“I described how evolution is reproducible. But you are now talking about how common descent of species is reproducible, way to move the goalposts”
Uh, considering how you stated common descent is essential to evolution, your objection has no merit.
“are you unaware that they are two separate phenomena?”
Give that I’m arguing that the phenomena you describe is ‘differentiation’ (which btw is hte term used by Darwin), I would presume this wasn’t the case.
“Evolution makes many testable claims. Claims such as that changes in the natural environment will lead to differential reproductive outcomes within a population”
Which isn’t falsifiable because evolution never makes claims as to how the animals will change to adapt to their environment. It doesn’t make an empirical claim that mutation x will arise in animal y in a time period z. All it says is that animals change with their environment. Which gets us back to the just so stories.
“such that some genetic variations will predominate in subsequent generations. That has been shown time and time again.”
Indeed, however a scientific theory can’t just say that large objects attract one another. It has to say that the force between the objects is governed by an inverse square of the distance between them. One is falsifialbe, the other is not.
“How do you define the mechanism of “differentiation” such that novel antibiotic resistance variations arise within a population after the invention of a new antibiotic?”
“because the only known mechanism for this “differentiation” is natural selection of genetic variation”
Indeed. Now is your argument simply, “common descent is a mere conjecture?”
I didn’t state that common descent is essential to evolution. That would be incorrect. Evolution IS essential to common descent - but it doesn’t work both ways. Do you understand why?
One doesn’t need to know the EXACT mutation to know that adaptive mutations will arise and be selected for and thus lead to a differential reproductive outcome.
A physicist doesn’t know WHICH atom will undergo radioactive decay - but they know the rate at which it will happen. But maybe radioactive decay isn’t falsifiable under your ludicrous system because they don’t know exactly WHICH atom will decay! Maybe to you Physics is a “just so” story. LOL!
So the mechanism of “differentiation” you accept is the same one proposed by Darwin, absent anything coherent you put forth one must suppose so. So as long as nobody calls it a theory of evolution through natural selection of genetic variation you are OK - they just need to call the exact same mechanism “differentiation” through natural selection of genetic variation - and that makes it all copacetic?
So your only explanation for the difference between human populations, novel antibiotic resistance, environmental adaptations of a population, etc - is natural selection of genetic variation! Wow. You must really admire Darwin for coming up with a theory that has SUCH AMAZING explanatory powers.
Absent Darwin you HAVE no explanation!
Let that sink in for a second.......
Oh yes, that in light of the most current data and the most current model, the idea that this particular fossil was a predecessor of birds is probably not correct. Falsification.
Your criteria seems to be that unless we can push two continents together and see the resulting mountain - the geological model that Continental upthrusting is the mechanism will be unsound.
You have confused in your mind evolution and common descent of species and what I find to be essential to either, to the point of misquoting me.
To clear up any confusion try this analogy....
Erosion can cause valley formation. Valley formation can be seen as a result of erosion forces.
Similarly....
Evolution can cause common descent of separate species. Common descent of species can be seen to be the result of evolution.
So it seems you have no problem at all with the theory of evolution Darwin described being the mechanism of evolution - so long as I call it differentiation.
Your problem seems to be just how much difference can be accumulated?
How about a 2% genetic difference?
What would stop a 2% genetic difference from accumulating between two separate species, considering that mutation IS going to happen?