonsensical about this?

> Anyone who does not view the thing as nonsense does not understand
> natural selection.

This is a truly bizarre assertion, Ray, considering you have no basis
for your original assertion that natural selection is nonsense. What
exactly do you find about natural selection to be nonsense?

Please stop avoiding this question.

What part of my correct,and easily confirmed statements above do you
think are "false", and why?

>
> Since you do not understand "ad hoc," especially in the context in
> which I used it,

The problem is, I do understand what the words "ad hoc" mean, and the
way you are using them doesn't match the situation. This indicates to
me that you don't know what the term means.

> I offer the same as evidence supporting the fact that
> you do not understand natural selection (or evolution for that
> matter).

Since it's you who shows no sign of understanding either natural
selection, or evolution in general, your assertion lacks value.

>
> Yes, the concept of evolution says (not suggests) species originate
> species.

Obviously, as living creatures are the only beings that have been
observed to produce other living creatures. Where is there any
evidence that species originate from any other source?

> But the issue was how (natural selection)?

Natural selection is just one part of the mechanism by which new species
develop from older species. There has never been an observation of a
new species appearing de novo, without any preceding species. Even in
the fossil record, where new species appear "suddenly", they are always
preceded by earlier, closely related, life forms. No one has ever
observed a totally new species appearing out of thin air, or even "clay
like ground".

If you have another explanation for how species come to be, you need to
provide some observation to support your explanation.

> The claim is that
> species are assembled incrementally----without any rhyme or reason
> (design); the same is encompassed in the term "ad hoc."

Evolution does not claim that new species are "assembled incrementally",
and without "any rhyme or reason". "Design" would be indicated if it
could be shown that species were actually assembled from a set of
unrelated parts. That's how manufactured items we know are designed are
built today. An automobile plant assembles a car incrementally.
Evolution grows an organism as a whole. A designer could afford to use
whimsy, and put things on for "no rhyme or reason" (tail fins on cars,
for example) , while evolution can't. Everything has to work, or it's
removed by natural selection.


All new species, on the other hand, are variations on already existing
species. Species are not "assembled", but evolve over time from earlier
species. They show signs of older parts being modified to have new
functions, and traces of their history being retained in spite of being
inefficient, and sub optimal. All ancestral species must be "fully
formed" or they would not survive to pass on their form to the new
species. If species were designed, and manufactured, one might expect
to see half formed models, and prototypes. Not so for organisms that
had to make a living.

You continue to misunderstand how evolution works, and how natural
processes can, and do produce the appearance of design. The words "ad
hoc" don't mean what you seem to think they mean.

>
> Ray
>
>> Actually, "descent with modification" is easily seen in the fossil
>> record, in many different linages. In horses, elephants, cattle,
>> whales, and especially in human evolution, the pattern of radiation from
>> common ancestors is easily seen.

Why are you ignoring this point? What are you afraid of?

.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>>
>>> Done.
>>
>> Where? Where have you ever falsified natural selection?

Why no answer to these questions, Ray? What are you afraid of?


DJT

[John S. Wilkins]

Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> In message
> <9181534a-5a10-49a8...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes
> >On Sep 18, 1:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 2:13:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> > > Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
> >>
> >> > > Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> >>
> >> > > unscientific concept?"
> >>
> >> > > In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
> >>
> >> > > Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> >>
> >> > > yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
> >>
> >> Ray might be fooled into thinking you agree with me here, but I can't
> >> be sure since he disappeared from this thread without replying to you.
> >>
> >> > Evolution is not falsifiable in the way that the round earth
> >> > hypothesis is not falsifiable.
> >>
> >> Agreed, but evolution is not the same thing as natural selection.
> >>
> >> Peter Nyikos
> >
> >Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?
> >
> >If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?
>
> Wrong. Naive falsificationism is not a good answer to the demarcation
> problem.

It's not even a good answer to the behaviour and dynamic of science. It
must be in principle *testable* *eventually*, but that doesn't mean
falsifiable. Falsificationism of the kind displayed here is to make a
logical principle (modus tollens, Latin for the "way of denying") into a
methodology. It isn't. It's a princple of formal logic, but science
behaves like a Bayesian network, testing hypotheses against priors on
likelihood assignments. That's because science is just a refined and
more formal version of how we ordinarily learn.

Natural selection is not falsifiable in the literal sense because of two
facts: one, nothing is falsifiable in the literal sense. That is the
point of the Duhem-Quine Thesis, that we test not only that claim in
isolation, but also all the contextual claims that go to make sense of
it. Scientific hypotheses are not [just] sentences. They are practices,
interpretations, measurements, and explanations, and we do not drop a
fruitful hypothesis at the first inconsistency with a point of data.

Peter Godfrey-Smith in his introductory text on philosophy of science
(Theory and Reality, p10) mentions someone (Pettenkofer) who tested
Koch's hypothesis that cholera was caused by a microorganism, by
drinking a concoction of that microorganism and not getting sick.
Technically, Pettenkofer had falsified Koch's theory, and triumphantly
wrote to Koch to deliver the news. Nevertheless, Koch was right, and we
know that there are all kinds of reasons why individuals might not get
sick (in this case it is thought the guy had strong stomach acid, which,
after all, is there to prevent infections).

>
> However ...
>
> Natural selection is a label for the (mathematical) fact the
> differential reproductive success causally correlated with hereditary
> traits will lead to an increase in the proportion of a population with
> such traits. Falsifying this would be like falsifying the claim that
> there is an infinite number of prime numbers.

Or like falsifying the Lotka-Volterra equations. They are correctly
derived. They just may or may not apply in a particular case. The
equations of NS are like that. It is logically correct. The issue is
when and to what extent they fairly represent real world cases. Since
they are formally identical to the equations of epidemiology, it turns
out that they are often applicable. When they are, we say we have found
a case of NS.

>
> But that natural selection is a cause of adaptive change in real
> populations is in principle falsifiable - you just have to show that
> variation within populations is not hereditary, or that reproductive
> success is never causally correlated with hereditary traits.

Or that chance or some other confounding factor overrides them. This is
an *empirical* question, not a formal logical one, a point that Peter
and a great many thinkers of varying competence have overlooked.

>
> That natural selection is a cause of particular changes in population is
> also falsifiable.
> >
> >Waiting....
> >
> >Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)
> >


--

John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre

[Walter Bushell]

In article <1kqtm88.17xy6g3rvnxjjN%jo...@wilkins.id.au>,

jo...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:

> Peter Godfrey-Smith in his introductory text on philosophy of science
> (Theory and Reality, p10) mentions someone (Pettenkofer) who tested
> Koch's hypothesis that cholera was caused by a microorganism, by
> drinking a concoction of that microorganism and not getting sick.
> Technically, Pettenkofer had falsified Koch's theory, and triumphantly
> wrote to Koch to deliver the news. Nevertheless, Koch was right, and we
> know that there are all kinds of reasons why individuals might not get
> sick (in this case it is thought the guy had strong stomach acid, which,
> after all, is there to prevent infections).

Well that makes the organisms not the sole cause of the disease. One
could put the causes of TB epidemics down to overcrowding, cold and
wet conditions and poor diet. Yes, without the specific organism TB
will not manifest, but likely some other disease will.

--
This space unintentionally left blank.

[rmj]

>
> It's not even a good answer to the behaviour and dynamic of science. It
> must be in principle *testable* *eventually*, but that doesn't mean
> falsifiable. Falsificationism of the kind displayed here is to make a
> logical principle (modus tollens, Latin for the "way of denying") into a
> methodology. It isn't. It's a princple of formal logic, but science
> behaves like a Bayesian network, testing hypotheses against priors on
> likelihood assignments. That's because science is just a refined and
> more formal version of how we ordinarily learn.
>
> Natural selection is not falsifiable in the literal sense because of two
> facts: one, nothing is falsifiable in the literal sense. That is the
> point of the Duhem-Quine Thesis, that we test not only that claim in
> isolation, but also all the contextual claims that go to make sense of
> it. Scientific hypotheses are not [just] sentences. They are practices,
> interpretations, measurements, and explanations, and we do not drop a
> fruitful hypothesis at the first inconsistency with a point of data.

The study of history would seem to be science by these criteria. Even
some English Lit. studies would qualify as science.

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

This rings hollow when you don't give any details. Show us you
understand how biologists *think* Natural Selection works, then show
us where they have erred. The only effective way to counter an
opponent's argument is to show that you understand it first.

> > > See how that works, Rolfy?
>
> > Declaring things doesn't make them real, Ray.
>
> > >> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
> > >> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> > >> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
> > >> effect or  the consequences of natural selection.
>
> > >> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> > >> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> > >> documented.
>
> > > Darwinology.

See? No argument. You have just made up a label that tells us nothing.
And a poor one at that, as much of current evolutionary thought would
be entirely unknown to Darwin.

> > Why are you ignoring the fact of natural selection?
>
> The fact of the matter is that Darwinology is incomprehensible. We
> understand natural selection, the "thing itself," to exhibit nonsense.
> Anyone who does not view the thing as nonsense does not understand
> natural selection.

Show us. Which components are faulty? How so?

Do you agree that there is variation in a population?
Do you agree that some of that variation is heritable?
Do you agree that not all members of the population will reproduce in
equal numbers?
Do you agree that some traits will tend to help some members of the
population reproduce in greater numbers than others (in a given
environment) ?
Do you agree that the heritable variations that decrease a creature's
chance of reproducing will become less common in future generations?
Do you agree that the heritable variations that increase a creature's
chance of reproducing will become more common in future generations?

