You mean the theory that has received 2-3 orders of magnitude less attention than DM has some conceptual holes to patch up? Colour me shocked. The fact that DM still fails despite all of that investment should worry you more.
> Particle DM can explain all of these things at the same time without re-tuning the model every time.
DM has already been tweaked and fine-tuned to patch up its own endless list of holes, many of which were recently reviewed by McGaugh [1]. Many more remain despite that, like the dynamical friction discussed in this article.
Finally, I'll just note that literally nothing in Sean's post suggests McGaugh's work is "dubious" in the least, so I have no idea where you got that notion.
Are you actually arguing that DM is the only conceivable theory that can possibly explain those observations? Be serious. This obsession with DM when it's been clearly falsified numerous times is restricting imagination and attention on novel approaches.
Actually you didn't. Perhaps you claimed that in another thread, but I quoted exactly what you wrote in this thread, which is that only DM can explain those results.
> Since Occam's Razor tells us to go with the simplest solution, science goes for DM, instead of DM+MOND.
That's not a correct formulation of Occam's razor. Occam's razor tells us not to posit the existence of more things than are necessary to explain observations. Observations already tell us that DM either does not exist, or doesn't exist in the amounts most people think exists, ie. most DM models have been refuted. Therefore, even if DM exists, something else is still needed to explain our observations.
This is just a plain lie and since you obviously have no interest in further educating yourself in any way, I will now stop wasting my time with replying to you.
As for galaxies without DM, those observations are still being debated, but even if true, that doesn't entail MOND can't explain those results.