That was not the question before the house! The question was, 'Could
evolution be falsified?' What I suggested above certainly would do that.
The question I was answering was NOT 'Can we explain absolutely everything
about evolution?' That is and always will be a decided 'no'. The two
questions are different. Evolution CAN be falsified, but the observational
data doesn't falsify it.
>All evolutionary mechanisms eventually come down to natural selection, or
some
>minor variation of it. How does NS bring about all the changes from the
>Cambrian explosion to the present time? I'm particularly interested in
how NS
>accounts for the problem of origins. How does NS account for the origin of
>major innovations, such as phyletic body plans and major morphological
>novelties, and the origin of the process of transition, e.g., from aquatic to
>terrestrial forms and from terrestrial to aquatic forms? Why did these new
>forms ever get started? How about the origin of life itself? I don't expect
>you to answer these questions. They illustrate problems that are still on
>evolution's "to-do" list, IMHO, if evolution is to be considered a reasonably
>complete and valid theory.
One can do this with almost any theory and end up saying that we know
nothing about everything. How does Gravity cause bodies to attract?
Gravitons? Then how do gravitons move? What keeps them going at the speed
of light? What IS a graviton? Are there other particles that make up
gravitons, in other words is a graviton a composite particle? etc. etc. etc.
This technique is a bit like the child that always asks why. One can
always say we don't know everthing, but that doesn't mean we know nothing.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm