Ok, I'll take a spin on the merry-go-round.

You wrote…

The best argument Neo-Darwinists have for their theory is that its neither true nor false?!

Yes…

…because…

The best argument for ANY scientific theory is that its neither true nor false!

Gravitational theory is neither true nor false, it just happens to be consistent with experimental data.

Quantum theory is neither true nor false, it just happens to be consistent with experimental data.

The theory of General Relativity is neither true nor false, it just happens to be consistent with experimental data.

Or will we continually rehearse Pilate's argument?

According to the bible, Pontius Pilate washed his hands of Jesus' death. While it is interesting you would make such a reference in a scientific discussion it is getting less and less surprising in the ID/Darwin debate.

I unabashedly embrace NOMA. Science questions and philosophical questions are separate. Philosophical questions about things like ultimate Truths aren't answerable by science, IMO.

Later you said…

My buckle-shoes are showing but I miss the days before the Neo-Darwinian deconstruction of science and wish that the truth was reinstated to its proper place in science.

In an attempt to drive home the point…

Science isn't about searching for Truth, it is about gaining knowledge.

Thank you for the ride, I will stay on the merry-go-round as long as I don't get too dizzy.

I don't know how you can say that, grendelkhan.

I mean, really, I don't know how you say that. Wrong, right, inaccurate, inaccurate, false, true"¦

My buckle-shoes are showing but I miss the days before the Neo-Darwinian deconstruction of science and wish that the truth was reinstated to its proper place in science.

In order to address his irreducible complexity argument the Darwinist must show how RM/NS could have easily accomplished what seem to be supernatural feats in the unobservable mist of deep time.

At the same time to counter his "edge" argument his opponents must explain why RM/NS should not be expected to produce even minor structural changes in the organisms that Science has observed in real time like Malaria and HIV.

I think Behe has had a positive impact. Science involves challenges and responses that are analytic dependent. In the long run science is well served by challenges to accepted norms.

In order to address his irreducible complexity argument the Darwinist must show how RM/NS could have easily accomplished what seem to be supernatural feats in the unobservable mist of deep time.

At the same time to counter his "edge" argument his opponents must explain why RM/NS should not be expected to produce even minor structural changes in the organisms that Science has observed in real time like Malaria and HIV.

Talk about controlling the argument.

Peace

P.S. I hope my punctuation and capitalization are OK this time. I'll try to do better in the future.

Rock: The best argument Neo-Darwinists have for their theory is that its neither true nor false?!

It's not an argument for the theory of evolution, let alone the best argument.

Is anyone going to answer my question?

You asked me for some unsolved problems in evolutionary biology; I named what I think are a few, though I may well be wrong. Did that not answer your question? Did I misunderstand you somehow? If you explain how I didn't answer your question, I'll do my best to try again.

Or will we continually rehearse Pilate's argument? That has already been repeatedly addressed, grendelkhan, either you're intentionally missing the point or not reading very carefully.

Pilate's argument? You mean "What Is Truth" I don't know if I can tell you in a different set of words that science isn't about proving things True, it's about discerning the most likely explanation and making predictions based on said explanation. This goes for gravitation, for mechanics, or for any other theory you want to think of. What point are you trying to make?

And how, again, did I not answer your question?

GMAFB!

Is anyone going to answer my question?

Or will we continually rehearse Pilate's argument? That has already been repeatedly addressed, grendelkhan, either you're intentionally missing the point or not reading very carefully.

grendelkhan: I dunno; it seems kind of like cheating to consider tumbling around in the wind a form of locomotion.

Maybe, but it's sorta fun anyway.

Zachriel: [tumbleweeds]

I dunno; it seems kind of like cheating to consider tumbling around in the wind a form of locomotion. I guess if we're talking about how any organism moves, animal transport for seeds and wind transport for tumbleweeds count, and that's not even mentioning parasites.

Rock: I was trying to wrap my brain around a theory of evolution that allows evolving systems to violate known physical laws, e.g., Newton's laws. Which I now have reason to believe, on Neo-Darwinian grounds, are not laws at all, but false!

Either you're intentionally missing the point, or your're not reading carefully. Theories aren't True or False; theories provide accurate or inaccurate representations of the universe as perceived by empirical methods. Newton's Laws are accurate at human-perceivable scales and speeds, which is why they're good enough for most purposes. They're not True, and they're not False.

Question: [...] What are the unsolved problems of [evolutionary biology]?

Though it's not part of evolutionary biology, the origin of life is frequently thought to be so, and it's a big honking unsolved problem. The tree of life is muddled, possibly so much that it can't be disentangled, near the root, apparently due to a high level of horizontal gene transfer at the time. Much of the later branching of the tree of life is uncertain, but I can't think of a good example off the top of my head. The cause of the Cambrian explosion (or even the extent to which it really was an "explosion") is unknown. Morphogenesis (part of evo-devo) is still murky in many places, though the discovery of Hox genes and the like has been quite illuminating.

On the basis of previous experience (with this question) I expect No Answer. Even when I do receive an answer, the Neo-Darwinists can't agree upon it amongst themselves!

I suppose I should add that you shouldn't take that as a canonical list; that's off the top of my head, and some of those may or may not actually be open questions. But does that help at all?

The problem is that if you can show that evolution can create a species with a biochemical pathway umpteen-minus-one units long, there's no reason to exclude a pathway umpteen units long. People have seen new elements getting incorporated into biochemical pathways well inside human lifetimes in the wild.

The edge I alluded to was at the front end. The observed biochemical innovations pointed out in this thread were dependent on the prior existence of some basic and universal biological systems. It is those systems that need explaining if the edge is to move. IMO, an edge is defined by our state of knowledge which may or may not correspond to an actual physical edge.

"I notice you still haven't attempted an answer."

I'm sure I forgot what the original question was, Zachriel.

"Does evolution have an edge?"

On my authority?…

The answer depends upon authorities other than myself. I answered your question with an assertion and a question of my own. Assertion: Open or unsolved problems commonly recognized define the limits of theory. Question: To the Neo-Darwinian theorists (or "partisans") out there; What are the unsolved problems of your own theory? You tell me what are the limits. I am not going to subject you to my infamous "absolute standards".

On the basis of previous experience (with this question) I expect No Answer. Even when I do receive an answer, the Neo-Darwinists can't agree upon it amongst themselves!

Do life forms, in their evolution, defy the law of gravity? In theory (Neo-Darwinian): Yes!

It's a matter of fact! Some Buddhists minks (in apparent defiance of the non-existent law of gravity) are capable of levitating! What I find fascinating in this observed phenomena of biology defying physics, is that they do so by completely relaxing body and mind, and exerting no effort to do "defy" the most powerful force in the universe!

(Highlighting the difficult problem of discriminating between the limits of theory and the limits of the objects investigated using the theoretical instrument. Once again confirming Rock' theory of "Theories as Self-Fulfilling Prophecies.")