>> Evolution falls outside Popper's boundaries and can not be
>> handled by Science as he knows it. It can of course be
>> handled by religion of whatever shape and form one wishes to
>> create to defend it and explain it. Puddles of primordial
>> goop or young earth divine Creator are equally good religious
>> views as a starting point. One or the other is more likely to
>> correspond to what really happened, but that's not the point.

> Eh? So you don't feel that the breeding of animals or plants to 
> produce new
> strains, behaviors, traits, is evolution on the short term?
>
> How exactly is it that we are NOT able to see the effects of 
> evolution and
> test the hypothesis to prove or disprove it? I thought that we had 
> pretty
> much tested it to death.

Just off off to  for the day. new old MR2 to try out - but not the 
reason for the trip.

"natural selection" is hard science. Tested, works, passes all the 
tests. Models are good and we don't expect them to break any time 
soon.

Speciation by random mutation (using natural selection as it's engine) 
is TOTALLY different, is not within Popperian Science and attracts 
very strong religious positions by those who do not recognise this to 
be the case. Evolution *MAY* be a good model of what happened (and may 
not) but falls outside hard science. As does divine creation. Neither 
is wrong or bad as a  consequence of this - both MAY be wrong or bad, 
but that';s not the issue. It's just neither is covered by the good 
science that our children may be hoped to learn. if we try to insist 
that either be  based on Popperian science we lose. And so do our 
children.


        RM

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist