> Jim writes:
> >Tom Moore asserts that Punk Eek is testable
>
> [clip]
> ><<Indeed, you can also conduct experiments on related
> >issues, such as isolation, and preservation, etc. All of these
> >experiments have been attempted. Take for example:
> >
> >
> >Malmgren, B.A., Berggren, W.A., and Lohmann, G.P., 1984, Species
> >formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera:
> >Science, v. 225, p. 317-319.
> >
> >Here is the abstract:
> >
> >"Analysis of evolutionary changes in a 10-million-year long Late Neogene
> >lineage of planktonic foraminifera>>
>
> JB
> >This is NOT an experiment!
>
> Depends on how you define experiment. I define it as testing an hypothesis
> and according to this definition, analysis of natural data in the absence of
> any manipulation of the conditions is an experiment. This analysis provides
> data to test the hypthesis, and the data obtained from such an analysis can
> lead to refutation of the hypothesis.
>
> To only accept data obtained from instances in which conditions are
> deliberately manipulated in a controlled fashion is a restricted philosophy
> of science.
>
agreed
> JB
> >Their conclusion is this:
> >
> ><<The lineage was in stasis over a considerable part of its
> >total duration but underwent relatively rapid, but not geologically
> >instantaneous, gradual morphologic change that did not lead to lineage
> >splitting. The term punctuated gradualism is suggested for this
> >evolutionary modality.>>
> >
> >Is this an accurate quotation? Because if it is, it is scientific gobbletygook
> >of the most egregious kind. Leave out the parenthetical statement and you have
> >the authors arguing for:
> >
> >"relatively rapid gradual morphologic change."
> >
> >Just when is something "rapidly gradual"?
>
> It can also be restated as "rapid continuous change." Gradual means
> continuous, and says nothing about how fast. You can have rapid and slow
> changes that occur gradually as opposed to incrementally. I don't see the
> problem with the language here.
Nor do I. I think Jim is just clutching on to this unfalsifiability
thing. It's clear that they rejected pure punk eek based on the data.
If punk eek was unfalsifiable, they couldn't have rejected it.
Tom