>Walter, you have rejected all attempts Loren brought forward to show how a
>model of natural selection can lead to certain predictions about nature. It
>is incumbent upon you to explain what sort of testability you would accept.
I wish to avoid yet another evolutionary dodge. I already how it goes, like
this. Switch the subject away from the testability of evolution. Get
Walter talking about HIS view of testability. Diddle around for while.
Parry and thrust for a while. Then eventually announce that you don't
subscribe to "Walter's view of testability". The issue of the testability
of evolution -- as always -- gets left by the wayside. The ol' switcher-oo.
Let me save time. It doesn't matter what you think of me, or my views. It
doesn't even matter what creationists think on this one. Leading
evolutionists and scientific organizations used the testability issue in
court cases against creation theory. They put their names to it. And they
are obliged to apply the same criteria to evolutionary theory. No double
standards.
All roads lead back there. So no more dodges ... please.
>At this juncture, I am not interested in what leading evolutionists and
>scientific organization would say. Just be straight with us here.
I sense that Steve is sincerely interested in my views here, (and in giving
them a good kicking around!) Which is all fair, and part of the fun! I'll
venture to offer my views. Just don't forget what I said above, okay.
In my view there are many independent tests of evolution, and evolution has
failed them. Let me list some. There is the systematic absences of:
Demonstrations of the naturalistic origin of life
Extraterrestrial life
Demonstrations of evolution that span the gaps
in life's pattern
Demonstrations of "convergent evolution" of the
magnitude we see in nature
Clear-cut ancestors and lineages -- a REAL phylogeny
Potent evolutionary mechanisms, such as Lamarkian
inheritance, widespread transposition and atavism
Let me add the following problems:
The theoretical and experimental failures to explain the
origin and maintenance of sexual reproduction
(i.e. recombination), diploidy, and genetic systems in
general
The failure of evolutionary genetics to provide a coherent
model that can solve substantial existing problems,
such as: Haldane's Dilemma, the highly inert genome,
and error catastrophe
The tendency for abrupt appearances of fully formed
fossil groups
The structure of the fossil record tends to 'self-authenticate'
itself, thereby preventing evolutionists (such as the
punctuationists) from invoking rampant
"incompleteness" of the fossil record.
These are not piecemeal difficulties. They represent a broad failure of
evolutionary theory. But that is my view.
Evolutionists look at this and say "See, this is Science, we never have all
the answers. We don't start with perfection" and they make lots of excuses.
Evolutionists regard their theory as "fact", not falsified. Their view, not
mine, sets the standard for their theory. Is evolution falsified, or
unfalsifiable? Either way, it has no grip on reality. Either way it is not
science. If pressed for a categorization, I say evolution is unfalsifiable,
as that is its essential character as practiced by its proponents.
Walter ReMine
P.O. Box 28006
Saint Paul, MN 55128