WinAce

Any BS here (as if I don't already know the answer) that needs correcting? I'd do it meself, but posting anything long on a Palm Pilot is hard.

Happy Wonderer

This is a complete conflation of two different arguments and is fairly dishonest, IMO.

The "mechanism" argument comes from the question about kinds. Some creationists assert that some evolution (microevolution) is allowed, but that you will never see a creature evolve past the "kind" boundary. The response is "what mechanism keeps this from happening?" IOW, unless you can show that there is some reason that micro-evolution can't become macro-evolution, there is no reason to assume that such a boundary exists.

This has nothing to do with whether evolution can be falsified. For a list of things that could falsify evolution, just go to any creationist website and look at their claims...

HW

Edit: on reflection, my description of the "kind" argument isn't completely accurate. We could observe a process boundary without knowing why such a boundary exists. However I'm hard-pressed to come up with an example of how we could observe such a limit in the fossil record. Evidence that all known "kinds" existed at the beginning would be suggestive but not proof.

Principia

Fallacy ad Dumbski -- which entails a) providing anectodal evidence that attempts to mischaracterize an opponent's statement, without providing the primary source; b) pretending that there is non-existent evidence which falsifies evolution, and then using it to argue that scientists are dogmatically rejecting it -- in this case, Dougie merely assumes that there is in fact an adequate probabilistic model that rejects evolution. Ask him to give it to ya, and tear it apart like you would any of Dougie's arguments. Falsficationism, last I checked, doesn't mean that there must exist evidence to discredit evolution. Creatos are perfect evidence that evolution is falsifiable -- except that they keep failing.

The recommended course of action, imo, to a Dougie fallacy is a healthy dose of argumentum ad dumbass: Just put up all of the links that show Dougie is a mental nut case. EDIT: Here's an idea. Test his understanding of falsifiability by asking him to defend that one of his many "prophecies" is never false. Or ask him under what circumstances a literal Genesis is false.