You are claiming the theory of random mutations causing genetic variations in species extensive enough to allow natural selection to form all the variation of life we see on the planet can make a lot of predictions?
If this is the standard by which a theory is given weight, then I guess these predictions must be plentiful. Can you name a few of these predictions?
Which of these predictions is predicated on there being random mutations and natural selection to cause them?
I can make a theory that says all of human emotions are created by the remnants of the fragrance of apples in the air. And to prove my theory through predictions, I predict some people will get upset tomorrow, and some will be happy, and some will laugh.
See, I have made these predictions, so if my theory is correct, this will come true.
Whereas the experiments that verified natural selection would have had different results depending on whether or not natural selection actually occurs (of course, if you think about it it's trivially and obviously true that natural selection occurs, because not all members of a species live as long, or have the same number of offspring.)
The experiments that verified mutation would have had different results depending on whether or not mutation happens (of course, it's also trivially and obviously true that mutations must occur, because genetic sequences have to be copied for organisms to grow and reproduce, and it would be impossible for those sequences to be copied without errors every single time.)
Site your evidence please.
The experiments that verified mutation...
Did you mean to say mutations or random mutations? Is there a reason you left out "random"?
(a) Isolate people from the fragrance of apples by putting them in an environment where they only breathe "scrubbed" air, as in a clean room?
Wouldn't matter, because they already were exposed to the apple fragrance
(b) Expose them to extra-large quantities of the esters in question?
Humans have already evolved a tolerance to large quantities of apple fragrance. It might have effected them more at a much earlier time in history, but we can't check that now.
(c) Put them in scuba suits breathing an artificial oxygen-helium mix and send them diving?
There are mechanisms by which people in scuba suits are also effected. Those mechanisms haven't been identified yet, but we predict we will identify them one day.
(d) Observe an anosmic person to see if they have emotions?
Some aspects of the theory are still unknown. But just because they are unknown, it is no reason to assume it is not true. And anyway, anyone who assumes that it is not the apples that are producing the effects, probably is only doing so because of a irrational affection for oranges, and as such their judgment is compromised.
Of course it is falsifiable. If you can find someone who has never been exposed to apple fragrance, and never had an ancestor who was exposed to apple fragrance, and yet still has emotions, that would be a problem for the theory.
Ha, I love it. Darwinian evolution, the greatest theory ever proposed, and you guys are struggling to find even ONE real experiment that makes any predictions whatsoever based on the mechanisms of your theory.
I can make one prediction for your theory. "Ask an evolutionist to provide evidence for their theory and they will carp and moan, and dodge, and cry foul and blame the lack of evidence on the ignorance of those who asked for it."
You think it was hard to understand that experiment?
What is actually hard to understand is how you see that experiment predicting a random mutation. That is virtually impossible to understand how you came to that conclusion-because that is not what happened at all-so how could one understand how someone such as you came to that conclusion?
Insanity perhaps? Myoclonus? A chronic subdural hematoma? Its anyone's guess.
Clearly you didn't understand it, because it demonstrated the exact opposite of a random mutation, it showed a produced mutation. A not very subtle difference that you would think even a simpleton like you would get.
That is why so many of the things you say are just such complete crap. And you don't even care that what you are saying is crap, because you just enjoying making lots of schoolyard worthy ad hominem horseshit statements that have no value at all. Is there anyone on this forum who even comes close to the horseshit you say? I am sure you will say I do, but the evidence shows that I could never ever compete with the stench and grand volume of fetid rot you post here.
Thanks for your advice, but no thank you. If this were in fact a well moderated site, then perhaps that would be an effective, strategy, but you will soon find out (if you haven't already) that arguments here from evolutionists are quickly of the sort of "you don't know what you are talking about," "you are comically wrong" "only a creationist idiot would think such a thing" blah blah ad infinitum. How long do you think you will be able to continue to attempt a discussion with them with those responses? Are you a masochist?
In regards to crashfrogs claim that his experiment was confirming the existence of natural selection and random mutation through predictability, I would say that would be akin to saying that cigarette smoking would also be testing the predictability of evolution. Cigarettes, (the mutagen in this case) cause "random mutations" (cancer in this case), which in turn prevents the "benefactor" from dying of traumatic head injury caused by playing football, because the benefactor of the cancer mutation can't breath well enough to run (natural selection).
According to you, there is no such thing as being good or bad for you, just so long as it let's you live one more day to have sex. People take longer to die from cancer than they do from traumatic head injury.