That's right. Any scientist in the world is free to: examine every fossil for relatedness, can test for irreducible complexity, can test the rock strata etc at any time.

Repeatability is not alien to Evolution.

freediver wrote on Jul 23^rd, 2010 at 11:20pm:


Do all falsifying experiments have to be 100% effective? You're wading around in the realms of proof in a domain that doesn't have such a concept.

What do you think an experiment is free diver? Someone mucking around in a lab with test tubes? If so that's a pretty limited and fallacious view. It sounds like the no true Scotsman fallacy.

How is not going to the appropriate strata not an experiment to test whether any fossils of complex animals are where they are not meant to be? How is testing the prediction that a certain transitional form should be found at a particular stratum not an experiment? You would know, of course, this has been done and transitional forms have been found where they were thought to be. It might take time but it's a valid test.

How is not comparing different species biochemically to test relatedness not an experiment? How is not growing generations of bacteria in different mediums to test for mutation( and therefore direct evidence of evolution) not an experiment? How is not breeding colonies of flies under different conditions to see if evolution occurs not an experiment?  

Another interesting test of evolution was the creationist contention that chimpanzees could not be related to humans because they had an extra pair of chromosomes. Evolutionists said that there must be some sort of fusion of this pair into one. Lo and behold geneticists found this to be exactly the case.

The fact is if evolution weren't repeatably testable you wouldn't have Creationists keep throwing up attempts at disconfirming it. Every attempt they have tried has been squarely rebutted.

The belief that Evolution does not meet scientific criteria is false.

Science has much better answers than religion.
All religion can say is that:
" The bloke with the long beard did it".
Adults require a better explanation than that.

It seems that the view your promoting here is a narrowed view of the explication you(?) gave via the link. The fact is that the examples I gave straddle both the hard science and soft science approaches. Evolution fulfils the criterion of experiment unless, of course, you're not understanding what you penned.

Hard science-  observations of generations of bacteria and flies under varying conditions. Biochemical analysis of closely related and distantly related species.

Soft science- field studies - rock strata and fossil comparisons from lower strata to higher strata.

Bobby. wrote on Jul 24^th, 2010 at 12:18pm:


Stop equating religion with creationism.

It  seems Mr Diver that you are turning a blind-eye to what you had penned concerning experiments on the web page you referrred me to.
Evolution and the examples I gave fit neatly within the methodology of hard and soft sciences.

Hard science

Again, let me ask, if you are adamant in using control groups where does comparing an ancestral group of  e.coli with descendant groups of e.coli generated in citric acid to test for mutations fail your requirement? The experiment has been done and a descendent group of e.coli mutated to be able to absorb and assimilate the citric acid- something the ancestral group could not do.

Soft science

You might also be aware that their are certain land locked lakes in Africa inhabited by a particular fridge and as you excavate down throw the layers of the lake's floor you will find a succession ancestral forms of this fish in the fossils. How does this not test evolution?