Re:Evolution, Explanation, and Prediction (Score 2)

It seems like we are running up against the issue of "how do you make generalizations about nature?" In otherwords, we have many studies which demonstrat that natural selection shapes the properties of organisms, but how often (or maybe better, under what conditions) is natural selection (as opposed to say genetic drift) responsible for the change of populations? If this is what you speak of, I guess I agree that it is not strictly falsifiable in Popperian sense- that just isn't a totally resonable way of insiting we learn about the world.

For example, the field of molecular evolution spent a great deal of time in the 70s and 80s arguing about whether most genetic varation at the level of protiens was selectivly neutral or affected fitness. In the end, the deabte fizzled out unresolved, I think becuase people decided that the interesting question is "Under what circumstances is genetic variation neutral, and when is it selective."

So what we have to do is try to come up with a general description of how things work. If we find an exception, then the question is how often does it work that way. A single experiment which seems to go against modern theory is likely to be thought of as an oddity until it can be shown to be a general phenomenon, or until we can connect the mecanisms which cause it and other (dis)simmilar events. And then, assuming uniformitarianism (like all historical sciences) apply these princples back in time.

Does that help, or have I just confused the issue?