As was previously stated, "relatively optimal" would have been a better way to have put it. And it is "relatively optimal" by the criteria of survival.
The rest reminds me of that old joke of God to the dismissive genetic engineer asserting he can create life: "No. Get your own dirt."
"Totally random" presuming a fine-tuned planet capable of producing it, within a fine-tuned solar system capable of sustaining that environment on the Earth, within a fine-tuned universe within which the odds that intelligent life, rather than "spacetime goo" would be produced on the first-and-only "try" are vanishingly small.
And, of course, presuming that "random" is scientifically meaningful explanation. It isn't. And, that you have any idea what "better" would be, other than as a subjective floating abstraction. You don't.
... but if you wanna make it scientific, you do have to show me how you know this happened.
Well, no. Nobody knows which of the Interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, etc.) of QM "happen". They are all science. The are science by virtue of strong plausible inference from knowns.
Mainly, this one is winnable simply by observing actual scientists (or anyone working in a domain related to the sciences), and noting that nobody actually applies the same criteria to any other scientific arena that they apply specifically to anything reminding them of religion. Untested, and untestable premises abound in every field. The hypocrisy part of that fact isn't scientifically central, the fact "science" would be an unrecognizable hatchet job of itself, if the claimed criteria were actually applied to science in general, is. I prefer my scientific criteria to be such that science as we know it would still be possible if we accept it.
The problem is, you can't hypothesize that aliens participated in evolution without first establishing that aliens exist.
Watch me. I hypothesize that aliens participated in evolution. I have not yet established they exist. Similarly, I hypothesize that dark matter participates in the expansion of the universe. We have not yet established it exists. There you go. Fait accompli.
You have to establish the physical properties and nature of aliens empirically before you can actually do any inferences with them, otherwise they could do anything, they could have the power to rewrite your brain to make you think they created us when they didn't.
Er, no. That they might have such a conjectural power in no way means they don't have the power to do genetic design. In reality, though, you're making another argument that is shown unrealistic in light of current human-implemented design. You are doing the equivalent of saying, "But... you haven't established which geneticist. You haven't specified which tools he used. Which exact ones on the shelf. At what time, exactly. You haven't proven which room the genetic modification occurred in... how he was dressed...".
No, the geneticists have the assumed ability to perform the design, and you would not ask these questions in -that- case. It would be seen, even by you, as nonsensical blocking of the hypothesis that "the geneticists designed the animal". Same case here. Again, I demonstrate my point regarding your premise via that -you- don't believe your premise, for any circumstance or context other than when talking about something reminding you of a religious notion.
Here's the question though. What are the empirical knowns pertaining to alien or trans-dimensional beings, or their interference in evolution?
Biological structures that appear to be Irreducibly Complex, and are not yet specifically explained. One can argue as well that periods of history where massive unaccounted-for increases in genetic diversity occurred, such as the Cambrian Explosion, are also evidence, though in a less precisely-detailed way. There's two. N others may follow, presuming we maintain a degree of intellectual and scientific integrity and don't dismiss them before they're ever analyzed, because we don't like the potential implications.
Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving trans-dimensional beings, or ETs, or something else, and Earth's natural history? Or any hypothesis of any kind?
Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving -human- design, bearing in mind that present-day design is -fact-? You are given an animal, say, midway between the town's biggest farm and the town's genetic research facility. Form a testable hypothesis showing either of these is involved in explaining the animal's biological characteristics. You have the DNA available to you. Neither the farmer nor the research facility's staff recalls this animal specifically.
If you couldn't do it -presently-, with such an empirical immediacy available to you, how reasonable is that as a criterion for the distant past?
Rather, I suggest, we would address it inferentially, as this is a case, like the QM Interpretations, where there isn't a differentiating test. The inference that over billions of years some alien civilization has visited is not implausible. That another kind of being could have as well, is not implausible. Yes, I expect you to say it is implausible. As you are saying it, it will be perfectly clear in your own mind it is plausible, as you type otherwise.