You can argue, as most creationists do, that Natural Selection (plus
other evolutionary processes) are insufficient to explain how a fin
could eventually become a foot. But let's not run before we, um, swim.
I'm curious to know what makes you think that Natural Selection does
not operate at all.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 19, 2:47 am, *Hemidactylus* <ecpho...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On 09/18/2012 08:43 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 6:27 am, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> >>>> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> >>>> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> >>>> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> >>>>> Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >>>>> Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> >>>>> unscientific concept?"
>
> >>>>> In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >>>>> Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> >>>>> yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> >>>> Peter is wrong.
>
> >>> He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> >>> One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> >>> selection is not falsifiable.
>
> >> Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
> >> Selection" actually means.
>
> > Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>

> > Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>

> > See how that works, Rolfy?
>

> >> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
> >> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> >> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
> >> effect or  the consequences of natural selection.
>
> >> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> >> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> >> documented.
>
> > Darwinology.
>

> >> It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
> >> species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
> >> entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
> >> environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
> >> species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
> >> Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
> >> moment to moment.
>
> > Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
> > and fully formed, endure for quite a long time in a state of

> > changelessness, then disappear abruptly. Ad hoc incremental assembly

> > of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.
>

> >> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>
> > Done.
>

> Refutation of natural selection is possible and as Popper holds, in
> "Natural Selection and its Scientific Status" (1977), natural selection
> ("In its most daring and sweeping form" -Popper) is refuted in cases
> such as sexual selection (eg- peacock's tail). And Popper points also to
> the exceptional case of genetic drift. Being thus refuted doesn't mean
> natural selection is forever vanquished as an explanation elsewhere,
> just that it "is not" as Popper says "strictly universal".
>

Be advised: I have never taken a position if natural selection is
falsifiable, or defined falsifiability, or even agreed that
falsifiability is a legitimate requirement. I am simply pointing out
that Darwinists in general accept falsification requirements and they
claim natural selection is falsifiable.

One could easily find comments by Richard Lewontin that say natural
selection not falsifiable, and just upthread John Wilkins said
something of the same effect (although I haven't had the time to
carefully read his comments).

The point of this thread is to make Peter Nyikos address his claim
that natural selection is not falsifiable. The discussion (as I type)
has reached 70 messages yet he has done nothing except evade.

Ray


> Refutation expands upon Darwinism, not eliminates it. Exceptions to
> natural selection add complexity and nuance. Far more is known now than
> in Darwin's time.
>
> But I can understand that to a simple mind like yours, unable to grasp
> complicated things or nuance, this refutability of natural selection is
> impossible to comprehend.
>
> You may think you are doing something by dogmatically clinging to a
> false caricature of Popper's falsification principle, but that dog don't
> hunt. Some of us have actually read him as a first hand source. I would
> think a scholar such as yourself would be less careless and less apt to
> such embarrassing mistakes in misapplying the work of other scholars. I
> was mistaken.

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 19, 12:11嚙緘m, Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:47嚙窮m, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 6:27嚙窮m, "Rolf" <rolf.aalb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:4bee7443-b45e-4b2d...@q7g2000pbj.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > > On Sep 11, 10:08 am, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off> wrote:
> > > >> On Mon, 10 Sep 2012 13:09:35 -0700 (PDT), the following
> > > >> appeared in talk.origins, posted by Ray Martinez
> > > >> <pyramid...@yahoo.com>:
>
> > > >> >Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> > > >> >Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
> > > >> >unscientific concept?"
>
> > > >> >In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> > > >> >Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
> > > >> >yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>
> > > >> Peter is wrong.
>
> > > > He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> > > > One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> > > > selection is not falsifiable.
>
> > > Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
> > > Selection" actually means.
>
> > Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>
> > Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>

> Doesn't make any sense.

Because you believe NS makes sense, is logical..

> "I understand X" and "X exists" are two
> totally different things.

Okay, so?

> It s perfectly possible to understand things
> about objects that do not exist. We understand e.g. the motivation of
> Hamlet, or why Doctor Watson admires Sherlock Holmes. 嚙瘢n fact, the
> whole idea of falsification is premised on the idea that we can also
> understand things that eventually turn out not to 嚙箴xist. The way
> physicists tested for the existence of 嚙窮ether was to determine what
> role it played in the theory of physics at the time, and to 嚙範etermine
> what sort of things we should also see if aether really existed. The
> tests than proved that there is no such thing. It was a valid
> falsification precisely because they understood what aether was meant
> to be , and how it was to be understood in the physical theories that
> used the concept.
>

Fine and dandy.

> The way to test a theory, any theory, is to ask: assuming
> hypothetically the theory is true, what should we then observe? And
> this presupposes that you understand the theory in the first place,
> whether or not you agree with it and whether or not it is actually
> true.
> .

Makes sense.

>
>
>
> > See how that works, Rolfy?
>
> > > It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
> > > it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> > > learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the

> > > effect or 嚙緣he consequences of natural selection.

>
> > > Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> > > artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> > > documented.
>
> > Darwinology.
>

> Ever seen a chihuahua and compared it to a great Dane?
>

Great example of wide variation.

>
>
> > > It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
> > > species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
> > > entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
> > > environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
> > > species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
> > > Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
> > > moment to moment.
>
> > Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
> > and fully formed,
>

> Of course they do, and nothing in the theory of evolution predicts
> otherwsie.

The ToE does not predict abrupt or sudden appearance. (Please do not
post a string of meaningless references without the quotes
themselves.)

> "Not fully formed" animals are only something you'd find if
> animals were designed. Go to any design bureau, R&D department of a
> manufacturer or an artists working room and you find plenty of half
> formed or not fully formed objects - prototypes, sketches, partly
> developed parts added to a mock-up of the rest etc etc. Having
> unfinished or partly finished objects is what every design process
> relies on.
> Here an example of the sort of thing you find on every workbench:http://pulpfactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Spaceman-Work-in-pro...
>
> Biological evolution by contrast has to have fully formed, fully
> functioning entities at every step, otherwise they'd hardly be able
> to 嚙緝eproduce, would they now?
> So finding incomplete, partly formed animals in th epaleontological
> crust woudl eb a pretty good argument for intelligent design and
> against evolution.
>

I say "fully formed" so a newbie does not mistakenly think partially
formed is the norm.

> > endure for quite a long time in a state of
> > changelessness,
>

> How would you know?

It's in the literature abundantly, that's how.

> How can y[o]u tell from two fossils that one did not
> have a major change in its immune system that allowed it to to survive
> in an environemnt where the other could not?
>

No one said the fossil record could be used to tell such a thing?

> >then disappear abruptly.
>
> Since fossils are fossils of individuals, how exactly are they
> supposed to disappear "non-abruptly"? You mean they lost a leg but the
> rest is still there? The term is biologically speaking meaningless.
>

Not true. The term eliminates gradualistic possibilities (which are
not seen).

> >Ad hoc incremental assembly
> > of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.
>

> There are good examples where it can be seen, such as the horse
> series.

LOL!

The one and only equine sequence! The same is unique and is evidence
that speciation does not occur.


> The gaps are an artefact produced by the "recording device",
> and in line with what we know how fossilisation happens. In the same
> way in which 嚙緘hotos of an arrow in flight do not show movement, but
> the arrow only ever in one discreet position, so do fossils, with
> necessity , only ever show discrete entities.
>
> Now, there are ways in which the fossil record could falsify
> evolution, but this is not one of them. If for instance we found, when
> digging deeper into the crust, an exact repetition of the pattern we
> have so far (so, below the Cambrian, we suddenly find humans, and
> below these dinos, and below these...) that would be a serious issue
> for the standard model of evolution.

>
>
>
> > > Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>
> > Done.
>

> > Ray

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 20, 6:55 pm, William Morse <wdNOSPAMMo...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Ray;
>
> Natural selection is true by definition.

Is this how your science determines facts, truth?

That is the claim made in behalf of natural selection by its adherents
(true by definition).

> If you have heritable variation
> and excess reproduction, then you necessarily have natural selection. Is
> it your claim that heritable variation does not occur, or that excess
> reproduction does not occur?
>

Greg Guarino and Dana Tweedy are basically asking the same thing. I
will probably answer from their posts.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 19, 1:35 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <9181534a-5a10-49a8-82a2-6a8c27bb0...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes

>
>
>
>
>
> >On Sep 18, 1:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 2:13:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:

> >> > > Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>
> >> > > Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>
> >> > > unscientific concept?"
>
> >> > > In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>
> >> > > Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>
> >> > > yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>

> >> Ray might be fooled into thinking you agree with me here, but I can't
> >> be sure since he disappeared from this thread without replying to you.
>
> >> > Evolution is not falsifiable in the way that the round earth
> >> > hypothesis is not falsifiable.
>
> >> Agreed, but evolution is not the same thing as natural selection.
>
> >> Peter Nyikos
>
> >Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?
>
> >If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?
>

> Wrong. Naive falsificationism is not a good answer to the demarcation
> problem.
>

Nobody was talking about the so called "demarcation problem."

