Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   front loading: did evos get it backwards
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 64 of 164 (471975)
06-19-2008 2:22 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by randman
06-19-2008 11:37 AM


Re: Convergence: morphological is not genetic
This is painful to watch. Do you have a case where convergent evolution was concluded on the basis of morphology and then DNA analysis revealed they were genetically related?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by randman, posted 06-19-2008 11:37 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by randman, posted 06-19-2008 2:38 PM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 141 of 164 (473499)
06-30-2008 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by randman
06-28-2008 3:37 PM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
randman writes:
By the way, you didn't deal with the point. You will insist any result is consistent with ND under your analysis. That makes ND non-falsifiable.
You're interpreting falsifiability backwards and concluding that the more evidence from the real world that a theory explains, the less falsifiable it is. But the goal of any theory is the accurate understanding of reality, and the more actual evidence from the real world a theory explains, the stronger it is.
What makes a theory falsifiable is the real possibility of uncovering evidence which would prove the theory false. Mammal fossils in the Cambrian would be an example of hypothetical falsifying evidence against evolution. Every paleontological dig in Cambrian strata carries with it the possibility that a mammal fossil might be found.
That hereditary diseases persist through generations is part of reality. Any robust biological theory must explain this, which evolution does. The breadth of biological phenomena explained by evolution is a strength, not a weakness, and an indication that it has survived countless potentially falsifying observations and experiments.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by randman, posted 06-28-2008 3:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by deerbreh, posted 06-30-2008 12:45 PM Percy has not replied
 Message 145 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 2:49 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 153 of 164 (473830)
07-03-2008 7:30 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by randman
07-02-2008 2:49 PM


Re: Shaking up the tree of life
randman writes:
And no, NeoDarwinism doesn't explain reality that well, but maybe we should stick more closely with the OP here and focus on it.
If you were really interested in staying on-topic you wouldn't be continuing your habit of issuing off-topic broadsides in the form of misinformation that can't be ignored and demands correction. If you're really sincere about staying on-topic, then when I again point out that you appear to have falsification backwards and that nothing in your reply corrects this impression, you'll propose a new thread instead of replying in this one.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by randman, posted 07-02-2008 2:49 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024