People believed atoms existed for thousands of years. But atoms weren't actually science until people in the 19th century devised experiments to observe them; until then there was "Atomism," a branch of philosophy, and atoms were mystical, pseudoscientific entities.
Well, wholly wrong. Then, as now, inferential support for entities from empirical knowns is science. Witness the Higgs boson. This was most definitely science long before empirical observation was possible. Same with neutrinos. Same with quarks. It may not meet your scientific criteria, but that's because your scientific criteria is wrong.
Should the King of France have spent millions of francs trying to invent Leibniz's bomb?
Well, probably. That's why we had the Manhattan Project. And it was science.
You're original contention was that people say "only evolution happens," and I asked for a quote that gave it as "the only explanation," neither of your quotes actually say this.
The requested quote was given. Dawkins says it is doubtful that atheism is logically tenable without Darwin.
So you're not really saying anything about evolution, you're only beef is with how some people talk about evolution? It's just a rhetorical argument?
It's an argument that in the interests of science, we need to make scientifically-valid statements. That includes valid definitions, valid scoping, and valid inferences.
If you wanted to propose some kind of non-evolutionary mechanism that didn't involve people, that would actually make your argument make sense, otherwise it seems completely semantic.
Well, no, it doesn't seems completely semantic, even to you. But sure.
1. A superlatively knowledgable and capable trans-dimensional being
2. Extraterrestrial life
Which are not exclusive possibilities. Both would be scientifically interesting, and the possibility of further scientific evidence should not be discounted a priori. I say further, because apparently-IC structures are evidence. When you bring up that they aren't "proof" or because there's an alternate scenario, they aren't evidence at all rather than in fact evidence for both, they will remain exactly the evidence they are.
I've asked this like three times now and you demur every time, I don't think you're being completely honest about your position.
I have stated my position many times. I'm an advocate of directed evolution, overlapping in content with "ID" as it is known and politically smeared. There is no "sniping" or "smokescreens" going on, I want a falsifiable working definition of "evolution", or agreement that it is not falsifiable. As I said at the outset, that's essential for clarity of consideration of it within a scientific context. The rest of the content of the thread has resulted from sniping at my question.
Then surely producing one would be easy. How is a belief in atheism consistent with a belief that neo-Darwinian evolution is the only explanation for the origin of species? I don't think these are bound by logical inference.
"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
--Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
He seems to be binding them pretty directly here.
My position is that we know the influence of evolutionary processes directly to the degree we actually know them on the basis of evidence for their determination of the actual transition for which the evidence applies, and that saying more is contrary to science, for example, "all biological characteristics are due to evolutionary processes" or truly unscientific statements like "evolution is proven" are unscientific. Those statements are easily commonplace in direct statement and implication to justify a response to.
Who says they can be? Who thinks they must be? Nobody here would claim these are evolutionary. Did Dawkins?
Actually, I've directly had people here make precisely that torturous argument, that direct genetic manipulation is artificial selection. It didn't go well for them.
As for Dawkins:
"I suspect the reason is that most people... have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution."
So yes, he here directly says Darwinian evolution is causally sufficient to explain everything about life. But, it obviously isn't, and the notion is directly contradicted by scientific fact, in particular our own genetic engineering. That it is false across the scope of the topic isn't in question. The only thing in question is if there's a time window in which we can say it isn't false. I invite you to give an end date for that time window. Seriously. Month and year will do.
Ok... when did Dawkins say this? Or Sam Harris? Or Darwin, for that matter? I must say I find this point of contention completely unproductive and querulous, you've beaten this strawman to death!
Every assertion any of them has ever made connecting evolution with an argument for atheism is saying this. There would be thousands of such statements.
What exactly is "explicit genetic design"?
Fluorescent cats, spider-silk producing cows, to name a couple of popularized examples. They cannot be explained by evolutionary processes. They are explained by design. We know this for a fact because we did the designing. At what date in the past would you assert this becomes no longer the case, and by what means limited to the DNA at hand would you determine this?