Ray

> However ...
>
> Natural selection is a label for the (mathematical) fact the
> differential reproductive success causally correlated with hereditary
> traits will lead to an increase in the proportion of a population with
> such traits. Falsifying this would be like falsifying the claim that
> there is an infinite number of prime numbers.
>

> But that natural selection is a cause of adaptive change in real
> populations is in principle falsifiable - you just have to show that
> variation within populations is not hereditary, or that reproductive
> success is never causally correlated with hereditary traits.
>

> That natural selection is a cause of particular changes in population is
> also falsifiable.
>
>
>
> >Waiting....
>
> >Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)
>
> --

> alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 19, 1:40 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message

> <f350e318-2a05-492e-9b79-829bda4b4...@r4g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, Ray
> Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>
>
>
> >On Sep 18, 6:52 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sep 18, 9:37 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > On Sep 18, 6:12 pm, "Greg G." <ggw...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> >> > > On Sep 18, 8:32 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > On Sep 18, 2:27 pm, Greg Guarino <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> > > > > On 9/18/2012 4:47 PM, pnyikos wrote:
>
> >> > > > > >> >Natural selection*is falsifiable*  and*testable*.  Witness the
> >> > > > > >> >role of counter-intuitive examples like the elaboration of
> >> > > > > >> >sexual selection traits like male guppy tails.  The less
>

> >> > > > > >> >the more elaborate the tails of future generations of males
> >> > > > > >> >become (tail size and color is highly hereditary); the

> >> > > > > >> >predation,
> >> > > > > >> >the duller and smaller the tails of future generations become.
> >> > > > > > And if it had been the other way around, what then?  Perhaps the
> >> > > > > > environment could furnish clues; long tails might blend in with
> >> > > > > > vegetation with long stalks, etc. and there is no falsification of
> >> > > > > > natural selection, but an "additonal confirmation."
>
> >> > > > > You confuse the potential falsification of the *concept* of Natural
> >> > > > > Selection as an agent of biological change with the
> >> > > > >falsification of a
> >> > > > > particular hypothetical selective factor as the agent of change in a
> >> > > > > specific circumstance. If we hypothesize that long tails prevent
> >> > > > > predation by being good camouflage, but find that in the presence of
> >> > > > > predators tails shrink, we have falsified our hypothesis about tails,
> >> > > > > but not the general concept of Natural Selection.
>
> >> > > > What falsifies "the concept of Natural Selection as an agent of
> >> > > > biological change"?
>
> >> > > > > > The popular literature is full of alleged counterexamples

> >> > > > > >natural
> >> > > > > > selection that get shot down with more sophisticated arguments.
>
> >> > > > > > In other words, the alleged falsifications themselves get
>

> >> > > > > >> >All due to the relative reproductive success of males in the
> >> > > > > >> >face of differing levels of predation.
> >> > > > > > This says nothing about how it could possibly be falsified.
>
> >> > > > > > Nor have I seen anything on this thread that says how it could be
> >> > > > > > falsified.
>
> >> > > > > >> >Natural selection has not*been*  falsified despite*being*
> >> > > > > >> >falsifiable.
> >> > > > > > So, let's see a hypothetical observation that you would consider as
> >> > > > > > falsifying it.
>
> >> > > > > If a trait were to become more prevalent (presumably by some
> >> > > > >heretofore
> >> > > > > unknown mechanism) in a population despite the lower reproductive
> >> > > > > success of those individuals that possess that trait, Natural
> >> > > > >Selection
> >> > > > > as an agent of change in that population would be falsified.
> >> > > > >Given what
> >> > > > > we know of heredity, that seems unlikely, but "unlikely" is

> >> > > > >the same
> >> > > > > as "unfalsifiable in principle".
>
> >> > > > I think Greg is actually making an argument, without any awareness,

> >> > > > that natural selection is NOT falsifiable. He has isolated specific

> >> > > > instances as not harming conceptual existence as an agent causing

> >> > > > change. What his argument accomplishes is reduction of change caused

> >> > > > by natural selection. The concept remains intact, explaining a little
> >> > > > less.
>

> >> > > No, he isn't.
>
> >> > Yes, he is.
>
> >> > Like I said, he wasn't even aware; the same with you.
>
> >> > > He just laid out the conditions you would have to
> >> > > observe in order to falsify natural selection.
>
> >> > Nope; he argued 'even if' which was intended to exempt the concept
> >> > itself from falsification.
>
> >> > > The other important
> >> > > piece in falsifying a theory is that it has to be false in order for
> >> > > it to be actually falsified.
>
> >> > Brilliant, Einstein.
>

> >> > > You recognize that if individuals with a
> >> > > given allele that reduces their reproductive success, that allele will
> >> > > decrease in the population. If an allele helps individual have more
> >> > > reproductive success, that allele will increase in the population.
> >> > > That is Natural Selection. It is that simple. You see it, you know it
> >> > > has to happen, but you won't call it what it is.
>

> >> > "[Y]ou know it has to happen" corresponds to phraseology that supports
> >> > the non-falsifiability of natural selection.
>

> >> > Ray
>
> >> We know it has to happen, *given the way heredity works in life on
> >> Earth*. If biology followed some other system, it would not "have to
> >> happen". It's not the definition or the logic that makes it
> >> unavoidable, it's the specific processes of biology.
>
> >By mentioning "the logic," the mere fact that you mentioned, supports
> >the fact that natural selection, first and foremost, is a claim of
> >logic. The aspect of logic (how the facts are explained) is exempt
> >from falsification requirements. Again, your comments/phraseology seen
> >above, without any awareness on your part, are comments that clearly
> >argue for the non-falsifiability of natural selection.
>
> >I would also say (tentatively) that the empirics of natural selection
> >not falsifiable since variation, superfecundity, and death are things
> >known to exist. That said, the only thing left is the logic that binds
> >them; hence natural selection is not falsifiable in a Popperian sense?
>
> >Conclusion: Since Darwinists agree that falsification requirements are
> >legitimate: natural selection is not a scientific concept.
>
> >Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)
>
> How can you be an anti-selectionist species immutabilist with you have
> just conceded the reality of natural selection. (Or do you deny the
> existence of one or more of variation, superfecundity or death?)
> --
> alias Ernest Major

I've conceded no such thing.

I said variation, superfecundity and death are things known to exist.
I'll add inheritance. That said, existence of these things does not
mean natural selection has occurred. There is a difference between
mere existence and explanation of things/facts.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 21, 6:50 am, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin appears to have selected against this one.  Apologies in
> advance if anybody already received it.

Your point escapes my understanding.

> Since you write as if you are a fossil expert,....

Ridiculous!

I simply conveyed a foundational claim of fact seen through-out the
literature.

> ....you should recognize

> that such an unambiguous record is unlikely in the extreme.  Fossil
> preservation is haphazard, incomplete and imperfect.

Absence admitted.

Too bad for the ToE.

That said, how do you know it should be there?

> Fossilization
> processes are incapable, except in the most exceptional cases, of
> preserving morphological changes of soft parts, and/or whole
> populations, and/or consecutive generations.
>

Absence admitted.

> The fossil record is like a collection of incomplete jigsaw puzzles
> tossed into a single box.  From that clutter, paleontologists have
> teased out the history of life on Earth over time and geography.

In other words, scant evidence used to justify assumptions.

> If the details are missing between species, they are abundant across
> higher taxa.

Concerning higher taxa, this claim also appears abundantly in the
literature.

I have nothing to say. Still studying the issue.

> Dana Tweedy already mentioned horses from a dog-sized,
> 5-toed forest browser.  To which I add whales from a dog-sized hoofed
> semi-aquatic carnivore.  There are fish with legs and lungs.  There
> are reptiles with feathers.  Fossils document the evolution of a
> mammal's inner ear from a reptile's jawbone.  This is all evolution
> preserved in the fossil record.  To deny the evidence the fossil
> record provides, because it doesn't capture the details you know it
> can't, is simpleminded solipsism.
>

You're straying too far off-topic.

> You claim to be an old-Earth Creationist.  I assume that's because you
> recognize the young-Earth interpretation doesn't follow the evidence.

It's even worse than that: YECs accept the main conceptual claims of
Darwinism (their alleged enemy).

And of course a young Earth is preposterous. The Grand Canyon alone
proves the fact. But I am an OEC because the Bible supports an old
Earth.

> I invite you to use that part of your mind which affirmatively
> rejected young-Earth geology, and apply it to your young-Earth biology
> as well.
>

You mean young biosphere biology.

> >> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>
> >Done.
>
> The nature of the fossil record you describe above is one of the
> arguments for Punctuated Equilibrium, whose creators recognized as a
> variation and/or supplement to old-fashioned Darwinian Evolution.  Why
> don't you?

This thread is not about PEism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

For Dana Tweedy: It is easy to establish that Darwin 1859 was a reply
to Paley 1802. Back then (and still today) Paley 1802 was a scientific
treatise.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 19, 5:55�am, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On Sep 18, 8:17�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sep 18, 1:52�pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?
>
> You are a fine one to talk about evasion. �Look at the documentation
> below.
>
> > If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?
>
> > Waiting....
> > Ray (anti-selectionist-species immutabilist)
>
> First things first. �I've been waiting to find you before suspending
> my Koltanowski Sanction on your skepticism-laden challenge, documented
> here:
>
> ______________ excerpt, you going first________________
>
> > > > DPism is a pro-Atheism
> > > > construct (space aliens were responsible for biological First Cause,
> > > > not God); hence why you are, in fact, an Atheist.
> > > Guilt by association.
> > No, guilt by evidence and sound logic.
>
> I am beginning to think the unthinkable: that you are an anti-
> creationist fanatic pretending to be a believer in God, the better to
> turn people off to creationism and theism.
>
> Why, for instance, do you relentlessly pursue the creationist
> Kaldidas, instead of innumerable anti-creationist, atheistic zealots?
>

Because Kalkidas is not a real Creationist or IDist----that's why: he
accepts Darwin's main conceptual claim existing in nature (natural
selection/microevolution). And he can't explain the contradiction.
What I really want from him is a conversion to species immutability. I
wish the same for everyone: conversion to fixity.

> > > > If not, post a link
> > > > that shows you arguing for the existence of God? Do so and I will
> > > > promptly retract.
> > > Sorry, we need to clear up an important detail first.
> > Answer the question, Peter.
> > Suddenly you are looking mighty nervous on the stand.
>
> You never tire of wishful thinking, do you, you deluded jerk?
> ================= end of excerpt

> �fromhttp://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/765c13c52c2cb011

>
> Due to your rudeness, I postponed posting a link. [See documentation
> of "prediction" below.]
>
> And, just as I suspected, �you disappeared from the thread after I
> posted this.
>
> I'm not asking you to rebut anything of what you see above; I just
> want some reassurance that you will not disappear after I repost the
> post I had in mind, as referred to at the end of the linked post:
>

I only disappear when bored to death.

