<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Links</title>
	<atom:link href="http://heracliteanfire.net/2006/07/15/daily-links/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://heracliteanfire.net/2006/07/15/daily-links/</link>
	<description>Harry Rutherford&#039;s Blog</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:50:56 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Harry</title>
		<link>http://heracliteanfire.net/2006/07/15/daily-links/comment-page-1/#comment-2710</link>
		<dc:creator>Harry</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2006 17:26:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://heracliteanfire.net/archives/671#comment-2710</guid>
		<description>Natural selection has always been falsifiable - for example, a rabbit skeleton in a pre-Cambrian rock. Or a pegasus, maybe. The difficulty is directly testing it experimentally.

You&#039;re right, though, there have been various examples of observable change over a period of a few years. The Peppered Moth example is one of them, but I&#039;ve seen a few others. The Galapagos finches seem to be a good example of a particular effect in action rather than a revolutionary vindication of natural selection itself. As far as I understand it :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Natural selection has always been falsifiable &#8211; for example, a rabbit skeleton in a pre-Cambrian rock. Or a pegasus, maybe. The difficulty is directly testing it experimentally.</p>
<p>You&#8217;re right, though, there have been various examples of observable change over a period of a few years. The Peppered Moth example is one of them, but I&#8217;ve seen a few others. The Galapagos finches seem to be a good example of a particular effect in action rather than a revolutionary vindication of natural selection itself. As far as I understand it :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: shadygrove</title>
		<link>http://heracliteanfire.net/2006/07/15/daily-links/comment-page-1/#comment-2709</link>
		<dc:creator>shadygrove</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 16 Jul 2006 15:30:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://heracliteanfire.net/archives/671#comment-2709</guid>
		<description>Wouldn&#039;t Karl Popper be pleased with the Galapagos finches? Natural selection behaving falsifiably after all. (Actually, is it really so revolutionary as all that? I vaguely recall some moths turning from all white to all black in a few generations in a British town that got a coal plant: the white trees on which the white moths had been well-concealed suddenly turned black, so the moths had to, too.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Wouldn&#8217;t Karl Popper be pleased with the Galapagos finches? Natural selection behaving falsifiably after all. (Actually, is it really so revolutionary as all that? I vaguely recall some moths turning from all white to all black in a few generations in a British town that got a coal plant: the white trees on which the white moths had been well-concealed suddenly turned black, so the moths had to, too.)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