Is the existence of design falsifiable? It seems like you probably should have lead with your belief that this exists, and then your justifications for it, because this is your actual positive claim, instead of just trying to bait everyone into discrediting an unrelated negative claim.
Why? I lead with the question that was my question, which I'm asking to solidify my view of the science of the matter. As for "negative claims" (IMHO a dubious kind of semantic classification), I am, as stated, precisely against the "negative claim" that causal factors not enumerated by mainline evolutionary theory are not causal factors. All -scientifically valid- claims that address particular evidence for particular cases of evolutionary processes occurring, and are not the non-sequitur "often, therefore always" (again, required for Dawkins et al, not for me) I have no issue with.
Who has made this assertion? Sure not TFA or really anyone else here. Or is this just your thing?
It has become the default assertion, mainly because it is required for the worldview stance of atheism, particularly as popularized by Dawkins et al. The only problem is that this non-sequitur to what is absolutely needed by them on a personal level, is wholly invalid logically and scientifically.
Fortunately, I don't have that constraint. I'm happy to acknowledge the evolutionary formation of particular biological species and structures to the actual degree science has actually supported it for that actual species or structure. That's valid science. Any evolutionary stance is compatible with my worldview. Only one, overextended, stance is compatible with certain others'.
As for your statement that you've provided criteria for falsification of evolution, again, I don't see how you're providing anything more specific than falsification of reproduction occurring per se. But that's the core of my question. How are we defining "evolution"? If it's simply "any change that happens by any means over time" then that is not falsifiable, and such a notion is hardly explicable only in terms of evolution.
You seem to be switching focus here, in a way that doesn't change the question at hand. I'm not contending reproduction doesn't happen, I'm contending that you have no way of differentiating morphological changes and similarities as a result of "evolutionary" processes from those of explicit genetic design. You provably can't do it today by reference to the DNA alone, when we're doing it ourselves, and there is no logical reason for that fact to change as we extend into the past with less and less direct data. I'm not contending that any particular proposed evolutionary process is relevant, I'm contending that by the time we enumerate all of them, absolutely anything that can happen is equally "evolution". That isn't validating "evolution" by evidence (or scoping it usefully), it's validating it by construction of a definition that includes everything that could possibly occur, in a way that doesn't really differentiate it from any other possible model.
So, yeah, in short, I am not "against" evolution. I am against unscientific overextensions and apparent misuse of the term, both for the sake of science and my own worldview.
Interesting. So evolution says it is an optimal solution given the constraints of the environment and the timeframe required, but you'll discard the conclusions of evolution in favor of your personal subjective context-dropping opinion, if it allows you to disparage the designer.
Do note, though, that to address one particular notion of that designer (the issues and value of the question remaining even if we consider it, say, some extraterrestrial intelligence), it is in no way stated Earthly physical "perfection" was intended or necessary, and such a criterion becomes quickly meaningless when applied to the wider biological domain, say, by attempting to determine what the "perfect animal" would even be. It's an illogical notion that can be endlessly goalpost-shifted. But then you probably already knew that, and that's why you're making the statement.
I am in absolute agreement than "evolution happens". I am in disagreement with the untestable assertion of "only evolution happens", which is the only form of the assertion most people of a certain worldview, particularly, say, fans of Dawkins, care about. They'll happily destroy valid science and the understanding of it as long as they can hope they are damaging religion in some way by doing so.
Falsifiability, when possible, is a very valuable attribute of any scientific theory, as I think is pretty-much universally agreed. I would also agree with you that it isn't always -essential-, and in fact many inferential models that aren't in themselves falsifiable are valuable (e.g. the current state of QM, some models of astrophysics, inference from non-repeatable historical events, etc.).