I have observed that you are the most interesting, knowledgeable and
honest Evolutionist here at Talk.Origins.

But lately I think you are also a very good sprinter and long distance
runner.

> ____________ second excerpt_________
>
> > You appear shook, needing time to think.
>
> Wishful thinking. �I have a lovely post to show you, one where you are
> even mentioned, and which you would have seen if you hadn't
> disappeared from the thread where it was made.
>
> However, I'm applying a mild Koltanowski Sanction at this point before
> showing it to you.
>
> I'm only "going to sleep" for a day or two, or at most five. �You can
> make it one day by starting to behave like a mature adult instead of a
> troll.
>
> > So be it.
>
> > Ray
>
> Is this you claiming victory in preparation to disappearing from this
> thread? �If so, make it five, and expect to see the post in some
> thread where you will be active then.
> ================ end of second excerpt
>
> I tried, but I couldn't find any post by you later than the 14th, so I
> decided to wait until I found one you made more recently.
>
> Peter Nyikos

Yes or No, Peter: Natural selection is not falsifiable but it is a
valid scientific concept?

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Originally, like I said, you argued even if natural selection were
falsified in certain instances the same would not falsify the general
concept, including the claim of change leading to the production of
new species. I then observed that your argument simply reduces the
number of things explained by the selection process.

In response you've evaded.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/21/12 1:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Sep 18, 7:17 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> snip
>
> >>> Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>
> >> Ray, concepts only exist in minds.
>
> > Greg and I understand what "concept" means, you and your source (John
> > Harshman) do not.
>
> I suspect that Greg would take exception to you including him in your
> personal ignorance.  Both John, and myself are correct that concepts
> only exist as abstract ideas.
>

The phrase "concept of ____" presupposes existence in reality via the
widest possible scenario. The fact that JH and yourself do not
understand does not harm the fact.

>
>
> >> The fact of natural selection does
> >> exist in nature.
>
> > There is no evidence supporting the existence of natural selection----
> > none.
>
> Except for hundreds of observations of natural selection in action.  The
> peppered moth study is one, the Galapagos Finch study by the Grants, is
> another.   The study of colorization in guppies in South America is yet
> another.
>
> Why are these studies not evidence of natural selection?
>

Two reasons: (1) When the claim of natural selection is examined, it
doesn't make any sense and is illogical; (2) Existence of the concept
of design in nature.

And it doesn't matter how many adherents natural selection has, or
their credentials. Other people, before Darwin, recognized the
concept. Yet Darwin was the FIRST to recognize and explicate the
concept as accepted by scientific men. Before Darwin some actually
thought the concept prevented evolution from occurring. Yet Darwin
said the exact opposite. Essentially, death (negative) causes life
(positive) and change (= illogic, nonsense).

>
>
> >>> Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>
> >> It would appear the reason you don't understand natural selection is a
> >> combination of ignorance, arrogance, and basic stupidity...
>
> > Either that is indeed true OR I do understand that natural selection
> > is nonsense.
>
> The first explanation is much better supported.
>
> > Since the latter is true it is you, Darwin and Dawkins
> > who are stupid.
>
> What evidence do you have that the "latter" is true?   It's fairly clear
> that your failure to grasp the simple idea of natural selection is your
> own ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.
>

If you understood natural selection you wouldn't say such things.

Pick up here ASAP....

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pick up here ASAP....
>
> Ray

[snip....]

>
> > Who is the "we", Ray?  What exactly is it about natural selection that
> > you claim "exhibits nonsense"?

Death (the greatest negative) producing life, change and new species
(positives).

> > You appear to accept that more
> > offspring are born than can survive.  You appear to accept that variants
> > with beneficial traits survive more often, and reproduce more often than
> > other variants in a population.   You also seem to accept that variants
> > who have traits that are not beneficial don't survive, or reproduce as
> > often.
>
> > What exactly do you find nonsensical about this?

You have confused acceptance of existence of X, Y, Z with acceptance
of the claim or explanation made in behalf of X, Y, Z.

> > > Anyone who does not view the thing as nonsense does not understand
> > > natural selection.
>
> > This is a truly bizarre assertion, Ray, considering you have no basis
> > for your original assertion that natural selection is nonsense.    What
> > exactly do you find about natural selection to be nonsense?

Answered twice above.

Evolution is inferred, not observed. A lot of times the literature
will loosely state that evolution is observed. These statements
presuppose the reader to understand that evolution is inferred from
observation.

The concept of design, as observed in nature, indicates species result
from separate creation (Intelligence), not previously living species.
That's our logic.

[snip repetition, off topic stuff....]

Ray

[Ernest Major]

In message
<1832d5d5-d0d0-4917...@rj6g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>On Sep 19, 1:35 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <9181534a-5a10-49a8-82a2-6a8c27bb0...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Sep 18, 1:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > On Monday, September 10, 2012 2:13:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> >> > > Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>>
>> >> > > Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>>
>> >> > > unscientific concept?"
>>
>> >> > > In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>>
>> >> > > Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>>
>> >> > > yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>>
>> >> Ray might be fooled into thinking you agree with me here, but I can't
>> >> be sure since he disappeared from this thread without replying to you.
>>
>> >> > Evolution is not falsifiable in the way that the round earth
>> >> > hypothesis is not falsifiable.
>>
>> >> Agreed, but evolution is not the same thing as natural selection.
>>
>> >> Peter Nyikos
>>
>> >Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?
>>
>> >If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?
>>
>> Wrong. Naive falsificationism is not a good answer to the demarcation
>> problem.
>>
>
>Nobody was talking about the so called "demarcation problem."

You may be unaware of it, but you were implicitly referring to the
demarcation problem. (And you are still wrong, in spite of your red
herring of a response.)
>
>Ray
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/22/12 2:18 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 9/21/12 1:40 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:> On Sep 18, 7:17 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> snip
>>
>>>>> Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>>
>>>> Ray, concepts only exist in minds.
>>
>>> Greg and I understand what "concept" means, you and your source (John
>>> Harshman) do not.
>>
>> I suspect that Greg would take exception to you including him in your
>> personal ignorance. Both John, and myself are correct that concepts
>> only exist as abstract ideas.
>>
>
> The phrase "concept of ____" presupposes existence in reality via the
> widest possible scenario.

It still doesn't change the fact that concepts are abstract ideas, not
things that can exist in the world itself. Apparently what you mean is
"the facts that fit within the concept I hold"

> The fact that JH and yourself do not
> understand does not harm the fact.

Again, the fact that John, myself, and the entire English speaking world
understand that concepts are abstractions doesn't make you correct.
I'd suggest not speaking for other persons, such as Greg, when referring
to your personal delusions.

>
>>
>>
>>>> The fact of natural selection does
>>>> exist in nature.
>>
>>> There is no evidence supporting the existence of natural selection----
>>> none.
>>
>> Except for hundreds of observations of natural selection in action. The
>> peppered moth study is one, the Galapagos Finch study by the Grants, is
>> another. The study of colorization in guppies in South America is yet
>> another.
>>
>> Why are these studies not evidence of natural selection?
>>
>
> Two reasons: (1) When the claim of natural selection is examined, it
> doesn't make any sense and is illogical;

That's an entirely subjective assertion on your part. To anyone else
they make sense, are are quite logical.

What exactly do you find "illogical" about the existence of natural
selection? What, exactly do you feel doesn't make sense about the
existence of natural selection? These are questions you keep avoiding.

> (2) Existence of the concept
> of design in nature.

Again, Ray, concepts only exist as abstractions within minds. The
existence of the appearance of design does not negate the fact of
natural selection operating in nature, as natural selection produces the
appearance of design.

>
> And it doesn't matter how many adherents natural selection has, or
> their credentials.

The reason there are so many educated and properly credentialed persons
who accept the reality of natural selection is that natural selection is
easily observed, and has been confirmed by thousands of observations.
What matters is the evidence, and that's what you continue to ignore.

> Other people, before Darwin, recognized the
> concept.

So there's no reason to suspect that prior commitment to "Darwinism" had
anything to do with the acceptance of the fact of natural selection.

> Yet Darwin was the FIRST to recognize and explicate the
> concept as accepted by scientific men.

Along with Wallace, who discovered the power of natural selection
independently. What Darwin and Wallace did was to understand that
natural selection combined with random variations could produce changes
in populations. If natural selection were indeed "illogical" and
"makes no sense" as you claim above, scientific men would not have
accepted it, and Darwin and Wallace would remain unknown.

> Before Darwin some actually
> thought the concept prevented evolution from occurring.

Yes, some people in history were wrong. That's not uncommon.

> Yet Darwin
> said the exact opposite.

And more importantly, showed with massive evidence, that he was correct,
and the others were wrong. Again, it's the evidence which made
Darwin's ideas successful, and others, such as Paley, wrong.

> Essentially, death (negative) causes life
> (positive) and change (= illogic, nonsense).

So, essentially, your objection to natural selection is your personal
delusion that natural selection is the same thing as "death causes
life".

Natural selection is not that "death causes life and change".
Natural selection is differential reproductive success of particular
variants in a population. What it means is that some members of a
population survive and breed more than others, due to their genetic
traits in relation to the environment.

You might also be surprised to learn that for any living thing to
survive, if it's not a plant that makes it's own food from sunlight,
some other living thing has to die. You wouldn't be alive today if
millions of other living things hadn't died to feed you. So, why is
death a "negative"?

