Now I am confused, because beneficial mutation and universal common ancestry and common ancestry of humans with apes are certainly the subjects of experiments. I think you need to go back and have a look at some of the literature.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0308725100v1.pdf
http://www.springerlink.com/content/g22v36xlm59w6826/
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/137/2/597
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/abstract/147/2/879

Bugsy,

According to the display labeling at the Australia Museum in Sydney we "are" apes. Popularly, I think genetically we are said to be closer to chimps, but duplicated/redundant genes and non-combinant DNA needs to be discounted. Snort, snort rather than eek, eek?

That damn post limiter pisses me off. Please consider taking this up in the OzPolitic forum or somewhere else where you don't need to wait a few days to hash out a topic just because it requries a bit of back and forth.

Universal common ancestry is not falsifiable because it is a question of history, not science. Lab experiments can only demonstrate that it may be possible, but can never resolve the question of how it actually happened. No matter how many times scientists fail to recreate the entire process - even if this went on forever - it would never be evidence that it did not happen. Hence not falsifiable.

Beneficial mutation is not falsifiable because it does not make any testable prediction. Not only does it not say what will actually happen, it does not say when. No matter how many times scientists fail to produce a beneficial mutation - even if this went on forever - it would never be evidence that it did not happen. Hence not falsifiable.

Being able to prove a theory correct, or even proving it correct, still does not make it a scientific theory. Science progresses because it rejects theories that can only be proven correct and are not falsifiable.

There have been a few claims that beneficial mutations have been detected. Even this does not make the theory falsifiable or scientific. Furthermore, in the cases where beneficial mutation has been falsely claimed, it is not possible to prove that the information was not pre-existing. Rather, circular reasoning was used to come to the conclusion that beneifical mutation had occurred:

1) Something was observed for the first time
2) the beneficial mutation part of the theory of evolution states that it must have arisen at some time in the past via beneficial mutation
3) therefor it was beneificial mutation
4) therefor beneficial mutation does happen
5) and thus you come full circle

If this does not cover every example you have given, please explain in your own words rather than providing only links without any explanation as to why you think

"Universal common ancestry is not falsifiable because it is a question of history, not science. Lab experiments can only demonstrate that it may be possible, but can never resolve the question of how it actually happened. No matter how many times scientists fail to recreate the entire process - even if this went on forever - it would never be evidence that it did not happen. Hence not falsifiable." - freediver

Its a question of ecology and chemistry. The bridge between inorganic to organic outcomes is not well understood. Crystals (inorganic) do show some properties of organic life. The missing-link here possibly anaeobic life.

Lab results demostrate possible latent variables which can be held as propositions. Even if science does produce the same outcome because a result merely alludes to the common cause: i.e., 2+2=4 or 1+3=4. Coming up with 4 does necessarily show the design.

However, triangulation of disciplines can strengthen a tentative hypothesis. Null hypotheses should be falsifiable and can indicate what did not happen.

O.

Oliver, with the greatest of respect, the only way you will convince freediver of anything is to support your point with a reference to an item that he himself has written, preferably published on ozpolitic.

He has the firm view, it appears to me, that if you string enough words together in a long enough row, you don't actually need to make sense in order to prove a point.

This particular exchange of yours foundered a while back on the jagged rocks of semantics. As a result, I suspect the holes thus created will ensure that neither argument will be allowed to float by the other.

But please don't stop, It's great fun to watch.

Thank you oliver, for reminding me of the null hypothesis. I do enjoy reading some of your posts.

freediver, I think you are putting up a http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/logical-fallacies.html#strawman

Your argument is suffering some seriously tortured logic here.

The chain of events is much more like this:

1) according to the theory of evolution, beneficial mutations must occur for natural selection to have any effect
-this was postulated even before the nature of genes and genetic material was known (i.e. DNA). Thus, amazingly, it was a PREDICTION
2) If beneficial mutations occur, then we should be able to a) find them if we look for them
and b) be able to recreate them in the laboratory
OR
If the null hypothesis is true, i.e. beneficial mutations do NOT exist, then we should not be able to find them, nor would they occur observed populations over time.

3) We do a targeted search for beneficial mutations in the field, we also try to recreate processes that may have mutated the genes to demonstrate a 'proof of principle' (i.e. it is possible).

4) we observe what appear to be beneficial mutations in the field (i.e. populations of organisms), also we are able to recreate these mutations in the laboratory.
5) therefore the null hypothesis is incorrect and the original hypothesis gains greater credibility.

This has happened many times over with different species and genes.
Here's one example, where insecticide resistance mutations randomly generated in the laboratory matched exactly those found in the field:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T79-433PBHV-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=dd659e5786b1260d4d5b8507c4601fa0

(cont'd)