So, if the answer here is "evolution isn't falsifiable", that's a perfectly fine conclusion to me. I just find that equivocations of "evolution" and issues of falsifiability are presented in a way that overstates a particular notion of "evolution's" epistemological status beyond what is warranted. And I'm looking for clarification for myself that there isn't a strong counterargument to this position, which your response has rather strengthened my conclusion on.
No, you absolutely don't know it's not designed, and you have given no reason even to think so, other than there's reproduction and survival involved, which you somehow take as definitive on the matter.
Again, I can give you two animals, one which absolutely does have design as an explanation of its characteristics (say, fluorescent cats or spider-silk producing cows), unarguably, and one which may or may not, say a common farm animal. How, outside of the fact you happened to read about genetic engineers designing them, would you know one is designed and one is explained wholly by adaptation, other than sheer presumption of what you cannot in any way observe? You have DNA of the two animals. Tell me how, in the general case, you would know that one is designed, and the other is not, other than because it happened very recently and is common knowledge, a method that is -not- available to you with regard to the DNA of common animals. The issue here for you is that you can no longer just blankly assert "nothing is designed", because science has made that directly factually false by the fact we're doing it.
Did something, at some point in those billions of unobservable years, modify genes by means much like we do today? You have no idea. You have no possible way to have any idea.
Then you are saying all change is evolution, and all reproduction entails genetic change, so "evolution" as you've rendered it is functionally equivalent to "reproduction".
Nothing could falsify evolution that doesn't equivalently falsify simple reproduction. Not quite what I'm looking for.
Let me be clear, I am not against evolutionary processes being a very significant factor in genetic change, I am after a falsifiable definition of it. And the typical usage of "evolution can be anything, just make sure to insist there's no God" just isn't one.
The organism will ALWAYS adapt, it is simple logic.
Well, I'm glad you find it to be "simple logic", particularly since your claim is simply verifiably false.
If there is no genetic pathway to characteristics that will allow it to survive in the environment creating selection pressure, the organisms will simply all die. Maybe "not adapting = adapting" to you, but the question at hand is what set of characteristics we are considering "evolution" and a test for that.
A weird attempt at dodging and/or censorship, but I'm sure that you've been on Slashdot long enough to know that posting only within the narrow set of responses you imagine are framed by the story, is almost never the case here.
Because I'm in favor of actual science, rather than "no clear counterexamples found yet, therefore forever proven".
Biological change in what? An entire species, an individual, before he reproduces, after? What? Describe your experiment a bit better.
You are just restating my question. Give me the criteria for what you consider "evolution", and your test/experiment for that, by which it could in theory be falsified.
Well, yeah, my kind of "magic" would use a lot of science as well, specifically only requiring that on a quantum level, "random" (which is a non-explanation causally anyway) isn't entirely "random".
Consider it a potential universal back-door to all of reality, as a good engineer would naturally install up-front.
As for what I'm talking about, I'm talking about what you are referring to when you refer to it. Redirection doesn't seem to accomplish much here.
Slashdot Mirror
As was previously stated, "relatively optimal" would have been a better way to have put it. And it is "relatively optimal" by the criteria of survival.
The rest reminds me of that old joke of God to the dismissive genetic engineer asserting he can create life: "No. Get your own dirt."
"Totally random" presuming a fine-tuned planet capable of producing it, within a fine-tuned solar system capable of sustaining that environment on the Earth, within a fine-tuned universe within which the odds that intelligent life, rather than "spacetime goo" would be produced on the first-and-only "try" are vanishingly small.
And, of course, presuming that "random" is scientifically meaningful explanation. It isn't. And, that you have any idea what "better" would be, other than as a subjective floating abstraction. You don't.
...when the observed facts don't require one, then it's on you to prove your claim.
Not in any way.
Try that with the Interpretations of QM.
I'm talking about science here, not Judge Judy.
And, to state it up front, it is your claim that is "extraordinary". Mine's the ordinary one, by sizable statistical preponderance.
... but if you wanna make it scientific, you do have to show me how you know this happened.