I should also point out that "death causing life" is not illogical,
merely counter-intuitive. Illogical, and counter-intuitive aren't the
same thing.

>
>>
>>
>>>>> Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>>
>>>> It would appear the reason you don't understand natural selection is a
>>>> combination of ignorance, arrogance, and basic stupidity...
>>
>>> Either that is indeed true OR I do understand that natural selection
>>> is nonsense.
>>
>> The first explanation is much better supported.
>>
>>> Since the latter is true it is you, Darwin and Dawkins
>>> who are stupid.
>>
>> What evidence do you have that the "latter" is true? It's fairly clear
>> that your failure to grasp the simple idea of natural selection is your
>> own ignorance, arrogance, and stupidity.
>>
>
> If you understood natural selection you wouldn't say such things.

From what you've stated above, it's quite clear you are the one who
misunderstands natural selection. Since you seem to think natural
selection is the same thing as "death causes life", your opinion here is
worthless.


snipping the rest.

DJT

[Ray Martinez]

Since I don't understand, I cannot. Their explications are void of
rational, comprehensible content. For example:

"In October 1838, that is, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic enquiry, I happened to read for amusement Malthus on
Population, and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle for
existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of
the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under
these circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved,
and unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the
formation of new species" (Darwin, Autobio:120).

Since the full claim made in behalf of the concept of natural
selection includes the formation and production of new species, I
don't understand how the leap is made from the truisms that comprise
the "thing itself" (variation, inheritance, differential reproduction,
etc. etc.)?

In addition: I reject the claim made in behalf of these truisms. Note
the empirics (existence of the truisms) not in dispute; rather, the
claim made in their behalf is what I reject (the logic).

Darwin's explication of natural selection, in his Autobio, has to be
one of the most concise, yet it makes no sense whatsoever. So I do
indeed understand afterall.

> > > > See how that works, Rolfy?
>
> > > Declaring things doesn't make them real, Ray.
>
> > > >> It is not a subject for rejection from ignorance;
> > > >> it is a subject anyone wishing to engage in honest debate is obliged to
> > > >> learn. That doesn't mean one need agree with the conclusions drawn about the
> > > >> effect or  the consequences of natural selection.
>
> > > >> Natural selection is just another modus of selection, a pendant to
> > > >> artificial selection. The effects of artificial selection are well
> > > >> documented.
>
> > > > Darwinology.
>
> See? No argument. You have just made up a label that tells us nothing.
> And a poor one at that, as much of current evolutionary thought would
> be entirely unknown to Darwin.
>

I have no trouble understanding Theology, unlike Darwinology. But if
Darwinology is like I say then I do indeed understand.

Pick up right here ASAP....

Ray

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/22/12 2:47 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 21, 6:00 pm, Dana Tweedy <reddfrog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Pick up here ASAP....
>>
>> Ray
>
> [snip....]
>
>>
>>> Who is the "we", Ray? What exactly is it about natural selection that
>>> you claim "exhibits nonsense"?
>
> Death (the greatest negative) producing life, change and new species
> (positives).

As I've pointed out before, you are mistaken if you feel that natural
selection is the same as "death causes life". Natural selection is
differential reproductive success of a portion of a population, due to
environmental factors acting differentially on different variants in
that population. The correct relationship between natural selection
and death is "some die, and others life".

I've also pointed out that your assumption that death is always the
"greatest negative" is incorrect, and delusional. For an individual,
death is the end, but not for living things as a whole. All organisms
that don't manufacture their own food rely on the death of other beings
to survive. You, yourself have benefited from the death of millions on
millions of other living things. Life itself can't exist without death.

Darwin realized, from reading Malthus, that if every offspring were
to survive, organisms would quickly outstrip available resources, and
all would die. Only a small portion of any generation get to pass on
their heredity to the next generation. From this, Darwin came to the
realization that the environment determined which members of the
population survived to produce the next generation. This could lead to
change in a population if the environment changed, and different
variants were selected.

Would you like to try to explain why any of this violates any rules
of logic, or sense?

>
>>> You appear to accept that more
>>> offspring are born than can survive. You appear to accept that variants
>>> with beneficial traits survive more often, and reproduce more often than
>>> other variants in a population. You also seem to accept that variants
>>> who have traits that are not beneficial don't survive, or reproduce as
>>> often.
>>
>>> What exactly do you find nonsensical about this?
>
> You have confused acceptance of existence of X, Y, Z with acceptance
> of the claim or explanation made in behalf of X, Y, Z.

Natural selection is the logical expression of "X, Y, and Z". I
notice you haven't provided a better, testable, explanation for "X, Y,
and Z".

Again, Ray, I ask the question you fled from a while ago: What do
you think causes variations in a population?

>
>>>> Anyone who does not view the thing as nonsense does not understand
>>>> natural selection.
>>
>>> This is a truly bizarre assertion, Ray, considering you have no basis
>>> for your original assertion that natural selection is nonsense. What
>>> exactly do you find about natural selection to be nonsense?
>
> Answered twice above.

Your answers above indicate you have some very odd ideas about natural
selection. Not surprisingly, those ideas strongly indicate that you
don't understand natural selection, and as such your claim that it's
"nonsense" is unsupportable.

snip

>>>>> Evolution does not suggest "ad hoc incremental assembly" of species.
>>>>> (It might also help if you knew what the term "ad hoc" meant) Evolution
>>>>> suggests that species come from previous species, and that new species
>>>>> are variations of older species. That is what the fossil record shows.
>>
>>>> Completely false.
>>
>>> What part of my correct,and easily confirmed statements above do you
>>> think are "false", and why?

Why no answer, Ray? What are you afraid of?

>>
>>>> Since you do not understand "ad hoc," especially in the context in
>>>> which I used it,
>>
>>> The problem is, I do understand what the words "ad hoc" mean, and the
>>> way you are using them doesn't match the situation. This indicates to
>>> me that you don't know what the term means.
>>
>>>> I offer the same as evidence supporting the fact that
>>>> you do not understand natural selection (or evolution for that
>>>> matter).
>>
>>> Since it's you who shows no sign of understanding either natural
>>> selection, or evolution in general, your assertion lacks value.
>>
>>>> Yes, the concept of evolution says (not suggests) species originate
>>>> species.
>>
>>> Obviously, as living creatures are the only beings that have been
>>> observed to produce other living creatures. Where is there any
>>> evidence that species originate from any other source?
>
> Evolution is inferred, not observed.

As I've stated on many occasions, all observation requires inference.
Yes, evolution is inferred, from direct observation.

Do you have any observations of living creatures coming from any other
source than previously living creatures?

> A lot of times the literature
> will loosely state that evolution is observed.

Which is correct. Evolution is observed directly. Any direct
observation requires some kind of inference.

> These statements
> presuppose the reader to understand that evolution is inferred from
> observation.

As are all scientific theories. Evolution is no different from direct
observation of any other scientific fact.

>
> The concept of design, as observed in nature,

Once again, Ray, it is not possible to observe a concept, as they are
abstract notions within a mind. The features by which you infer
"design" are observed, but your inference is false. Natural selection
can produce the appearance of design.

> indicates species result
> from separate creation (Intelligence), not previously living species.

There are no observations from nature of any "special creation" by any
supernatural being. There are millions of direct observation of
previously living species producing offspring which are slightly
different from their parents.

If you can find any observed instances of living creatures produced by
any supernatural being, you are encouraged to produce those
observations.

Why haven't you?

> That's our logic.

That's why I've stated on many occasions that you have no understanding
of logic at all. Your "conclusion" does not follow from your premises,
and you have no evidence to support any of your claims.

>
> [snip repetition, off topic stuff....]

Ray avoids some valid points and questions. I'll restore what Ray
ignores, in order to show what Ray is afraid of dealing with.

>
>
>> But the issue was how (natural selection)?
>
> Natural selection is just one part of the mechanism by which new species develop from older species. There has never been an observation of a new species appearing de novo, without any preceding species. Even in the fossil record, where new species appear "suddenly", they are always preceded by earlier, closely related, life forms. No one has ever observed a totally new species appearing out of thin air, or even "clay like ground".
>
> If you have another explanation for how species come to be, you need to provide some observation to support your explanation.
>
>
>> The claim is that
>> species are assembled incrementally----without any rhyme or reason
>> (design); the same is encompassed in the term "ad hoc."
>
> Evolution does not claim that new species are "assembled incrementally", and without "any rhyme or reason". "Design" would be indicated if it could be shown that species were actually assembled from a set of unrelated parts. That's how manufactured items we know are designed are built today. An automobile plant assembles a car incrementally. Evolution grows an organism as a whole. A designer could afford to use whimsy, and put things on for "no rhyme or reason" (tail fins on cars, for example) , while evolution can't. Everything has to work, or it's removed by natural selection.
>
>
> All new species, on the other hand, are variations on already existing species. Species are not "assembled", but evolve over time from earlier species. They show signs of older parts being modified to have new functions, and traces of their history being retained in spite of being inefficient, and sub optimal. All ancestral species must be "fully formed" or they would not survive to pass on their form to the new species. If species were designed, and manufactured, one might expect to see half formed models, and prototypes. Not so for organisms that had to make a living.
>
> You continue to misunderstand how evolution works, and how natural processes can, and do produce the appearance of design. The words "ad hoc" don't mean what you seem to think they mean.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Ray
>>
>>> Actually, "descent with modification" is easily seen in the fossil
>>> record, in many different linages. In horses, elephants, cattle,
>>> whales, and especially in human evolution, the pattern of radiation from
>>> common ancestors is easily seen.
>
> Why are you ignoring this point? What are you afraid of?

