"Other patterns that evolutionary theory predicts ... been supported by many scientific fields including taxonomic biology and geology and genetics. They are corroborative

To a large extent the theory is explanataory, and even adapative to actual observations, rather than predictive. That's the danger when you take the future bit out of alleged predictions. Even to the extent they are genuinely corroborative, that does not make the theory scientific.

"One example of a 'prediction' is that given the observations X, the theory predicts that pattern Y

This could be the trivial case of Y=X. That is, you simply preict that the patterns you have seen will be seen in the future. It is of no value, especially from a scientific perspective.

"your dinosaur experiment page is an excellent example of a strawman

That argument has actually been made against me numerous times. The refutation of it clarifies a point regarding the impossibility of falsifying a prediction with an indefinite time period attached.

"Given any alternative explanations to evolution, it's the most scientific one that explains the origin of species.

Lack of an alternative theory does not make evolution scientific. Whether a theory is scientific does not hinge in any way on the veracity of alternative theories. Using this logic, until evolution came along, 'God made it so' was a scientific theory, then became unscientific when evolution was dreamt up - it's status as scientific changed even though nothing about the theory changed.

You appear to be falling into the trap of trying to show that evolution is scientific by showing it is correct, or 'most likely'. Whether a theory is correct and whether it is scientific are two completely separate issues. In fact if a theory is scientific that makes it pretty much certain that it is wrong.

"What is done is to challenge them with a mutagenic .....

You are missing the point completely about falsification of beneficial mutations. Whatever outcome such experiments produce, there is a gaping logical flaw in any conclusions regarding beneficial mutation. Going over the procedure in greater detail won't make the logical flaw go away.

I'm sorry, Boaz, but you don't get away that easily.

My point was not about Hicks Photon at all. Anyone could have made the same mistake, hearing a random name on the radio in connection with some esoteric topic.

I was drawing your attention to the entirely fictitious story that you appended to the name, simply in order to make a - let's face it, fairly trivial - point about the attitude of the establishment to a new idea.

You invented the whole bit about "when he first postulated it, he was ridiculed as some kind of nutter :) (by his peers in the science field)"

That's the bit you should apologize for, not mishearing a name - that's a total cop-out.

Why do you do this?

How do you expect to get away with it, time after time? Because it is not the first time I have challenged your throwaway statements, presented as fact, that have turned out to be entirely the figment of your imagination.

Are you indeed so bereft of illustrative material that you have to make it up?

It should not be the responsibility of the readers of your posts to check the veracity or accuracy of everything you write. But the reality is that you make so many contentious statements, with such an air of absolute certainty, that I for one feel forced to do so every so often.

It does nothing for your credibility.

In fact, rather than put this down to a "whack-a-boaz" mentality, you should be grateful that someone cares enough to correct you when you stray so far from the path of honesty.

It's just my way of caring for the state of your soul.

And freediver, I think you have made a very strong point. Possibly without understanding it.

>>Using this logic, until evolution came along, 'God made it so' was a scientific theory<<

Absolutely. Then it became just another superseded concept.

"Absolutely. Then it became just another superseded concept."

'God made it so' was never a scientific theory and has never been subjected to empirical investigation. Superceded does not mean unscientific. You are confusing whether a theory is scientific with whether it is correct, or whether it has academic support. As a theory it is no different to how it always was and is no more or less scientific than it always was. You cannot come up with a meaningful definition of scientific that hinges on whether a theory is correct or accepted. A genuinely scientific theory is scientific from the start, otherwise you would have the absurd situation of almost all researchers working with theories that are not scientific.

Newtonian mechanics for example is still a scientific theory even though it is wrong. There are plenty of areas outside of biology where you cannot conveniently replace 'God made it so' with 'evolution made it so' or 'that can be explained in evolutionary terms.' Every question about physics that is answered raises more and more questions. It is absurd to suggest that 'God made it so' is a valid scientific response to the question 'Why does the Higgs Boson behave the way it does?'. It is by not even considering non-scientific theories that science is able to achieve so much. Should scientists start publishing papers about the role God played in the creation of the Higgs Boson, or should they ignore the theory and try to come up with a scientific one?

freediver,

Whether you have had the dinosaur experiment aimed at you many times, matters not. It is a flawed argument and repeating it only refutes the argument itself, not evolution.

You continue to misrepresent the terms 'prediction' and 'experiment', and much of your argument shows that you not only not understand many concepts within the theory, you deliberately misrepresent them to suit your argument.

The Y=X thing is an example in point, you have deliberately misrepresented the case here. Scientists do not make predictions like this. Take a look at insecticide resistance gene frequency modelling. That is an example of a semi-controlled experiment with a known selection pressure, one that can be varied in the environment by humans.

However, I am fairly certain that nothing I say will make much of an impression on you here.

Thus, I might make a suggestion. If you feel very comfortable with the concepts and your argument, why not try and write an article for peer review? I'm sure there are some very good journals that would like to publish it. Might I suggest the British Journal for the Philosophy of Science (or related type journal)? If they reject it, you can always address the reviewers comments and resubmit it. Then you would have a handy published reference on your blog, wouldn't that be nice?

Further to Oliver, Thursday, 17 April 2008 11:32:41 AM above:

Freedriver,

Would you please explain what you mean by falsification? Thanks.

If you are thinking of Karl Popper and "Conjectures and Refutations", then I would posit that Popper was warning against self-confirmation in interpreting observations. Honest scientists do not take path.

Popper was arguing against people like Jung whom take an a priori position then seek confirmation. Arguing from Design is another example; look God made that beautiful mountain or than majestic river and millions of stars, the complexity cannot be happenstance.

Good science doesn't work from a priori positions, albeit a scientist might have an insight to be confirmed or rejected via scientific method.

One could design an experment, with selection controls, [say for maturity], where several generations of cells are tested for hyperthemic resistence. Herein, it could be postulated that populations of resistant strains follow common lineages. The experiment would be falsifiable.

It's falsifiability, not falisification. It refers to the ability to conduct an experiment that would prove a theory wrong, if it were wrong. Falsification refers to actually proving it wrong.

"Popper was warning against self-confirmation in interpreting observations. Honest scientists do not take path.

True, but it is inevitable in other fields like natural history.

"One could design an experment..... The experiment would be falsifiable.

Correction: the theory would be falsifiable. This is a test of the theory of natural selection, not of evolution.

Bugsy:

"Whether you have had the dinosaur experiment aimed at you many times, matters not.

Didn't you say it is a strawman? If it has been made, then it isn't a strawman, hence it isn't flawed logically. Have you come up with some other flaw and forgotten to mention it?

"You continue to misrepresent the terms 'prediction' and 'experiment',

No I don't. Merely insisting this is the case does not make it so. Do try to put together a reasoned argument.

"The Y=X thing is an example in point, you have deliberately misrepresented the case here.

It is vague. I have not delbieratley misrepresented it. You have just failed to prove anything with it. There is nothing there to misrepresent yet.

"Scientists do not make predictions like this.

Correct, but natural historians do.

"That is an example of a semi-controlled experiment....

How does this relate to whether evolution is a scientific theory? Nothing in your explanation indicatesd whether you are referring to natural selection or evolution.

"why not try and write an article for peer review?

I'll think about it. It is a lot of work getting published and I would not take it up lightly. Do you know anyone who might be interested on co-authoring such a piece?

In the meantime the articles I have written can be reviewed by anyone. Responses are welcome at the forum and are linked to from the articles. Note that this is a fully functional forum, not the 'leave a comment' style annotations you get on most off-the-shelf blog software.