The scientific method is to use controlled experimentation to test a hypotheses to determine fact, isn't it

Question

Evolution cannot be tested using the scientific method because it is impossible to calibrate a controlled experiment to suit the parameters required.

Evolution, therefore, is not science. Just as ID is not science.

If one is taught in "science" class, both should be taught.

If one is excluded from being taught, they should both be excluded from being taught.

Answer 1

E-Jack shot said to say hi : )

Answer 2

You discuss one level of science (controlled lab experimentation) as if it were the whole of science. Science covers many levels of rigor, from the general observatory case study to double blind randomized trials with huge numbers of subjects and controls. All that is necessary for science is that one have a testible hypothesis and data on which to draw some conclusion. Evolutionary Science has both, ID has neither.

Answer 3

If whales evolved from quadripeds,
and if all mammalian quadripeds have a hip girdle,
then there should be fossils of early whales with hip girdles.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

If meteor impacts increase iridium in the soil
And if a meteor hit the earth 65 million years ago
then 65 million year old earth should have more iridium.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/04/0415_050418_chicxulub.html

Hmm. the theory of evolution (unlike Creationism...oops, I typed Cretinism LOL!) does give rise to predictions that can be tested.

Answer 4

Nice wordplay and you managed to squeeze in hypotheses, calibrate and parameters to bullsh!t the uneducated. Total rubbish of course. Instances of speciation have been and are almost daily being observed in laboratories. Fruit flies show genetic change over time-genetic change over time is evolution hence the fact of evolution is not in question.

Answer 5

That's a very narrow definition, but you're incorrect. Evolution is regularly tested -- tested not just against fossil records and evidence, but directly tested with fruit flies, spiders, and other organisms that quickly reproduce. You can literally watch evolution happen.

There are more historians that deny the holocaust than biologists who deny evolution. Denying either is a character flaw, not an intelligent "position".

Answer 6

This is total nonsense. I have studied biology, and not only is evolution testable, but has been verified. The only aspect still in debate is the mechanism(s) that drive it.

Go to school.

Answer 7

Sounds like you need a refresher on scientific method. If you want to teach ID, teach it in religion class.

Answer 8

Actually...you are wrong

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html#molecular_vestiges

====================

Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994).
Confirmation:

Recently, the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs (Nishikimi et al. 1992; Nishikimi et al. 1994). It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning (see prediction 4.4 for more about pseudogenes). In fact, since this was originally written the vitamin C pseudogene has been found in other primates, exactly as predicted by evolutionary theory. We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999). And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes) (Ohta and Nishikimi 1999).

There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes (Rouquier et al. 2000), the RT6 protein gene (Haag et al. 1994), the galactosyl transferase gene (Galili and Swanson 1991), and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL) (Oetting et al. 1993).

Our odorant receptor (OR) genes once coded for proteins involved in now lost olfactory functions. Our predicted ancestors, like other mammals, had a more acute sense of smell than we do now; humans have >99 odorant receptor genes, of which ~70% are pseudogenes. Many other mammals, such as mice and marmosets, have many of the same OR genes as us, but all of theirs actually work. An extreme case is the dolphin, which is the descendant of land mammals. It no longer has any need to smell volatile odorants, yet it contains many OR genes, of which none are functional — they are all pseudogenes (Freitag et al. 1998).

The RT6 protein is expressed on the surface of T lymphocytes in other mammals, but not on ours. The galactosyl transferase gene is involved in making a certain carbohydrate found on the cell membranes of other mammals. Tyrosinase is the major enzyme responsible for melanin pigment in all animals. TYRL is a pseudogene of tyrosinase.

It is satisfying to note that we share these vestigial genes with other primates, and that the mutations that destroyed the ability of these genes perform their metabolic functions are also shared with several other primates (see predictions 4.3-4.5 for more about shared pseudogenes).
Potential Falsification:

It would be very puzzling if we had not found the L-gulano-γ-lactone oxidase pseudogene or the other vestigial genes mentioned. In addition, we can predict that we will never find vestigial chloroplast genes in any metazoans (i.e. animals) (Li 1997, pp. 284-286, 348-354).

Answer 9

You are wrong. Controlled experiments are the best technique, but not the only technique. Additionally, controlled experiments in evolution are performed.

Answer 10

Wrong, we have empirical evidence of evolution. There is absolutely not a shred of evidence for ID.

Answer 11

that's a very firm opinion you have.
is there a question in there i missed, or...?
just tryin to stir up a debate? alright...
hey, at least someone tried lookin up the scientific method!