Well, no. Nobody knows which of the Interpretations (Copenhagen, Many-Worlds, etc.) of QM "happen". They are all science. The are science by virtue of strong plausible inference from knowns.
Mainly, this one is winnable simply by observing actual scientists (or anyone working in a domain related to the sciences), and noting that nobody actually applies the same criteria to any other scientific arena that they apply specifically to anything reminding them of religion. Untested, and untestable premises abound in every field. The hypocrisy part of that fact isn't scientifically central, the fact "science" would be an unrecognizable hatchet job of itself, if the claimed criteria were actually applied to science in general, is. I prefer my scientific criteria to be such that science as we know it would still be possible if we accept it.
The problem is, you can't hypothesize that aliens participated in evolution without first establishing that aliens exist.
Watch me. I hypothesize that aliens participated in evolution. I have not yet established they exist. Similarly, I hypothesize that dark matter participates in the expansion of the universe. We have not yet established it exists. There you go. Fait accompli.
You have to establish the physical properties and nature of aliens empirically before you can actually do any inferences with them, otherwise they could do anything, they could have the power to rewrite your brain to make you think they created us when they didn't.
Er, no. That they might have such a conjectural power in no way means they don't have the power to do genetic design. In reality, though, you're making another argument that is shown unrealistic in light of current human-implemented design. You are doing the equivalent of saying, "But... you haven't established which geneticist. You haven't specified which tools he used. Which exact ones on the shelf. At what time, exactly. You haven't proven which room the genetic modification occurred in... how he was dressed...".
No, the geneticists have the assumed ability to perform the design, and you would not ask these questions in -that- case. It would be seen, even by you, as nonsensical blocking of the hypothesis that "the geneticists designed the animal". Same case here. Again, I demonstrate my point regarding your premise via that -you- don't believe your premise, for any circumstance or context other than when talking about something reminding you of a religious notion.
Here's the question though. What are the empirical knowns pertaining to alien or trans-dimensional beings, or their interference in evolution?
Biological structures that appear to be Irreducibly Complex, and are not yet specifically explained. One can argue as well that periods of history where massive unaccounted-for increases in genetic diversity occurred, such as the Cambrian Explosion, are also evidence, though in a less precisely-detailed way. There's two. N others may follow, presuming we maintain a degree of intellectual and scientific integrity and don't dismiss them before they're ever analyzed, because we don't like the potential implications.
Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving trans-dimensional beings, or ETs, or something else, and Earth's natural history? Or any hypothesis of any kind?
Can you construct a falsifiable hypothesis involving -human- design, bearing in mind that present-day design is -fact-? You are given an animal, say, midway between the town's biggest farm and the town's genetic research facility. Form a testable hypothesis showing either of these is involved in explaining the animal's biological characteristics. You have the DNA available to you. Neither the farmer nor the research facility's staff recalls this animal specifically.
If you couldn't do it -presently-, with such an empirical immediacy available to you, how reasonable is that as a criterion for the distant past?
Rather, I suggest, we would address it inferentially, as this is a case, like the QM Interpretations, where there isn't a differentiating test. The inference that over billions of years some alien civilization has visited is not implausible. That another kind of being could have as well, is not implausible. Yes, I expect you to say it is implausible. As you are saying it, it will be perfectly clear in your own mind it is plausible, as you type otherwise.
People believed atoms existed for thousands of years. But atoms weren't actually science until people in the 19th century devised experiments to observe them; until then there was "Atomism," a branch of philosophy, and atoms were mystical, pseudoscientific entities.
Well, wholly wrong. Then, as now, inferential support for entities from empirical knowns is science. Witness the Higgs boson. This was most definitely science long before empirical observation was possible. Same with neutrinos. Same with quarks. It may not meet your scientific criteria, but that's because your scientific criteria is wrong.
Should the King of France have spent millions of francs trying to invent Leibniz's bomb?
Well, probably. That's why we had the Manhattan Project. And it was science.
Your position is pseudoscience.
No. Your scoping of science is pseudoscience.
You're original contention was that people say "only evolution happens," and I asked for a quote that gave it as "the only explanation," neither of your quotes actually say this.
The requested quote was given. Dawkins says it is doubtful that atheism is logically tenable without Darwin.
So you're not really saying anything about evolution, you're only beef is with how some people talk about evolution? It's just a rhetorical argument?
It's an argument that in the interests of science, we need to make scientifically-valid statements. That includes valid definitions, valid scoping, and valid inferences.
If you wanted to propose some kind of non-evolutionary mechanism that didn't involve people, that would actually make your argument make sense, otherwise it seems completely semantic.
Well, no, it doesn't seems completely semantic, even to you. But sure.
1. A superlatively knowledgable and capable trans-dimensional being
2. Extraterrestrial life
Which are not exclusive possibilities. Both would be scientifically interesting, and the possibility of further scientific evidence should not be discounted a priori. I say further, because apparently-IC structures are evidence. When you bring up that they aren't "proof" or because there's an alternate scenario, they aren't evidence at all rather than in fact evidence for both, they will remain exactly the evidence they are.
I've asked this like three times now and you demur every time, I don't think you're being completely honest about your position.
I have stated my position many times. I'm an advocate of directed evolution, overlapping in content with "ID" as it is known and politically smeared. There is no "sniping" or "smokescreens" going on, I want a falsifiable working definition of "evolution", or agreement that it is not falsifiable. As I said at the outset, that's essential for clarity of consideration of it within a scientific context. The rest of the content of the thread has resulted from sniping at my question.
Then surely producing one would be easy. How is a belief in atheism consistent with a belief that neo-Darwinian evolution is the only explanation for the origin of species? I don't think these are bound by logical inference.
... have a residue of feeling that Darwinian evolution isn't quite big enough to explain everything about life. All I can say as a biologist is that the feeling disappears progressively the more you read about and study what is known about life and evolution."
"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
--Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker
He seems to be binding them pretty directly here.
My position is that we know the influence of evolutionary processes directly to the degree we actually know them on the basis of evidence for their determination of the actual transition for which the evidence applies, and that saying more is contrary to science, for example, "all biological characteristics are due to evolutionary processes" or truly unscientific statements like "evolution is proven" are unscientific. Those statements are easily commonplace in direct statement and implication to justify a response to.
Who says they can be? Who thinks they must be? Nobody here would claim these are evolutionary. Did Dawkins?
Actually, I've directly had people here make precisely that torturous argument, that direct genetic manipulation is artificial selection. It didn't go well for them.
As for Dawkins:
"I suspect the reason is that most people
So yes, he here directly says Darwinian evolution is causally sufficient to explain everything about life. But, it obviously isn't, and the notion is directly contradicted by scientific fact, in particular our own genetic engineering. That it is false across the scope of the topic isn't in question. The only thing in question is if there's a time window in which we can say it isn't false. I invite you to give an end date for that time window. Seriously. Month and year will do.
Ok... when did Dawkins say this? Or Sam Harris? Or Darwin, for that matter? I must say I find this point of contention completely unproductive and querulous, you've beaten this strawman to death!
Every assertion any of them has ever made connecting evolution with an argument for atheism is saying this. There would be thousands of such statements.
What exactly is "explicit genetic design"?
Fluorescent cats, spider-silk producing cows, to name a couple of popularized examples. They cannot be explained by evolutionary processes. They are explained by design. We know this for a fact because we did the designing. At what date in the past would you assert this becomes no longer the case, and by what means limited to the DNA at hand would you determine this?
Is the existence of design falsifiable? It seems like you probably should have lead with your belief that this exists, and then your justifications for it, because this is your actual positive claim, instead of just trying to bait everyone into discrediting an unrelated negative claim.
