Comments

MrSuperHero, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory, and the definition of a scientific theory requires that it be falsifiable. That is the defining characteristic of a scientific theory. To be considered as a scientific theory, a statement must not only explain existing observations but predict future ones. You can be right or wrong, and of course science searches for theories that are right as often as possible, but if you don't make risky predictions, you're not even a member of the league. The other side wins by default. I point out that, although Darwin's work popularized the term "evolution" to the point where its non-biological uses are unfamiliar to some people, the fact of evolution was established before his birth. Linnaeus recognized the family resemblance between species in his 1735 book Systema Naturae, and the development f paleontology in the late 18th century (particularly the 1790s) led to all kinds of interesting facts. George Cuiver demonstrated that species go extinct, and William Smith's "Principle of faunal succession" observed that fossils of species are found in a particular sequence through the ages, and that sequence is the same no matter where you look. All you have to have is sedimentary rock of the appropriate age to look in. Thus, by the time that Darwin was born, it was well established that species change over time And things that change over time are said to "evolve". What was lacking was an explanation of why or how that change took place. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck came up with one theory of evolution based on the inheritance of acquired traits, but Darwin's theory based on natural selection was much more convincing. Evolution requires that the cornucopia of life on the planet today is created by an extremely long succession of steps of random mutation and natural selection. Although thoroughly discredited, the "irreducible complexity" argument is based on a kernel of truth: a form of life that cannot be generated by a viable series of small changes to its predecessors (and was not man-made) would constitute a falsification of the theory of evolution. The part that has been discredited is the claim that any biological structure is known which constitutes such a falsification. Some questions seem difficult, but in every case, ingenious research has found enough clues to the path taken that the plausibility of a continuous path is clear. Dawkins goes on about the subject at length in his book "Climbing Mount Improbable". On the other hand, the intelligence of any would-be designer that would make some of the systems that we see in life really has to be questioned. Evolution, once it starts down a particular path, is trapped by its incrementalism. Either the entire branch dies out, or it's made to work well enough despite its fundamental flaws. But why would a designer (particularly one that has a special fondness for humans) give vertebrates a fundamentally flawed retina design, despite having a working model of a better one in invertebrates? And why did this hypothetical designer design so many extinct species? It seems like a tremendous waste of effort. Extinction is, on the other hand, an obvious consequence of natural selection.