John VanSickle wrote:
> Except when they're talking about whether there's a God.  Then absence 
> of evidence--and evidence then is defined to exclude any observation 
> that cannot be duplicated--*is* evidence of absence.

Absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence, tho. Basic probability theory. 
Which is more unlikely: The unicorn you don't see is in the room, or the 
unicorn you *do* see is in the room?

> On the other hand, it is a valid criticism of a theory to point out that 
> it does not explain certain observations, and that at times biologists 
> explain the existence of a certain feature by stating nothing more than 
> that it evolved.

"Failure to explain an observation" is quite different from "theory's 
prediction contradicts observation". In any case, "it evolved" is an 
explanation that's disprovable.

> Indeed, neither abiogenesis nor macroevolution have actually been 
> observed in nature (or accomplished in the laboratory);

Abiogenesis has been accomplished in the lab now. Macroevolution is easy to 
observe in the lab as well.

Unfortunately, those who wish to continue disbelieving proof will dismiss 
both with the True Scotsman argument.

> they are both 
> assumed to have happened without any direct supporting evidence.

The direct supporting evidence for abiogenesis is "life is here now, life 
wasn't here 1 second after the big bang."  :-)

The supporting evidence for macroevolution is legion. Including all the 
fossils, for example.

-- 
   Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Ouch ouch ouch!"
   "What's wrong? Noodles too hot?"
   "No, I have Chopstick Tunnel Syndrome."

Post a reply to this message