Why? I lead with the question that was my question, which I'm asking to solidify my view of the science of the matter. As for "negative claims" (IMHO a dubious kind of semantic classification), I am, as stated, precisely against the "negative claim" that causal factors not enumerated by mainline evolutionary theory are not causal factors. All -scientifically valid- claims that address particular evidence for particular cases of evolutionary processes occurring, and are not the non-sequitur "often, therefore always" (again, required for Dawkins et al, not for me) I have no issue with.
Fine, if you prefer, "relatively optimal".
The "absolute optimal" is the thing that doesn't biologically exist, that the person I was replying to is proposing to use as his baseline.
Who has made this assertion? Sure not TFA or really anyone else here. Or is this just your thing?
It has become the default assertion, mainly because it is required for the worldview stance of atheism, particularly as popularized by Dawkins et al. The only problem is that this non-sequitur to what is absolutely needed by them on a personal level, is wholly invalid logically and scientifically.
Fortunately, I don't have that constraint. I'm happy to acknowledge the evolutionary formation of particular biological species and structures to the actual degree science has actually supported it for that actual species or structure. That's valid science. Any evolutionary stance is compatible with my worldview. Only one, overextended, stance is compatible with certain others'.
As for your statement that you've provided criteria for falsification of evolution, again, I don't see how you're providing anything more specific than falsification of reproduction occurring per se. But that's the core of my question. How are we defining "evolution"? If it's simply "any change that happens by any means over time" then that is not falsifiable, and such a notion is hardly explicable only in terms of evolution.
You seem to be switching focus here, in a way that doesn't change the question at hand. I'm not contending reproduction doesn't happen, I'm contending that you have no way of differentiating morphological changes and similarities as a result of "evolutionary" processes from those of explicit genetic design. You provably can't do it today by reference to the DNA alone, when we're doing it ourselves, and there is no logical reason for that fact to change as we extend into the past with less and less direct data. I'm not contending that any particular proposed evolutionary process is relevant, I'm contending that by the time we enumerate all of them, absolutely anything that can happen is equally "evolution". That isn't validating "evolution" by evidence (or scoping it usefully), it's validating it by construction of a definition that includes everything that could possibly occur, in a way that doesn't really differentiate it from any other possible model.
So, yeah, in short, I am not "against" evolution. I am against unscientific overextensions and apparent misuse of the term, both for the sake of science and my own worldview.
Ask me that again in 150 years.
In short, though...
Methodological Naturalism: Good
Philosophical Naturalism: Bad
Good enough for a model where you're explicitly not identifying all the causal factors.
You can't, however, have it both ways.
Interesting. So evolution says it is an optimal solution given the constraints of the environment and the timeframe required, but you'll discard the conclusions of evolution in favor of your personal subjective context-dropping opinion, if it allows you to disparage the designer.
Do note, though, that to address one particular notion of that designer (the issues and value of the question remaining even if we consider it, say, some extraterrestrial intelligence), it is in no way stated Earthly physical "perfection" was intended or necessary, and such a criterion becomes quickly meaningless when applied to the wider biological domain, say, by attempting to determine what the "perfect animal" would even be. It's an illogical notion that can be endlessly goalpost-shifted. But then you probably already knew that, and that's why you're making the statement.
No a random side does not come up. The outcome is totally determined by the initial conditions and the physics involved in he coin toss.
That's pseudo-random, which is the reality of most cases of apparent "randomness" we observe.
If you're going to use it as a core component of a causal -explanation-, though, much more detail is warranted.
What are the causal factors that determine a particular result of the "random" mutations, or is it in fact not random?
"Random" is not an explanation. "Random" is a placeholder-word for an absence of an explanation.
Well, to clarify a few points...
I am in absolute agreement than "evolution happens". I am in disagreement with the untestable assertion of "only evolution happens", which is the only form of the assertion most people of a certain worldview, particularly, say, fans of Dawkins, care about. They'll happily destroy valid science and the understanding of it as long as they can hope they are damaging religion in some way by doing so.