Indeed, Ray, what are you afraid of?


DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/22/12 12:41 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>
>> How can you be an anti-selectionist species immutabilist with you have
>> just conceded the reality of natural selection. (Or do you deny the
>> existence of one or more of variation, superfecundity or death?)
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>
> I've conceded no such thing.

Why the backtracking?

>
> I said variation, superfecundity and death are things known to exist.

And all of those are the factors involved in natural selection

> I'll add inheritance. That said, existence of these things does not
> mean natural selection has occurred.

Actually, that's exactly what natural selection entails. All those
things are the essence of natural selection.

> There is a difference between
> mere existence and explanation of things/facts.

Since all those things combined are what makes up natural selection,
what exactly do you find unacceptable about natural selection producing
changes over generations?

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/22/12 1:03 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip

>>

>> Would you, as our resident Paleyian, take Popper as an authority on
>> evolution? OK:
>>
>> [quote] Although Darwin destroyed Paley's argument from design by
>> showing what appeared to Paley as purposeful design could as well be
>> explained as the result of chance and of natural selection, he was most
>> modest and undogmatic in his claims. [/quote]
>>
>> from "Natural Selection and its Scientific Status (1977)"- Karl Popper
>
> For Dana Tweedy: It is easy to establish that Darwin 1859 was a reply
> to Paley 1802.

While Darwin was aware of Paley, and his findings, as Popper points out,
destroyed Paley's argument, there's no reason to assume that Darwin's
purpose was to reply to Paley in particular. Darwin was proposing a
scientific explanation for the observation of change in species over time.

Darwin's discovery of the mechanism of evolution demonstrated that
the appearance of design was a natural occurrence, not evidence of God's
existence as Paley argued, but it was never Darwin's intent to disprove
the existence of God.

> Back then (and still today) Paley 1802 was a scientific
> treatise.

Then, as today, Paley's book was religious apologetics, not a scientific
treatise. Scientific papers don't deal with questions of God's
existence.

DJT

[Dana Tweedy]

On 9/22/12 1:53 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
snip


>>

>> I detect no argument there. Natural Selection makes predictions. It
>> disallows certain potential observations. Thus it is falsifiable.
>> Done.
>
> Originally, like I said, you argued even if natural selection were
> falsified in certain instances the same would not falsify the general
> concept, including the claim of change leading to the production of
> new species. I then observed that your argument simply reduces the
> number of things explained by the selection process.
>
> In response you've evaded.

Ray, you seem to love accusing others of evasion, when you are
constantly evading, and avoiding answers.

Maybe "evaded" is another word you don't understand?


DJT

[Ray Martinez]

On Sep 22, 8:10 am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Pick up right here ASAP....
>
> Ray
>
>
>
> > > > Why are you ignoring the fact of natural selection?
>
> > > The fact of the matter is that Darwinology is incomprehensible. We
> > > understand natural selection, the "thing itself," to exhibit nonsense.
> > > Anyone who does not view the thing as nonsense does not understand
> > > natural selection.
>
> > Show us. Which components are faulty? How so?
>
> > Do you agree that there is variation in a population?

Yes, variation is not a matter of opinion, but a material thing that
exists.

> > Do you agree that some of that variation is heritable?

Yes.

> > Do you agree that not all members of the population will reproduce in equal numbers?

Yes.

> > Do you agree that some traits will tend to help some members of the
> > population reproduce in greater numbers than others (in a given
> > environment) ?

Perhaps you should provide an example for this one?

> > Do you agree that the heritable variations that decrease a creature's
> > chance of reproducing will become less common in future generations?

Not sure/don't know based on the fact that species in general do not
go extinct for quite some time.

> > Do you agree that the heritable variations that increase a creature's
> > chance of reproducing will become more common in future generations?

This question, and the one before, is actually asking me if I accept a
particular logic that binds or explains the empirics (material
things).

The answer is no.

>
> > You can argue, as most creationists do, that Natural Selection (plus
> > other evolutionary processes) are insufficient to explain how a fin
> > could eventually become a foot.

Like Alan Kleinman, correct?

I skewered him best I could.

> > But let's not run before we, um, swim.
> > I'm curious to know what makes you think that Natural Selection does
> > not operate at all.

Listen closely:

NS is actually an explanation of a small list of facts that is
asserted to act as a mechanism causing evolutionary change. I reject
said explanation to be illogical, nonsensical.

Ray

[gdgu...@gmail.com]

On Sep 22, 8:30�pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Sep 22, 8:10�am, "g...@risky-biz.com" <gdguar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Pick up right here ASAP....
>
> > Ray
>
> > > > > Why are you ignoring the fact of natural selection?
>
> > > > The fact of the matter is that Darwinology is incomprehensible. We
> > > > understand natural selection, the "thing itself," to exhibit nonsense.
> > > > Anyone who does not view the thing as nonsense does not understand
> > > > natural selection.
>
> > > Show us. Which components are faulty? How so?
>
> > > Do you agree that there is variation in a population?
>
> Yes, variation is not a matter of opinion, but a material thing that
> exists.
>
> > > Do you agree that some of that variation is heritable?
>
> Yes.
>
> > > Do you agree that not all members of the population will reproduce in equal numbers?
>
> Yes.
>
> > > Do you agree that some traits will tend to help some members of the
> > > population reproduce in greater numbers than others (in a given
> > > environment) ?
>
> Perhaps you should provide an example for this one?

Several have been offered in this thread. Less conspicuous tails on
fish in the presence of predators, for one.

> > > Do you agree that the heritable variations that decrease a creature's
> > > chance of reproducing will become less common in future generations?
>
> Not sure/don't know based on the fact that species in general do not
> go extinct for quite some time.

This isn't about extinction. It's about traits that give some members
of a population an advantage over the others; an advantage that allows
them to leave more progeny in the next generation. The population
could remain stable, but the members that can more successfully evade
predators (or more successfully hunt), or keep warm, (or cool), or
cope with a dry environment (or a wet one), or produce more young at
once, or have hardier seeds, etc. will have a better chance of passing
their genetic material on to the next generation.

>
> > > Do you agree that the heritable variations that increase a creature's
> > > chance of reproducing will become more common in future generations?
>
> This question, and the one before, is actually asking me if I accept a
> particular logic that binds or explains the empirics (material
> things).

> The answer is no.

Could you be more precise? Do you reject the idea that certain traits
confer a relative survival or reproductive advantage? I don't see
another possibility, unless you simply reject that reproduction
proceeds by natural processes at all.

>
>
> > > You can argue, as most creationists do, that Natural Selection (plus
> > > other evolutionary processes) are insufficient to explain how a fin
> > > could eventually become a foot.
>
> Like Alan Kleinman, correct?
>

As best I can tell, yes. He seems to believe that while natural
selection can produce minor changes, there is a mathematical
limitation to how many such changes can happen in a specified period
of time; too few to produce the diversity we see.

> I skewered him best I could.

And failed. There's nothing inherently illogical in such a position.
He thinks Natural Selection works, but too slowly. He's wrong, but not
because, as you would have it, there must be a strict dichotomy.

>
> > > But let's not run before we, um, swim.
> > > I'm curious to know what makes you think that Natural Selection does
> > > not operate at all.
>
> Listen closely:
>
> NS is actually an explanation of a small list of facts that is
> asserted to act as a mechanism causing evolutionary change. I reject
> said explanation to be illogical, nonsensical.

You still haven't pointed out where the error is. If there is a
logical gap, show us where.

[John S. Wilkins]

All science is learning, but not all learning is science. One does not
need to have a strict set of criteria for inclusion in science.
Scholarship shares a set of properties, and science is a form of
scholarship. There is no demarcation criterion

[jillery]

You split my paragraph an pushed my point down below. The above, in
summary, describes how your expectations of the fossil record are
unrealistic. By analogy, it's as if you expected one person with an
unreliable camera to photograph all worldly events. Such a task will
necessarily fail, no matter how many pictures are taken.

>> Since you write as if you are a fossil expert,....
>
>Ridiculous!
>
>I simply conveyed a foundational claim of fact seen through-out the
>literature.

I didn't say you were a fossil expert. Nor did I say you claimed to
be one. Instead, I pointed out that from your foundational claim of
fact, you derive an interpretation opposite that of trained
paleontologists. This suggests that you believe you understand the
fossil record better than they do. You don't have to agree with them,
but it would be helpful if you provided some evidence that your
interpretation is superior to theirs.

>> ....you should recognize
>> that such an unambiguous record is unlikely in the extreme.  Fossil
>> preservation is haphazard, incomplete and imperfect.
>
>Absence admitted.
>
>Too bad for the ToE.
>
>That said, how do you know it should be there?

A fair question. I can think of many reasons:

1. Geologists visualize in their mind an idealized geologic column.
But there is no one place that has all of the layers from Earth's
origin to the present. There are discontinuities. Some places erode
away, while other places build up. That is the nature of geologic
processes, that they provide an incomplete and broken record of the
past. Yet few people argue that the model is flawed just because its
reality doesn't match the ideal, that the absence of strata negates
the theory. The paleontologists' fossil record is analogous.

2. Extant populations show a pattern of adaptive change radiating
across geography. Island species are similar to those from the
nearest mainland, yet are distinct in detail. North American wolves
vary from the Arctic to Mexico. Salamanders in California's Central
Valley vary from north to south. Larus Gulls vary around the Arctic
Circle. Penguins vary across coastal regions in the Southern
Hemisphere. Kangaroo vary throughout Australia. There is no reason to
expect earlier populations to have acted any differently.

3. Index fossils are strongly correlated to geologic strata of known
age. This shows that ancient populations also varied over time.

4. Common descent with modification provides strong predictive power
for locating specific fossils in time and space. Daeschler, Shubin
and Jenkins chose that spot on Ellesmere Island because it had
previously been identified as having the stratigraphy of the right
kind and age to fossilize a transitional form between land and water.

5. There are a few exceptional cases of what fossil processes can do
given the right conditions. For example, the Nebraska Ashfall Fossil
Beds preserved hundreds of plants and animals smothered in a geologic
eyeblink only 12 million years ago. Some of the animals, like the
barrel-chested rhinoceros, no longer exist anywhere in the world.

I'm sure I can come up with more if I had the time. I'm sure others
can come up with even better evidence for your alleged "absent"
evidence.

Now your turn; how do you know this evidence should *not* be there?

>> Fossilization
>> processes are incapable, except in the most exceptional cases, of
>> preserving morphological changes of soft parts, and/or whole
>> populations, and/or consecutive generations.
>>
>
>Absence admitted.
>
>> The fossil record is like a collection of incomplete jigsaw puzzles
>> tossed into a single box.  From that clutter, paleontologists have
>> teased out the history of life on Earth over time and geography.
>
>In other words, scant evidence used to justify assumptions.

Not at all. Incomplete does not mean scant. There are lots of
fossils. The fossil record's scantiness is only in comparison to all
life that has ever existed.

>> If the details are missing between species, they are abundant across
>> higher taxa.
>
>Concerning higher taxa, this claim also appears abundantly in the
>literature.
>
>I have nothing to say. Still studying the issue.
>
>> Dana Tweedy already mentioned horses from a dog-sized,
>> 5-toed forest browser.  To which I add whales from a dog-sized hoofed
>> semi-aquatic carnivore.  There are fish with legs and lungs.  There
>> are reptiles with feathers.  Fossils document the evolution of a
>> mammal's inner ear from a reptile's jawbone.  This is all evolution
>> preserved in the fossil record.  To deny the evidence the fossil
>> record provides, because it doesn't capture the details you know it
>> can't, is simpleminded solipsism.
>>
>
>You're straying too far off-topic.

I'm staying very much on-topic. I described how the fossil record
demonstrates biological descent with modification. What are you
talking about?

>> You claim to be an old-Earth Creationist.  I assume that's because you
>> recognize the young-Earth interpretation doesn't follow the evidence.
>
>It's even worse than that: YECs accept the main conceptual claims of
>Darwinism (their alleged enemy).

I know there are different YECs. I know you use 'Darwinism'
distinctively. I am unfamiliar with any type of YEC supporting any
version of Darwinism. Would you please describe who are these people?

>And of course a young Earth is preposterous. The Grand Canyon alone
>proves the fact. But I am an OEC because the Bible supports an old
>Earth.

As you may know, different people interpret the Bible all kinds of
ways. I am not surprised that your interpretation is consistent with
an Old Earth. There are also people whose interpretation of the Bible
is consistent with biological descent with modification, but you do
not. That is the issue I would like to pursue.

>> I invite you to use that part of your mind which affirmatively
>> rejected young-Earth geology, and apply it to your young-Earth biology
>> as well.
>>
>
>You mean young biosphere biology.

Yes, that label works also. So, can you put numbers to just how old
your Old Earth is, and just how young your young biosphere is?

>> >> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>>
>> >Done.
>>
>> The nature of the fossil record you describe above is one of the
>> arguments for Punctuated Equilibrium, whose creators recognized as a
>> variation and/or supplement to old-fashioned Darwinian Evolution.  Why
>> don't you?
>
>This thread is not about PEism.

A truism. I didn't argue PE. Instead, I pointed out a logical flaw
in your argument, that you use the same evidence as that for PE but
come to an opposing conclusion. Once again, this suggests that you
believe your interpretation of the fossil record is superior to that
of trained paleontologists. I'm still hoping for something that
explains why you think so.

[rmj]

On 9/22/2012 5:36 PM, John S. Wilkins wrote:
> rmj<rmj555Re...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> It's not even a good answer to the behaviour and dynamic of science. It
>>> must be in principle *testable* *eventually*, but that doesn't mean
>>> falsifiable. Falsificationism of the kind displayed here is to make a
>>> logical principle (modus tollens, Latin for the "way of denying") into a
>>> methodology. It isn't. It's a princple of formal logic, but science
>>> behaves like a Bayesian network, testing hypotheses against priors on
>>> likelihood assignments. That's because science is just a refined and
>>> more formal version of how we ordinarily learn.
>>>
>>> Natural selection is not falsifiable in the literal sense because of two
>>> facts: one, nothing is falsifiable in the literal sense. That is the
>>> point of the Duhem-Quine Thesis, that we test not only that claim in
>>> isolation, but also all the contextual claims that go to make sense of
>>> it. Scientific hypotheses are not [just] sentences. They are practices,
>>> interpretations, measurements, and explanations, and we do not drop a
>>> fruitful hypothesis at the first inconsistency with a point of data.
>>
>> The study of history would seem to be science by these criteria. Even
>> some English Lit. studies would qualify as science.
>
> All science is learning, but not all learning is science. One does not
> need to have a strict set of criteria for inclusion in science.
> Scholarship shares a set of properties, and science is a form of
> scholarship. There is no demarcation criterion

There are demarcation criteria. Consider Derrida's assertion that one
person's interpretation of a novel or poem is a valid as that of anyone
else. Thus peer review, here, would not be a criterion.

One criteria for history or for science is that bias should be excluded,
but in current scholarship there are schools which do not so believe.
Some think history should be written with an eye on the present and
future, to present the past in a way that will tend to turn the reader
to a certain political or social view. Likewise some think science has a
raison d'etre other than discovering what is true, namely to likewise
promote ecological awareness, even if it means incorporating bias in
interpreting the facts at hand.

[Ernest Major]

In message
<60130721-341d-44a1...@wz4g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>, Ray
Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> writes

>Since the full claim made in behalf of the concept of natural selection
>includes the formation and production of new species, I don't
>understand how the leap is made from the truisms that comprise the
>"thing itself" (variation, inheritance, differential reproduction, etc.
>etc.)?

Are you capable of comprehending the difference between the claim that
natural selection (differential reproductive success causally correlated
with genotype) occurs and the claim that cumulative natural selection
results in speciation?

If you are, perhaps you could consider accepting the truth of the former
claim.

Note: the definition doesn't include that qualifier that "occasionalism
is not true" (and specifically that "organisms are not god-puppets").
--
alias Ernest Major

[Stephanus]

a claim of logic isn't a mechanism

[Stephanus]

would you agree that falsifiability is itself not falsifiable?

[Stephanus]

On Sep 21, 3:50 pm, jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Darwin appears to have selected against this one.  Apologies in
> advance if anybody already received it.
>

> On Tue, 18 Sep 2012 17:43:16 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

> I'm sure the following has been pointed out to you several times
> before, by people who expressed it better than I do, but the above
> paragraph demonstrates the fundamental flaw in your argument.  In
> order for the fossil record to show what you demand, there would have
> to exist, in a single geographic location, fossils of exquisite
> detail, spanning over tens to hundreds of millions of years, of
> consecutive generations of a single population undergoing adaptive
> change.
>

> Since you write as if you are a fossil expert, you should recognize

> that such an unambiguous record is unlikely in the extreme.  Fossil

> preservation is haphazard, incomplete and imperfect.  Fossilization

> processes are incapable, except in the most exceptional cases, of
> preserving morphological changes of soft parts, and/or whole
> populations, and/or consecutive generations.
>

> The fossil record is like a collection of incomplete jigsaw puzzles
> tossed into a single box.  From that clutter, paleontologists have

> teased out the history of life on Earth over time and geography.  If

> the details are missing between species, they are abundant across

> higher taxa.  Dana Tweedy already mentioned horses from a dog-sized,

> 5-toed forest browser.  To which I add whales from a dog-sized hoofed
> semi-aquatic carnivore.  There are fish with legs and lungs.  There
> are reptiles with feathers.  Fossils document the evolution of a
> mammal's inner ear from a reptile's jawbone.  This is all evolution
> preserved in the fossil record.  To deny the evidence the fossil
> record provides, because it doesn't capture the details you know it
> can't, is simpleminded solipsism.
>

> You claim to be an old-Earth Creationist.  I assume that's because you
> recognize the young-Earth interpretation doesn't follow the evidence.

> I invite you to use that part of your mind which affirmatively
> rejected young-Earth geology, and apply it to your young-Earth biology
> as well.
>

> >> Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>
> >Done.
>

> The nature of the fossil record you describe above is one of the
> arguments for Punctuated Equilibrium, whose creators recognized as a
> variation and/or supplement to old-fashioned Darwinian Evolution.  Why
> don't you?

punkeek and gradualism have the same premise , the acquisition of
attributes as the platonic opposite tto the expression of informatio
fully created after six days

[Burkhard]

On Sep 22, 7:10 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
<snip>

>
> > > > > He is also a Professor of Mathematics and a full blooded Evolutionist.
>
> > > > > One **could** use him a source to support a claim that natural
> > > > > selection is not falsifiable.
>
> > > > Ray, it appears that you don't really know or understand what "Natural
> > > > Selection" actually means.
>
> > > Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in nature?
>
> > > Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!
>

> > Doesn't make any sense.
>
> Because you believe NS makes sense, is logical..

No, my point has nothing to do with NS specifically, but with your
idea that "(because) concept X does not exist" is a credible reason
why one cannot understand it. That applies to all concepts, it makes
never sense to argue this way

>
> > "I understand X" and "X exists" are two
> > totally different things.
>
> Okay, so?

