There is no coherent definition of species based on phenotype.
Thank you for the correction. Not sure how that could have been confused with me, but thank you for correcting that incorrect attribution.
1 Like
Nope, but if there is a scientific ToE it would say as quantification is fundamental to science. You say the equation is for natural selection- what does it show NS can do?
BTW no one knows what makes a human a human which is just one reason universal common descent is untestable
You would have some credibility if you acknowledged that ID is at least as untestable as TOE…
But you can’t bring yourself to say it… while ignoring all the testable parts of TOE.
George, what ToE? No one has been able to link to it. ID is testable and IDists have said exactly how to test it.
Strange that no one can link to this alleged theory which means whatever they say about it is useless and meaningless.
What are you looking for? Is this seminal work by Darwin himself not good enough for you?
http://darwin-online.org.uk/converted/pdf/1861_OriginNY_F382.pdf
1 Like
That isn’t a scientific theory. He never says how to test his claims and he was ignorant of most of biology.
Wikipedia isn’t even a valid academic resource. Try again
People talking about “evolution” doesn’t make it a scientific theory. Neither Wikipedia nor talk origins have a citation for the actual theory- gee why is that?
That’s an intellectually dishonest statement. The article to which I linked is thoroughly and robustly referenced from the relevant literature. Additionally, I gave you a second link to a page which likewise contains numerous quotations from the literature. You didn’t even comment on that. So once again we see what happens; you ask for X, people give you X, and you claim it doesn’t exist.
That’s not what you were given.
That isn’t true either. Both of them give citations for the theory. The Wikipedia article even describes it in summary form, presenting every different part of the theory.
Darwin did indeed explain how his claims could be tested. He explained them in such detail that later scientists were able to test them and either falsify or verify them.
1 Like
Wikipedia admits it isn’t an academic resource and it does NOT reference the actual theory. Talk origins doesn’t reference the actual theory either. You don’t know what a scientific theory entails
Then you shouldn’t have any problem posting those citations
Nonsense- he was ignorant of most of biology. And his falsification requires one to prove a negative
Wikipedia:Academic use - Wikipedia “Wikipedia is not considered a credible source.”
But I strongly suspect that Swamidass was citing the whole paper, not the abstract. 
Darwin’s work does NOT contain the alleged predictions of the ToE that have been posted in this thread.
I’ve already explained this. Wikipedia cites academic references, and it explains the modern theory of evolution point by point. I even linked it for you.
Yes it does.
I already posted them; they’re in the links I gave. Here are just two.
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986
- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974
Irrelevant. He explained in detail how his theory could be verified or falsified.
No it doesn’t. Scientists have already falsified some of his claims. Others have been verified.
So what? The academic sources cited in the article are credible sources. Here are the three citations for the theory of evolution as described by the modern evolutionary synthesis.
-
Huxley, Julian (2010) [Originally published 1942]. Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. With a new foreword by Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller (Definitive ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-51366-1. LCCN 2009014111. OCLC 317824678.
-
Mayr, Ernst; Provine, William B., eds. (1998) [Originally published 1980]. The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology. With a new preface by Ernst Mayr (1st Harvard University Press pbk. ed.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-27226-9. LCCN 98157613. OCLC 851069127.
-
Mayr, Ernst (1982). The Growth of Biological Thought: Diversity, Evolution, and Inheritance. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-36445-7. LCCN 81013204. OCLC 7875904.
1 Like
No, he did not. If you disagree then post what he said on how to test the claim the eye evolved. Seeing we still don’t know the details this will be interesting
Darwin on falsifying his claims:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” [Darwin1859, pg. 175].
See- that is asking one to prove a negative
And those books don’t contain a scientific theory and they sure as heck don’t contain the predictions of the ToE posted in this thread.
So they authored the ToE- is that your claim?
Of course he did. That’s why scientists have falsified or verified his claims. Have you actually read what he wrote?
Well IDers believe they have already falsified this very statement, so please explain it to them. You’re claiming that the IDers are talking nonsense. You could falsify this claim even as stated, by showing that even an evolutionary process would take more time than necessary to evolve the organ (that’s one approach taken by IDers, though unsuccessfully). Anyway you can also equally falsify it by proving a positive, by providing evidence that these specific complex organs were designed. You know what is asking someone to prove a negative? The argument from irreducible complexity. Additionally, there are many other ways of falsifying evolution, like finding a rabbit in the Cambrian layer, or finding genetic evidence which disproves universal common descent.
Clearly you haven’t read them.
That is not my claim. You are deliberately ignoring what I wrote, and deliberately misrepresenting me.
What an interesting comment. You ask a question, assume an answer (which is wrong) and then make a statement in the form of a question based on your wrong answer. Im not sure there is much point in continuing, but the fact is that we know exactly how many mutations it took to evolve a human from a non human. Plenty of literature on that. Google it on Pubmed. As for being able to predict using the formula, yes, as long as all the information is known. The formula has been very predictable when such information is known. Much like Schoedinger’s equation, which has been confirmed as the correct theory of quantum physics, and which cannot generally be solved for large atoms. As I said, (and as Joshua reiterated) this is the basic formula related to population genetics, there are many more complex derivations of the theory that explain more details.
What you (and to some extent, GJDS) need to understand is that biology is notoriously immune to simple mathematical analysis, which is why so many formulations of the ToE are textual. I provided this equation to you to demonstrate the error of your initial statement, and others have greatly amplified on that. If you want to persist in your mistake, that is your right. I dont see much point in continuing. Happy Christmas.
3 Likes