Falsifiability, when possible, is a very valuable attribute of any scientific theory, as I think is pretty-much universally agreed. I would also agree with you that it isn't always -essential-, and in fact many inferential models that aren't in themselves falsifiable are valuable (e.g. the current state of QM, some models of astrophysics, inference from non-repeatable historical events, etc.).
So, if the answer here is "evolution isn't falsifiable", that's a perfectly fine conclusion to me. I just find that equivocations of "evolution" and issues of falsifiability are presented in a way that overstates a particular notion of "evolution's" epistemological status beyond what is warranted. And I'm looking for clarification for myself that there isn't a strong counterargument to this position, which your response has rather strengthened my conclusion on.
No, you absolutely don't know it's not designed, and you have given no reason even to think so, other than there's reproduction and survival involved, which you somehow take as definitive on the matter.
Again, I can give you two animals, one which absolutely does have design as an explanation of its characteristics (say, fluorescent cats or spider-silk producing cows), unarguably, and one which may or may not, say a common farm animal. How, outside of the fact you happened to read about genetic engineers designing them, would you know one is designed and one is explained wholly by adaptation, other than sheer presumption of what you cannot in any way observe? You have DNA of the two animals. Tell me how, in the general case, you would know that one is designed, and the other is not, other than because it happened very recently and is common knowledge, a method that is -not- available to you with regard to the DNA of common animals. The issue here for you is that you can no longer just blankly assert "nothing is designed", because science has made that directly factually false by the fact we're doing it.
Did something, at some point in those billions of unobservable years, modify genes by means much like we do today? You have no idea. You have no possible way to have any idea.
Thanks for the silly characterization. Hopefully you'll learn the difference between that and science and actual arguments someday.
Okay, explain how "random" is not "booga-booga", then.
Glad you're taking it.
Then you are saying all change is evolution, and all reproduction entails genetic change, so "evolution" as you've rendered it is functionally equivalent to "reproduction".
Nothing could falsify evolution that doesn't equivalently falsify simple reproduction. Not quite what I'm looking for.
Let me be clear, I am not against evolutionary processes being a very significant factor in genetic change, I am after a falsifiable definition of it. And the typical usage of "evolution can be anything, just make sure to insist there's no God" just isn't one.
And what would we "look" for if any and all forms of change are "evolution"?
The organism will ALWAYS adapt, it is simple logic.
Well, I'm glad you find it to be "simple logic", particularly since your claim is simply verifiably false.
If there is no genetic pathway to characteristics that will allow it to survive in the environment creating selection pressure, the organisms will simply all die. Maybe "not adapting = adapting" to you, but the question at hand is what set of characteristics we are considering "evolution" and a test for that.
Nice try.
A weird attempt at dodging and/or censorship, but I'm sure that you've been on Slashdot long enough to know that posting only within the narrow set of responses you imagine are framed by the story, is almost never the case here.
Why can't you?
Because I'm in favor of actual science, rather than "no clear counterexamples found yet, therefore forever proven".
Biological change in what? An entire species, an individual, before he reproduces, after? What? Describe your experiment a bit better.
You are just restating my question. Give me the criteria for what you consider "evolution", and your test/experiment for that, by which it could in theory be falsified.
And that being falsifiable has nothing to do with evolution being falsifiable.
Evolution is the theory that such selection mechanisms explain -all- variation, over -all- biological history.
"Often, therefore always"?
Your "test" is akin to saying all animals have two legs, looking at the guy next to you, and considering your theory unfalsified.
You are claiming that all organisms will adapt under selection pressure, under testable timeframes?
This is absolutely false.
Well, yeah, my kind of "magic" would use a lot of science as well, specifically only requiring that on a quantum level, "random" (which is a non-explanation causally anyway) isn't entirely "random".
Consider it a potential universal back-door to all of reality, as a good engineer would naturally install up-front.
As for what I'm talking about, I'm talking about what you are referring to when you refer to it. Redirection doesn't seem to accomplish much here.
So, you choose to define it in a way even more unfalsifiable.
Great for you, I guess, but that doesn't really address the question.