Theophage

For a bit of perspective, go to this thread:

<a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000035&p=1" target="_blank">http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=56&t=000035&p=1</a>

and read the interaction bewteen me and Kharakov regarding empirical evidence for consciousness. Apparently the behavior of other people is not empirical evidence that they too are conscious

[ January 30, 2002: Message edited by: Theophage ]</p>

Boro Nut

Don't try it Morpho. Train security has imporved imensely of late. Even Ronny Biggs regrets it now.

scigirl

Very nice oolon,

expect much plagiarism now!

scigirl

Kharakov

Apparently you think empirical evidence shows anything about whether something is conscious or not.

Kharakov

The statement you just made is falsifiable. You can use empirical data to show whether or not the train arrives in the amount of time stated. The statement "That which survives is that which is most suited for survival" is not falsifiable because when anything survives it is suited for survival.

That which goes extinct is not suited for survival/reproduction.

That which survives is suited for survival and reproduction.

The only way we can tell if something is suited for survival/reproduction is if it survives- thus anything alive today has meet these criteria.

All of these statements about "that which is most suited to survive and reproduce" also point towards a common ancestor that was able to survive and reproduce.

I am not surprised that creationists and evolutionists share common ancestry. I am surprised that evolutionists do not consider atoms (or quarks or photons...) alive- because they are our common ancestors (if you really think hard you would realize this), and these ancestors never ever die- they just change form .

Corey Hammer

By the way, falsifiability is not really a good criterion anymore. While often good, testability actually is a better measure of the theory, especially since some fields (e.g. archeology) make predictions about specific events that are not really falsifiable.

...and...

You said:

I responded that you look and see if they are there. If they are not, then theory is falsified.

How about something more specific:

Take a population with a gene that has two alleles, X & Y. Measure the distribution of alleles in one situation then recolonize a random portion of the population to a different environment that favors one of the alleles. Wait a bit...then later check the distribution of X vs Y to see if it is different from the original population. If it isn't then, the hypothesis is falsified. Happy?

[ February 01, 2002: Message edited by: Corey Hammer ]</p>

Peez

You may call that a theory, but I call it a poor description of one part of a theory. Natural selection is pretty straight-forward at its simplest level: certain traits may increase the probability that an individual will reproduce successfully in a population (there is more to it than that, but that does capture the essence). It is important to note that this does not guarantee evolution. Only if the trait is, at least to some extent, genetically determined, would it be expected to result in evolution (again, it can be more complex than that, but let's leave it there for now). So, we are saying that if there is natural selection favouring a trait, and if that trait is at least partly genetically determined, we expect an increase in the proportion of individuals with that trait in subsequent generations. There is nothing mysterious about this, it is straightforward and obvious. You can argue that it is tautological, but this does not change the fact that it is simply true. But it is not the theory of evolution.

The theory of evolution, stated as simply as I can make it, is that mutation, genetic drift, and natural selection are the mechanisms by which populations have evolved the way they have (and continue to evolve). Note that "natural selection" is not a theory, but as a proposed explanation for the observed patterns of evolution it is part of a theory. Note also that the observed pattern of evolution is not a theory either (or even part of one). The observed pattern of evolution is just that: an observed pattern. It is what we scientists call a "fact." It is this fact that the theory of evolution (and no other scientific theory to date) addresses.

Peez

tgamble

[cretinist]

No, evolution is not falseifiable. It's a satanic religion that can't be proven wrong.

However, the 2nd law of thermodynamics shows that it's impossible.[/cretinist]

Kharakov

Testability, I like it .

If your hypothesis is that making the environment more suited for one of the genotypes is going to make that genotype more successful- isn't that just a little bit obvious? There is no way that it (the success of the favored genotype) couldn't occur (unless the experimental conditions weren't controlled very well).

I guess I just don't understand how things couldn't work that way- that the most suited organism is the one that survives. This is true, just by the nature of the statement. So how can someone argue against it? Is there any rational argument against it?

Asha'man

Check out the <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=8&t=000008" target="_blank"> Scigirl/Douglas Bender debate </a>.

Douglas seemed to question things such as the struggle for survival, and the restriction of limited resources. I can’t speak much for the “how” part of your question, but his argument against it didn’t seem particularly rational to me.