So you said the opposite above. You gave as _Reason_ why you claim not
to understand NS that "it does not exist in nature". That confuses
existence with intelligibility

>
> > It s perfectly possible to understand things
> > about objects that do not exist. We understand e.g. the motivation of
> > Hamlet, or why Doctor Watson admires Sherlock Holmes.  In fact, the
> > whole idea of falsification is premised on the idea that we can also
> > understand things that eventually turn out not to  exist. The way
> > physicists tested for the existence of  aether was to determine what
> > role it played in the theory of physics at the time, and to  determine
> > what sort of things we should also see if aether really existed. The
> > tests than proved that there is no such thing. It was a valid
> > falsification precisely because they understood what aether was meant
> > to be , and how it was to be understood in the physical theories that
> > used the concept.
>
> Fine and dandy.

>
you you retract then your explanation above where you said:
"Why is that? Could it be because the concept does not exist in
nature?
Yes, that is the reason why I do not understand natural selection!"

> > The way to test a theory, any theory, is to ask: assuming
> > hypothetically the theory is true, what should we then observe? And
> > this presupposes that you understand the theory in the first place,
> > whether or not you agree with it and whether or not it is actually
> > true.
> > .
>
> Makes sense.
>
<snip>

> > Ever seen a chihuahua and compared it to a great Dane?
>
> Great example of wide variation.
>

Which was brought about by selection, that is by breeders either
killing puppies with unwanted traits ir neutering them
Since the issue under discussion is only NS, not the entire theory of
evolution of which it is only a small part, that example is perfectly
sufficient to prove that NS works.

>
> > > > It is a fundamental fact of life that species don't live in a vacuum;
> > > > species live in the real world with the interaction with environment that
> > > > entails. Unless a species live in a static, unchanging environment - and the
> > > > environment includes the interaction with its own flock or group as well. No
> > > > species can avoid living in a habitat and interaction with the environment.
> > > > Habitats and environment are not static. They are fluid, ever changing from
> > > > moment to moment.
>
> > > Yet in the paleontological crust of the Earth species appear abruptly
> > > and fully formed,
>

> > Of course they do, and nothing in the theory of evolution predicts
> > otherwsie.
>
> The ToE does not predict abrupt or sudden appearance.

Taphonomy, the scientific study of the process of fossilisation,
does.
This is about the granularity of the measurement device (the
paleontological crust)
Just like the "theory of running" says a runner does not suddenly
disappear at one point and appears at the next, but moves through a
continuum, but the theory of photography tells you that if you make
photographs of a runner running, you will only see him at a small
number of distinct points, in stasis and not in motion.

> (Please do not
> post a string of meaningless references without the quotes
> themselves.)

No idea what you mean by this.

> > "Not fully formed" animals are only something you'd find if
> > animals were designed. Go to any design bureau, R&D department of a
> > manufacturer or an artists working room and you find plenty of half
> > formed or not fully formed objects - prototypes, sketches, partly
> > developed parts added to a mock-up of the rest etc etc. Having
> > unfinished or partly finished objects is what every design process
> > relies on.
> > Here an example of the sort of thing you find on every workbench:http://pulpfactor.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/Spaceman-Work-in-pro...
>
> > Biological evolution by contrast has to have fully formed, fully
> > functioning entities at every step, otherwise they'd hardly be able
> > to  reproduce, would they now?
> > So finding incomplete, partly formed animals in th epaleontological
> > crust woudl eb a pretty good argument for intelligent design and
> > against evolution.
>
> I say "fully formed" so a newbie does not mistakenly think partially
> formed is the norm.

Partially formed is not just not the norm, apart from animals with
serious birth defect does not happen at all, that's the point. Nor
does the theory of evolution predict half-formed individuals, rather,
it prohibits them. The theory of design however does, to a degree, or
at least permits this

> > > endure for quite a long time in a state of
> > > changelessness,
>

> > How would you know?
>
> It's in the literature abundantly, that's how.
>
> > How can y[o]u tell from two fossils that one did not
> > have a major change in its immune system that allowed it to to survive
> > in an environemnt where the other could not?
>
> No one said the fossil record could be used to tell such a thing?

Indeed. So you can;t claim, based on the fossil record, that hey
remained changeless if the fossil record can't possibly capture all
those immensely important evolutionary changes that occurred e.g. in
the immune system, or in any other part or aspect of the body that
does not fossilise. ith other words, the evidence can;t possible
support your claim that they remained changeless.


>
> > >then disappear abruptly.
>
> > Since fossils are fossils of individuals, how exactly are they
> > supposed to disappear "non-abruptly"? You mean they lost a leg but the
> > rest is still there? The term is biologically speaking meaningless.
>
> Not true. The term eliminates gradualistic possibilities (which are
> not seen).

If it is not true, describe to me how a fossil would look of an animal
whose species is "gradually" disappearing as opposed to one that is
"abruptly" disappearing. Your calim is not even wrong, it is simply
meaningless.

>
> > >Ad hoc incremental assembly
> > > of species, "descent with modification," is not seen.
>

> > There are good examples where it can be seen, such as the horse
> > series.
>
> LOL!
>
> The one and only equine sequence! The same is unique and is evidence
> that speciation does not occur.

So evidence against your position is evidence for your position? Yes,
that explains a lot about your muddled thinking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > The gaps are an artefact produced by the "recording device",
> > and in line with what we know how fossilisation happens. In the same
> > way in which  photos of an arrow in flight do not show movement, but
> > the arrow only ever in one discreet position, so do fossils, with
> > necessity , only ever show discrete entities.
>
> > Now, there are ways in which the fossil record could falsify
> > evolution, but this is not one of them. If for instance we found, when
> > digging deeper into the crust, an exact repetition of the pattern we
> > have so far (so, below the Cambrian, we suddenly find humans, and
> > below these dinos, and below these...) that would be a serious issue
> > for the standard model of evolution.

>
> > > > Now please demonstrate falsification of NS.
>
> > > Done.
>

> > > Ray
>
> Ray

[Burkhard]

Concepts are never falsifiable, only theories are. It then depends
which version of the theory of falsification you mean. If you mean a
theory that claims that scientific practice is in fact driven by the
type of falsification Poppoer describes in the Logic of Scientific
Discover, then the theory is not just falsifiable, it has been
falsified: if we look closer at the historical data, and also at
current scientific practice, we see that it does not comply with the
type of "revolution in permanence" that he envisaged.

Later in his life, he seems to have accepted it, and promoted his
theory as a normative rather than a descriptive claim: scientists
_ought to _ behave in the way he described in LoSD. Normative
statements aren't of the syntactic form that can be falsified, so that
version of falsification can't be falsified either Not a big deal, it
simply means it is not a scientific statement, not that it is
meaningless, or that one can not debate whether or not we should
rationally accept it. As part of such a debate, some of the supporting
arguments may be falsifiable, e.g. factual claims of the nature: "If
scientists apply falsification as method, scientific progress will be
faster". That claim can of course be falsified.

[*Hemidactylus*]

I would think that given a hallmark of speciation is that two dissimilar
enough individuals have a reduced chance of interbreeding successfully
(or reduced fitness of less viable or sterile offspring), selection is
thus ruled out as a mechanism.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable that speciation results from a cumulation
of nonselective events, like things that just happen to result in genic
incompatibility of two individuals? Drift is thus important.

Or maybe behavioral isolation could be a matter of selection if it
involves some elaborate pattern. Other prezygotic RIMs could "just
happen". And post-zygotic RIMs just don't seem to make sense in terms of
selection, at least while they are arising. What point is there in
mucking up genic systems in a population that reduces offspring viability?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peripatric_speciation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolating_mechanisms

Or maybe isolation can be a byproduct of selection that causes
characters to diverge in different ecological contexts (between
populations). Selection targets traits for some ecological reason and
these traits make organisms of different populations less likely to or
capable of interbreeding. Still isolation (and thus speciation) just
happens as a consequence of something else in most cases. Behavioral
isolation seems the only thing that selection could directly target
perhaps in a manner that makes sense fitness wise. For instance if two
less compatible individuals genically speaking might potential come into
contact, it would be a good idea to make them behave in a manner that
makes them less likely to mate. Mating ritual, calls, and visible
patterns make sense here.

http://www.pnas.org/content/97/23/12398.full

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 09/22/2012 02:33 PM, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Sep 19, 1:35 am, Ernest Major <{$t...@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message
>> <9181534a-5a10-49a8-82a2-6a8c27bb0...@kg10g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
>> Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Sep 18, 1:52 pm, pnyikos <nyik...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>>>> On Sep 11, 12:43 pm, John Stockwell <john.19071...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Monday, September 10, 2012 2:13:05 PM UTC-6, Ray Martinez wrote:

>>>>>> Peter: "Natural selection is not falsifiable."
>>
>>>>>> Ray: "Why then do you accept the scientific validity of an
>>
>>>>>> unscientific concept?"
>>
>>>>>> In addition: Why haven't the Darwinists dog piled on Peter?
>>
>>>>>> Professor of Mathematics Peter Nyikos defends the ToE tooth and nail,
>>
>>>>>> yet he maintains natural selection not falsifiable.
>>

>>>> Ray might be fooled into thinking you agree with me here, but I can't
>>>> be sure since he disappeared from this thread without replying to you.
>>
>>>>> Evolution is not falsifiable in the way that the round earth
>>>>> hypothesis is not falsifiable.
>>
>>>> Agreed, but evolution is not the same thing as natural selection.
>>
>>>> Peter Nyikos
>>
>>> Peter: Why are you evading the indictment layed out in the OP?
>>
>>> If X is not falsifiable then X is not scientific, correct?
>>
>> Wrong. Naive falsificationism is not a good answer to the demarcation
>> problem.
>>
>
> Nobody was talking about the so called "demarcation problem."

You are at least implicitly.